Hei–llll !
(Self Writ, Correctitude, High Germany, The Enemy, The King of Terrors, Videos)In the same deep-mining veins dug by those linking Nietzsche to nazi praxis, is this old review of a book on Heidegger’s relationship with naziism… *sighs* There are very few philosophers whose private political beliefs I would be in sympathy with: it’s like art, the output doesn’t depend on the moral stature of the artist. This argues the opposite.
Something to read though…
What is surprising is that Heidegger should be either surprised or dismayed to learn that the Nazis were less than fully absorbed, were in fact uninterested in his own approach to Being, in the same way that they were also uninterested in the effort of Rosenberg, the well-known Nazi “philosopher,” to bring about a profound spiritual renewal. Heidegger’s objection reveals, then, an astonishing lack of awareness of the nature of Nazism.
Rather that he knew pretty much what they were — and to be fair average contemporaries in any country then would have had the same response to most philosophers — but had hoped they could become something better.
The problem with the Nazis, according to Heidegger, was not that they terrorized and murdered people, and started World War II, but that they had the wrong attitude towards metaphysics. Whether they would have still been murderers if they had the right metaphysics is a good question. One of the most disturbing things about Heidegger’s thought is that the murders — or even the public thuggery that he could have seen in the earliest days of the Third Reich — don’t really seem to have disturbed him all that much. It was not the murders or the public mayhem that discredited “existing” Naziism but simply the wrong attitude towards philosophy, i.e. Heidegger himself. The most damning accusation, however, is just that Naziism was a form of liberalism !
Which last, uh, is factually correct. Plus one of the true reasons naziism is utterly abhorrant. National Socialism was the outcome of republican German nationalism of 1848 ( As is much of American political praxis ). And indeed a youtube of the esteemed neo-nazi band Stahlgewitter explicitly makes this connection, the black-red-gold republikaner flag makes it’s appearances along with other nazi crap.
Apart from which, ‘public mayhem’ in the sense meant here ran through both the soviet and the American system — even in the Thirties.
Heidegger is not a moralist and does not have anything like a theory or system of moral principles. It is not clear how a prohibition of murder would even be grounded in his system. A “resolute” and “authentic” murderer actually sounds pretty good.
There is nothing wrong with killing someone if one has authentic reasons to so do. ( The nazis didn’t very often, being mostly dim thugs — plus they did it messily whenever possible. )
Heidegger’s conservatism is also reflected in his hostility to modernity, not just in the form of liberal democracy, but in the form of science and technology and commercial culture. This is another area where he appeals to modern leftists, who not only want a socialist mandarinism, run by themselves, rather than liberal democracy, but who are also constitutionally hostile to science, which depends on criteria far harder than their own self-persuasive rhetorical sophistries, and to technology and commerce, which are not only similarly hard edged but have done far more to improve the life of most people than the chatter of Marxist dialectics ever has.
Ah, the magical sweet matrix of science, parliamentary democracy and the free market… What soul-satisfying happiness it has brought; and much more importantly, will always promise to bring. ‘Only a few generations, comrades-citizens-voters, and our children will live as gods !‘
( Much the same mix as nazism and communism would have evolved into, in fact. )
So in the end, quite apart from the frequent hyperbole, the diatribe relies on supposed ethics and appeals to materialism: which being both that which Heidegger rejected, means that it is like similiarly accusing an eagle of not valuing either. The eagle knows that already.
In a Salon article Being Martin Heidegger Ralph Brave gives some answers as to why Heidegger’s semi-sympathy with National Socialism is ultimately irrelevant to his philosophy. [ Note: click the page numbers to avoid getting lost. ]
Of course, I barely understand Heidegger, and sometimes reading both him and other fine thinkers can induce the loss of the will to live, but one should ever recognise greatness in thought, in those we admire, and in those with whom we may disagree for extraneous reasons.
At his execution, it was enquired if Alfred Rosenberg had any last words before being topped.
“No.”
Pretty authentic, that.
