Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Heidegger and Nazism

That he was a nazi is not 'theory'. It's a fact he was a card-carrying member and denounced left wing and jewish academics at his university. Everyone who studies his philosophy should know that.

He was a religiously brought-up country boy who hated the red hoi polloi of the cities. His ideas coincided with nazism. He was from the same pond, broadly speaking, as the one in which the nazis found their firmest support.
 
Sure, he definitely was a Nazi, at least for a few years. His ideas also had quite a bit of resonance with some Nazi ideas, although they were quite a bit more philosophically sophisticated. That's the problem though, one the one hand he was a Nazi prick with a stupid Hitler 'tash, on the other hand one of the half-dozen outstanding philosophers of the 20th century by most accounts.

Tricky eh?
 
Some of that article is pretty stupid though. Hitler certainly wasn't "imbued" with any sort of concern about phenomenology that I'm aware of, and a whole bunch of the implied thought crimes mentioned in the article originate with Hegel if not the ancient Greeks.

It's not like anyone studying his stuff is likely to be unaware that he was a Nazi prick either if they have the faintest clue who he was in the first place.
 
His philosophy was shit - IMO, like. His big idea that we should just be, be authentic, has a certain appeal as a way of approaching some things in life (even tho he nicked it from Zen-type eastern stuff), but when broadened out as an attempt at a society-wide ethos/explanation, is just dangerous shit. To me his ideas are just about useless, the worst of modern philosophy, which seems to think it should create ideas that can be just picked up and used, rather than seeing philosophy as a way of getting to things as they are
 
That sounds more like what you might call 'Pop Heidegger' which is pretty much whatever you want to make of it. Some of the real stuff is sort of interesting, say the 'Question Concerning Technology' but what I've read of his stuff I find most of it intolerably pompous, slippery and over-complicated. He probably also did more than any other philosopher to inflict PoMo on an unsuspecting world, and for that alone he deserves a place in hell.
 
I haven't read the book that the article is reviewing, but I'm going to comment on it anyway.

It seems to be both hysterical and confused. On the one hand, Heidegger's philosophy is useless and meaningless (the author even cites Heidegger's colleagues as evidence of this, as if these forgotten workaday academics are somehow more authoritative than other, later commentators). On the other hand, it's dangerous Nazi philosophy that shouldn't be taught in case people get infected with Nazism. It also assumes that there is a coherent thing called Nazism, as opposed to a hotch-potch of fascism and imperialism.

Not having read the book, I don't know if the author addresses the fact that nearly every famous thinker who has been influenced by Heidegger has been on the left, many of them Marxists.
 
Santino said:
<snip> Not having read the book, I don't know if the author addresses the fact that nearly every famous thinker who has been influenced by Heidegger has been on the left, many of them Marxists.
Click to expand...

That would actually be a possible motive for hysteria about it though, a slightly classier version of "National Socialism = Socialism" ...
 
I was a big reader of nietzschean philosophy and appreciate much of heidegger - even if you don't like him, it's good to understand many of his discourses in order to sustain a valid idealogical argument.

I really liked Being and Time, in that he was attempting to destroy/rewrite academic rationalism and his style of genealogy obviously had influenced later philosophers like Foucault and the great Derrida (I saw a documentary about Jacques, he was a funny man).

Yeah Heidegger was a Nazi - but his philosophy was solid, airtight.
 
Spion said:
That he was a nazi is not 'theory'. It's a fact he was a card-carrying member and denounced left wing and jewish academics at his university. Everyone who studies his philosophy should know that.

He was a religiously brought-up country boy who hated the red hoi polloi of the cities. His ideas coincided with nazism. He was from the same pond, broadly speaking, as the one in which the nazis found their firmest support.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that if everybody knows it, that the New York Times bothered to publish an article in 2010.
 
Spion said:
I said everybody who studies his work *should* know it, not that everyobody does know it
Click to expand...

Hediegger is best known for a Nazi - regardless on what he wrote.
An example of when the reputation clouds all critical judgement.
 
100% masahiko said:
So true :)
Being and Time wasn't so bad though I wouldn't recommend it...it's boring unless for a dissertation...
Click to expand...

That book did my head in. :D "Is he just really repetitive, or am I missing something?" I asked myself.

FWIW, I reckon the best reader (and critic) of Heidegger is Levinas, and his critique is based on total immersion in and serious engagement with Heidegger's thought rather than "Boo Nazi."
 
the button said:
That book did my head in. :D "Is he just really repetitive, or am I missing something?" I asked myself.

FWIW, I reckon the best reader (and critic) of Heidegger is Levinas, and his critique is based on total immersion in and serious engagement with Heidegger's thought rather than "Boo Nazi."
Click to expand...

Can you read French?
I thought a translation on top of another translation was too muddled. I think alot of reading philosophy was too solitary and I don't know about you, the 'learning' began in classroom arguments.

Yeah - I like your 'Boo Nazi' term. :)
It was so uncool to like them guys.
 
100% masahiko said:
Can you read French?
I thought a translation on top of another translation was too muddled. I think alot of reading philosophy was too solitary and I don't know about you, the 'learning' began in classroom arguments.

Yeah - I like your 'Boo Nazi' term. :)
It was so uncool to like them guys.
Click to expand...

I can read French enough to check out the original if a translated passage looks interesting. ;) Levinas avoids the thing that a lot of the Frenchies do when they read Heidegger (step forward, Maurice Blanchot), which is make too much of the difference between 'es gibt' and 'il y a.' It's a different language, boys, get over it. :) (This said, Heidegger probably makes too much of 'es gibt' too).
 
phildwyer said:
Now there was a Nazi. That is, obviously Heidegger was literally a Nazi, but Nietzsche's thought is more Nazi.
Click to expand...

Well...maybe in The Will to Power and some parts of Beyond Good and Evil - certainly with the terminologies he uses in describe 'fatherland' and the German people. I don't believe Nietzsche was a proper Nazi - his followers after his death certainly were...

Why are there so many nutters into Nietzsche?
 
As usual with any discussion on Heidegger any actual evidence of his contribution to human understanding is sorely lacking.

Come Heidegger fan boys, tell us what's so good about him. What has he given to the world?
 
Spion said:
As usual with any discussion on Heidegger any actual evidence of his contribution to human understanding is sorely lacking.

Come Heidegger fan boys, tell us what's so good about him. What has he given to the world?
Click to expand...

An ethical critique of technology.

Next question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Do you think Communism should be despised as much as Nazism?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
248
Views
11K
tufty79
tufty79
ItWillNeverWork
Reading recommendations: Fascism/Nazism
2
Replies
59
Views
7K
butchersapron
B
K
Heidegger was just a nutter
2 3 4 5
Replies
135
Views
7K
nino_savatte
nino_savatte
Luther Blissett
What's good about Heidegger?
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
teahead
teahead
Dillinger4
Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Jonti
Jonti
Back
Top Bottom