Heidegger and Nazism

[danny la rouge]

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

<clears throat>

He was a Nazi.

 

[gorski]

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

How difficult is it to do a quick net search, if you have no relevant literature at home?!?

http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/index.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

 

[articul8]

Not one for beginners but Adorno's The Jargon of Authenticity is a pretty good analysis of the social/political inspiration of Heidegger et al

 

[100% masahiko]

How difficult is it to do a quick net search, if you have no relevant literature at home?!?

http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/index.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

Gorski - are you talking to me?

I studied them in the 2nd year of uni.
I found it incredibly boring - that return to the same narrative that's all.

Edited:
*When they were critical of logic, they reverted to the same discourses.
Though Benjamin, if I recall was more readable than Adorno.

 

[gorski]

Sorry, but you seem to have been seriously pissed when doing so. See Articul8's question/remark/objection [in post 51] for more details than mine...

 

[100% masahiko]

Sorry, but you seem to have been seriously pissed when doing so. See Articul8's question/remark/objection [in post 51] for more details than mine...

No probs man.
But I think I've Twilight Zoned myself.
...it has been a long time.

 

[gorski]

http://www.ostina.org/content/view/1431/606/ - on technology, as asked...

http://www.sfu.ca/~andrewf/Heideggertalksfu.htm - also on tech... since it has bearing on whatever follows...

http://www.beyng.com/ - a kind of portal in English...

This is from Wiki:

The Der Spiegel interview

On September 23, 1966, Heidegger gave an interview to Der Spiegel magazine, in which he agreed to discuss his political past provided that the interview be published posthumously (it was published on May 31, 1976). In the interview, Heidegger defended his entanglement with National Socialism in two ways: first, he argued that there was no alternative, saying that he was trying to save the university (and science in general) from being politicized and thus had to compromise with the Nazi administration.

Heheeeeee... Wicked!!!

He really did despise everyone around him and treated them as idiots. [He told some of my professors when they went to visit him, he never read shite written in his "honour" and that he actually had very little regard for them...] But this really takes the proverbial Mickey!!!

1) "No alternative"?!? They were scared shitless of the "left" alternative and came up with the not so "neutral" alternative themselves...

2) His actions [because he was a Conservative bugger] were "natural" [hence not "political", i.e. simply "neutral"], whereas everybody else's actions, which differed from his own, "political", thereby "politicising" the Uni.

So, it was "nothing personal", when he was pointing a finger at his colleagues, getting them "released" from Uni duties and into the hands of Nazis?!? Yeah, right!!!

A point of order, if you please: for as long as we are Human there are always "alternatives". So much for that brain, creativity, "authenticity" and spine...

Second, he admitted that he saw an "awakening" ("Aufbruch") which might help to find a "new national and social approach" but stated that he changed his mind about this in 1934, largely prompted by the violence of the Night of the Long Knives.

Riiiiiggghhttt.... Staying in Nazi Germany, when he could have been gone easily, to just about anywhere in the world... Instead, he was giving speeches in "double-speak"... Woof!!! Some partisan commando he was!!!

Thus, in his Der Spiegel interview Heidegger defended as double-speak his 1935 lecture describing the "inner truth and greatness of this movement." He affirmed that Nazi informants who observed his lectures would understand that by "movement" he meant National Socialism. However, Heidegger asserted that his dedicated students would know this statement was no elegy for the NSDAP. Rather, he meant it as he expressed it in the parenthetical clarification later added to An Introduction to Metaphysics (1953), namely, "the confrontation of planetary technology and modern humanity."

Whoa, the lightning speed of Heidi... So much for his "relief" and spine... Eight short years, eh?

The Löwith account from 1936 has been cited to contradict the account given in the Spiegel interview in two ways: that there was no decisive break with National Socialism in 1934 and that Heidegger was willing to entertain more profound relations between his philosophy and political involvement. The Der Spiegel interviewers did not bring up Heidegger's 1949 quotation comparing the industrialization of agriculture to the extermination camps. In fact, the Der Spiegel interviewers were not in possession of much of the evidence now known for Heidegger's Nazi sympathies.

What a laugh this would have been, had it not been slightly more serious than a "double-speak" ridden "University debate"...

Just how gullible does one have to be to believe all this shite??? Or does one have to be something else, where "gullible" also helps...

 

[bankside]

Wasn't Wagner also a Nazi? I hope I haven't burnt all my Ring Cycles in vain.

 

[gorski]

Wagner: 22 May 1813, Leipzig – 13 February 1883, Venice

And Nazi party: The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: About this sound Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (from the Ger. pronunciation of Nationalsozialist[1]), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers' Party (DAP) prior to a change of name in 1920.

Wagner may have been anti-Semitic but...

 

[danny la rouge]

It's possible to post without rolleyes, you know. "No, he pre-dated the Nazis, I'm afraid" would suffice.

 

[articul8]

 

[Santino]

It's possible to post without rolleyes, you know. "No, he pre-dated the Nazis, I'm afraid" would suffice.

I enjoyed this nugget:

Wagner may have been anti-Semitic but...

which invites us to wonder whether the full meaning of the sentence is:

"Wagner may have been anti-Semitic but he at least wasn't as bad as someone who doesn't know when Wagner died, you subhuman scum."

 

[gorski]

Nope, that's all you and you alone...

What I saw was a thread full of uninformed nonsense, often served as an "opinion"...

How is that possible?

Well, to my mind, only if one is spiritually lazy and one still has no minimal self-control and any reflective insight towards that part of oneself, where one would at least do a quick check before posting all that - sometimes utterly uninformed nonsense....

 

[Idris2002]

My opinion of Heidegger is that his body should have been burned in a trash can.

 

[kyser_soze]

Wagner may have been anti-Semitic but...

...he made up for the lack of a Nazi party at the time by composing 3 day long operas with which to subject people.

(and no, I don't think all Wagner is crap...)