Heidegger and Nazism

[Bernie Gunther]

Cos he says rude things about silly old Jesus. Quite exciting if your actual or mental age is twelve.

He's pretty funny on some other famous personalities too ...

'John Stuart Mill - a blockhead'

 

[phildwyer]

If you're talking about the stuff I think you are, it could be argued that's just an exegesis of some Aristotle though ...

Yes. The same could be said of a great deal of modern philosophy, including Marx's theory of value.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yes. The same could be said of a great deal of modern philosophy, including Marx's theory of value.

Fair point

I have to confess I actually got something out of the essays in 'Question Concerning Technology' although 'The Turning' made my head hurt a lot.

 

[the button]

He's pretty funny on some other famous personalities too ...

'John Stuart Mill - a blockhead'

Got to love those chapter titles in Ecce homo, too: "Why I Am So Wise", "Why I Am So Clever", "Why I Write Such Good Books" and "Why I Am a Destiny", etc.

 

[Spion]

An ethical critique of technology.

Next question?

I'm sure everyone who's ever made a critique of technology considers it 'ethical'.

What did he say about technology?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Got to love those chapter titles in Ecce homo, too: "Why I Am So Wise", "Why I Am So Clever", "Why I Write Such Good Books" and "Why I Am a Destiny", etc.

Thing is, once you decide that logical necessity has no special philosophical privileges, then you're free to argue any way you want to. Nietzsche argues like a really nasty lawyer, he'll flip from analytical to hurling satirical abuse.

Heidi seems to think it implies that you can invoke the poetic meaning of words in a philosophical argument, and sometimes he gets some interesting insights that way but I think it also frees him up to talk a lot of shit. Same with the PoMo guys in general.

The other approach, one which I lean to strongly, is that of Wittgenstein who basically thinks the most important thing is to avoid actively saying anything that's nonsense and prefers to take apart other philosophers ideas using a kind of thought-experiment approach. 'If Kant was right about ideas, then what would be the case?' and using that approach to destroy them.

 

[existentialist]

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.

It was about the second thing that I learned about him.

It does diminish him as a man, IMO, but it doesn't automatically diminish his ideas.

 

[100% masahiko]

Got to love those chapter titles in Ecce homo, too: "Why I Am So Wise", "Why I Am So Clever", "Why I Write Such Good Books" and "Why I Am a Destiny", etc.

And yet he was quiet little dork in real life!!

 

[100% masahiko]

Thing is, once you decide that logical necessity has no special philosophical privileges, then you're free to argue any way you want to. Nietzsche argues like a really nasty lawyer, he'll flip from analytical to hurling satirical abuse.

Heidi seems to think it implies that you can invoke the poetic meaning of words in a philosophical argument, and sometimes he gets some interesting insights that way but I think it also frees him up to talk a lot of shit. Same with the PoMo guys in general.

The other approach, one which I lean to strongly, is that of Wittgenstein who basically thinks the most important thing is to avoid actively saying anything that's nonsense and prefers to take apart other philosophers ideas using a kind of thought-experiment approach. 'If Kant was right about ideas, then what would be the case?' and using that approach to destroy them.

Heidi - lol, yes it makes sense now.
I think the PoMo guys wrote with much more artistic means than the previous generation of structuralists - those bearded/spectacle suits from Frankfurt School types.

Nietzsche's writing, I found to be repressive/aggressive in that he was more of judge of judges of equality in that period. He was as nasty as a teenage boy wanking to Max Hardcore movie.

Wittgenstein? I not read but from your insight, I'd agree. It's more lenient.

 

[the button]

Wittgenstein was my absolute hero when I was an undergrad. The "beetle in the box" bit of Philosophical Investigations, where he tells a simple story in ordinary language, and basically demolishes the foundations of 'philosophy of mind' as it was.

 

[100% masahiko]

I can't believe I didn't get into him now - oddly, I'm tidying up my study at the moment and there's a box of old uni books. Have alot on the Frenchies - gonna see if I have a essay somewhere on Wittgenstein

 

[100% masahiko]

Nah...no Wittgenstein last night.

However, I found a whole bunch of Sartre essays! (more frenchies)

 

[gorski]

Where does one start?!?

Ya, ya, from ze top....

Hitler certainly wasn't "imbued" with any sort of concern about phenomenology that I'm aware of...

In former "socialist" countries we saw the politicians on "the other side" being equally "innocent" of anything that had to do with the alleged grounding of their very own "system". Who of them knew anything about Marx, let alone the predecessors etc. etc. Indeed, an extremely laughable idea!!!

...and a whole bunch of the implied thought crimes mentioned in the article originate with Hegel if not the ancient Greeks.

There are such arguments around, sure. The problem is how to prove it... say, with Kant's fascination with French Revolution or Fichte's "fame" as a proletarian thinker" or even Hegel, when you know the history of what he wrote a bit better, including the newly found versions of his "Philosophy of Right" and why he was hounded by the Prussian state, which hired old Schelling to try to "destroy the Devil's seed of Hegel's philosophy" or why Lenin insisted on "knowing Hegel for anyone who wanted to know Marx" or Classical German "Idealism" being touted as "French Revolution expressed by German heads" etc. etc.

...seeing philosophy as a way of getting to things as they are

That's not really Philosophy... What's with, for instance, the "Noch-Nicht-Sein"? Or Hegel's getting away from Understanding and its "Es ist so" to the level Reason etc. etc.

Continental philosophy, I don't know and I don't want to know

Ya, maybe but vee, z "cunty Contis", vant to know about z likes off you! In fact, vee know who you are and vere you live...

...assumes that there is a coherent thing called Nazism...

Is that something like "Continental philosophy" our esteemed colleague just mentioned, in the quote above?

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.

Meaning? What's the big idea?

Besides, most of the "influenced" thinkers were and stayed on the Conservative side, thanx a bunch... The "latter day Marxist lot" [to you it is a kind of 'religion', it seems] had the balls to "grow up", which is not exactly a "bad thing", if one thinks about it....

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.

It can help a great deal, as many argue that a helluvalot has been pinched from Fritz, yes... Badly twisted, all too frequently, mind....

... he was attempting to destroy/rewrite academic rationalism...

Yeah Heidegger was a Nazi - but his philosophy was solid, airtight.

Mutually exclusive...

Really It seems to me that him being a Nazi is probably the commonly known fact about him. Probably adds to the allure.

To whom?

He's the greatest philosopher since Hegel, no question about that.

Depends on who we characterise as "Philosopher": Marx's meaning?

Now there was a Nazi. That is, obviously Heidegger was literally a Nazi, but Nietzsche's thought is more Nazi.

Lukacs's interpretation of Nietzche's contribution was destroyed. Even he gave it up, once safe from Stalin...

Not to mention the forgeries by his sister, on which most of those interpretations thrived...

Carl Schmitt could out-Nazi Nietzsche and Heidegger with one arm tied behind his back. (Not his saluting arm, obviously).

Much more like it, indeed!!!

An ethical critique of technology.

Ethical it wasn't. The doom and gloome came from his pessimism and philosophy in general, falling well short of the intentions and ambitions...

I'm sure everyone who's ever made a critique of technology considers it 'ethical'.

What did he say about technology?

That would be a better way of "debating" anything, yes. Tricky but ultimately much more rewarding, I think...

It was about the second thing that I learned about him.

It does diminish him as a man, IMO, but it doesn't automatically diminish his ideas.

It does, once you get into his "thought" and especially once you connect his actions with those...

And yet he was quiet little dork in real life!!

Yep, 'quietly' eloping, rather "ethically", one might add, behind his wife's back, with a Jewess, having denounced his Jewish colleagues, pointed a finger at them to the "authorities", got them banned from the University, then being promoted, never having returned the Nazi party membership card etc. etc. etc.

Heidi - lol, yes it makes sense now.

Indeed, the idyllic scenery and characters... Yes, now I know who the authors of the series were inspired by... heheeee... hilarious "coincidence" or what... heheheheeee....

I think the PoMo guys wrote with much more artistic means than the previous generation of structuralists - those bearded/spectacle suits from Frankfurt School types.

Pffff.... got me there....

Nietzsche's writing, I found to be repressive/aggressive in that he was more of judge of judges of equality in that period.

Equality? What kind of equality? In which period? Got me again...

As for "being a judge": yes, that's the main criticism, that he replaced old mores with some kind of mores and those could also be questionable....

All in all, a cringing experience, for the most part...

 

[articul8]

.
I think the PoMo guys wrote with much more artistic means than the previous generation of structuralists - those bearded/spectacle suits from Frankfurt School types.

wtf? What have the Frankfurters got to do with "structuralists" - which ones had beards? And what stops someone in a suit from writing well and inventively?

Personally, I'd say there's more artistry in a single fragment of something like Minima Moralia than in a whole ream of banging on about simulacra

 

[bhamgeezer]

Somebodies touchy

 

[Santino]

Where does one start?!?

Ya, ya, from ze top....



In former "socialist" countries we saw the politicians on "the other side" being equally "innocent" of anything that had to do with the alleged grounding of their very own "system". Who of them knew anything about Marx, let alone the predecessors etc. etc. Indeed, an extremely laughable idea!!!



There are such arguments around, sure. The problem is how to prove it... say, with Kant's fascination with French Revolution or Fichte's "fame" as a proletarian thinker" or even Hegel, when you know the history of what he wrote a bit better, including the newly found versions of his "Philosophy of Right" and why he was hounded by the Prussian state, which hired old Schelling to try to "destroy the Devil's seed of Hegel's philosophy" or why Lenin insisted on "knowing Hegel for anyone who wanted to know Marx" or Classical German "Idealism" being touted as "French Revolution expressed by German heads" etc. etc.



That's not really Philosophy... What's with, for instance, the "Noch-Nicht-Sein"? Or Hegel's getting away from Understanding and its "Es ist so" to the level Reason etc. etc.



Ya, maybe but vee, z "cunty Contis", vant to know about z likes off you! In fact, vee know who you are and vere you live...



Is that something like "Continental philosophy" our esteemed colleague just mentioned, in the quote above?



Meaning? What's the big idea?

Besides, most of the "influenced" thinkers were and stayed on the Conservative side, thanx a bunch... The "latter day Marxist lot" [to you it is a kind of 'religion', it seems] had the balls to "grow up", which is not exactly a "bad thing", if one thinks about it....



It can help a great deal, as many argue that a helluvalot has been pinched from Fritz, yes... Badly twisted, all too frequently, mind....



Mutually exclusive...



To whom?



Depends on who we characterise as "Philosopher": Marx's meaning?



Lukacs's interpretation of Nietzche's contribution was destroyed. Even he gave it up, once safe from Stalin...

Not to mention the forgeries by his sister, on which most of those interpretations thrived...



Much more like it, indeed!!!



Ethical it wasn't. The doom and gloome came from his pessimism and philosophy in general, falling well short of the intentions and ambitions...



That would be a better way of "debating" anything, yes. Tricky but ultimately much more rewarding, I think...



It does, once you get into his "thought" and especially once you connect his actions with those...



Yep, 'quietly' eloping, rather "ethically", one might add, behind his wife's back, with a Jewess, having denounced his Jewish colleagues, pointed a finger at them to the "authorities", got them banned from the University, then being promoted, never having returned the Nazi party membership card etc. etc. etc.



Indeed, the idyllic scenery and characters... Yes, now I know who the authors of the series were inspired by... heheeee... hilarious "coincidence" or what... heheheheeee....



Pffff.... got me there....



Equality? What kind of equality? In which period? Got me again...

As for "being a judge": yes, that's the main criticism, that he replaced old mores with some kind of mores and those could also be questionable....

All in all, a cringing experience, for the most part...

You really need to flesh out your thoughts and put them into some kind of order if you want anyone to engage with you properly. A few famous thinkers get by with gnomic half-ideas but as an internet random you need to do more legwork. HTH.

 

[100% masahiko]

wtf? What have the Frankfurters got to do with "structuralists" - which ones had beards? And what stops someone in a suit from writing well and inventively?

Personally, I'd say there's more artistry in a single fragment of something like Minima Moralia than in a whole ream of banging on about simulacra

Structuralists/Frankfurt as the German Marxist INSTITUTION - one born of formality and logical rationale.

And what is wrong with existentialism? Blends in a bit a flavour.

Simulacra? In what way are you using that term.

I wish people read more.

 

[gorski]

Santino, your "suggestion" is

1) way too late - it should have been addresses to just about every single poster above me

2) missing my point completely...

But hey, let's not be too fussy...

 

[gorski]

Structuralists/Frankfurt as the German Marxist INSTITUTION - one born of formality and logical rationale.

And what is wrong with existentialism? Blends in a bit a flavour.

Simulacra? In what way are you using that term.

I wish people read more.

You got me again...

No defence against your "stuff"!

But frankly, stay with humour [the Heidi bit]...

 

[Santino]

Santino, your "suggestion" is

1) way too late - it should have been addresses to just about every single poster above me

2) missing my point completely...

But hey, let's not be too fussy...

No, you're still not getting it. What you need to do is EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR POINT IS, and how it relates to what you're quoting. A few vague insinuations and an ellipsis just won't cut it in message board land.

 

[articul8]

Structuralists/Frankfurt as the German Marxist INSTITUTION - one born of formality and logical rationale.

eh?
a) They weren't structuralists
b) "logical rationale"? They were highly criitical of formal logic.

And what is wrong with existentialism? Blends in a bit a flavour.

I wish people read more.

I wish people understood the first thing about what they claim to have read.

 

[gorski]

Heh, Santino - no one did before me and you said nothing...

And that's my point... [similar to Art8]

 

[100% masahiko]

eh?
a) They weren't structuralists
b) "logical rationale"? They were highly criitical of formal logic.





I wish people understood the first thing about what they claim to have read.

This is reminding me of university days...
(throwing the same accusations back onto the accuser).

And it only one even more.
But that's fine.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think it amounts to gorsk not being a fan of Heidi...

 

[Santino]

I think it amounts to gorsk not being a fan of Heidi...

To be fair, it was really badly dubbed.

 

[kyser_soze]

Hello goat Peter!

OMFG!* Why did you push Clara's wheelchair over the mountainside!!!


*This probably isn't in the book or show, tbf.

 

[100% masahiko]

To be fair, it was really badly dubbed.

I still remember the theme tune.

Was Heidi's uncle knobbing her?

 

[kyser_soze]

Do doopy do
do de do doo
Do doopy do
doop-de-doo

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread earlier.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well now you have danny, what do you think? *thrusts imaginary microphone into dlr's face*