Famed Philosopher Martin Heidegger Speaks In This Rare Documentary

via Wikipedia

Martin Heidegger (German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ]; September 26, 1889 – May 26, 1976) was a German philosopher known for his existential and phenomenological explorations of the “question of Being”.[6] Heidegger is known for offering a phenomenological critique of Kant. He wrote extensively on Nietzsche and Hölderlin in his later career. Heidegger’s influence has been far reaching, influencing fields such as philosophy, theology, art, architecture, artificial intelligence, cultural anthropology, design, literary theory, social theory, political theory, psychiatry, and psychotherapy.[7][8]

His best known book, Being and Time, is considered one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century.[9] In it and later works, Heidegger maintained that our way of questioning defines our nature. He argued that philosophy, Western civilization’s chief way of questioning, had lost sight of the being it sought. Finding ourselves “always already” fallen in a world of presuppositions, we lose touch with what being was before its truth became “muddled”.[10] As a solution to this condition, Heidegger advocated a return to the practical being in the world, allowing it to reveal, or “unconceal” itself as concealment.[11]

Heidegger is a controversial figure, largely for his affiliation with Nazism prior to 1934, for which he neither apologized nor expressed regret,[12] except in private when he called it “the biggest stupidity of his life” (die größte Dummheit seines Lebens).[13] The controversy raises general questions about the relation between Heidegger’s thought and his connection to National Socialism.

 

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Ted Heistman

    Some hardcore shit there. He definately was a Nazi, until they failed and then he wasn’t. I think Fascism appeals to certain Philosophers, because basically they realize how baseless most peoples opinions are. Hence, they lack faith in democracy.

    • Damien Quinn

      The “stupidity” of the masses has always been the philosophical problem with Democracy, going right back to the Greeks. In any case, by objective comparison, most of the western “Democracies” have more in common with Fascism than Democracy, his being taken in by it is hardly enough to tarnish him, by itself.

    • mannyfurious

      Yeah, The Republic is nothing if not a primer on the virtues of fascism, and it’s considered to be the cornerstone of the entirety of all political writing in the “West.”

      Heidigger, I feel, sometimes gets too much credit and sometimes not enough. He was right to call out Plato and the old Greeks for just taking existence for granted, and not really exploring what it means to “be.” But, when it comes to the quagmire of language, Wittgenstein said all of things Heidigger said, only in about 1/100 of the words and with much more clarity.

    • Rhoid Rager

      Don’t commit the fundamental attribution error here. Heidegger was part of a larger social context. It must have been a terrific time (in the terrifying sense) to see the ideology swamp the social institution you are part of. Akin to being on a rooftop in a Thai resort during the 2004 Indian tsunami and watching the people get swept away around you. You know it would be foolish to climb down from the roof, so you can only watch in anguish. Heisenberg was likely the same way. I doubt Heidegger was happy to turn his back on his old mentor, Husserl, when the Jewish purge hit academia.

      • ze’ev

        Not to mention his Jewish lover, Hannah Arendt.

        • Andrew
          • ze’ev

            Interesting. I was just reading yesterday about her falling out with Gershom Sholem, on the grounds that she lacked a sense of solidarity with the Jewish people. Not being particularly familiar with her work, I didn’t think much of it, but this sheds a new light. Thanks.

          • Rhoid Rager

            If it’s not just shitty journalism, that article is likely Zionist propaganda–“Either one knows what one is doing is evil or one does not. If one knows
            and does it anyway, one is evil, not some special subcategory of evil. If one doesn’t know, one is ignorant, and not evil. But genuine ignorance is rare when evil is going on.” Globalization is crafted in such a way as to alleviate the ‘good’ Western consumer from any responsibility for their part in destroying our ecosystem and harming the lives of others. Ignorance of this responsibility is in no way a mitigating circumstance–especially since the labels of the very clothes on our backs identify where, and, by implication, what group of people and under what conditions, said clothes were manufactured.

            As if the ‘banality of evil’ concept is completely obliterated, because it may not have necessarily applied to Eichmann’s case? Arendt’s analysis is far more nuanced than this author is willing to concede, and that’s what makes it either shoddy journalism or Zionist propaganda. Thus, it’s contemptible in my opinion.

          • ze’ev

            Because the degree of anti-semitic influence on Arendt’s thought is examined here and her thesis on Eichmann is disputed it’s Zionist propaganda? How so?

          • Rhoid Rager

            If you need me to spell it out for you, so be it. I said it is ‘likely’ Zionist propaganda (I don’t know the author’s work or intentions, which is why I was tentative) because it uses the case of the intentional targeting of Jews (as the article points out Eichmann did against the Jews in Hungary even after the defeat of Nazi Germany) as the premise to discredit an otherwise sound sociological concept (banality of evil) to put forward a binary worldview. As I said, it lacks the nuance in perspective that permeated Arendt’s work in assessing what ‘evil’ actually is. This strikes me as extraordinarily shoddy journalism. But if we were to know the author’s opinion on Israel and Palestine, it would most likely settle the question of whether or not this is Zionist propaganda. I don’t feel inclined to research the works of the author further, however.

          • ze’ev

            You believe because it has a premise involving the holocaust it’s likely Zionist propaganda? If this is so, you’re making quite a leap.

21