Christ vs. Plato, Nietzsche, Darwin and Marx

NewsMax.com ^ | Dec. 25, Christmas Day | Lev Navrozov

[A. Pole]

Anyone who bought into the ideology of Nazism, as Martin Heidegger as a member of the Party must have, deserves condemnation on that account, and it is appropriate to question whether such intellectual and moral flaws permeate his work.

Can you elaborate - what do you know intellectual and moral flaws permeating his work?

[Helms]

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/

[mrustow]

I didn't realize you required a doctoral dissertation on the connection between Heidegger's love of Nazism and his philosophy. And since you identified yourself as a "Heidegger partisan," why on earth would you require any explanation? Any such partisan would have to have read Heidegger's easily obtainable public lecture, where he tied up his own philosophy, the pre-Socratics, and Nazism.

[mrustow]

The likes of Molly Ivins and Richard Dawkins are so utterly wrong in their condemnation of religion, the Judeo-Christian in particular since its positive importance to the development of our culture can hardly be overestimated.

How can you condemn a "religion" that doesn't exist?

[NutCrackerBoy]

There is no doubt whatsoever that Heidegger was anti-enlightenment

anti-modern, yes

and consulted with Faustian Principalities and Powers.

B.S.!

My reading of Postmodernism and Nihilism places Heidegger and his "children" (Marcuse ... and a few others) at the epicenter of Postmodernism and Nihilism. It seems that Critical Theory and Consciousness Studies have supplanted old fashioned Philosophy.

We have been betrayed by most of the so-called intellectuals. Postmodernism has overrun American Academia where Foucault and Derrida still live on.

Generally, I share your disdain of American academia's fever swamps. However, most of these movements evolved as replacements for Marxism and were a reaction against Martin Heidegger (Note Theodor Adorno's Jargon of Authenticity is a direct repudiation of MH). These are examples of what I referred to as "dangerous ideas." They are not devoid of useful insights, but are put into evil practice even on our own Supreme Court.

MH himself derived his world-view from righteous indignation at the oppression of Catholics by Bismarck. He cut his teeth on Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, whose message is reminiscent of Edmund Burke and delivers a scathing indictment of liberalism.

On this background, MH produced a treasure trove of insights into cognitive behavior which have been quietly put to positive use in several disciplines, including in engineering.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "..Either Jefferson read the worst translation ever made of The Republic, or his reputation as a thinker is vastly inflated. There is no unintelligible jargon in The Republic (and I have wasted countless nights on unreadable, jargon-filled books), which is not only the greatest work of philosophy ever written, but a literary masterpiece, as well."

Response: Jefferson actually helped form a real government which did fairly well. Plato created a castle in the sky.(I like the old Greek)

[mrustow]

It is 20 years since I read The Origins of Totalitarianism, but I still recall Arendt's fear of the mob, and suspect that her statement about the mob was empirical (about the Western loss of belief in the transcendent), rather than philosophical.

[mrustow]

You can call your statement whatever you like, but it was not a response to mine.

Did you ever bother reading The Republic? Tell the truth!

[NutCrackerBoy]

Can you elaborate - what do you know intellectual and moral flaws permeating his work?

As I said, I certainly believe it is appropriate to question in light of Martin Heidegger's Nazism whether those intellectual and moral flaws permeate his work.

It is my opinion that they do not. He was not the first or last brilliant and learned man or woman coopted by a charismatic leader and the empty promise of an ideology. In exchange for his work for the Party, MH was promised that the new Germany would be run in consultation with the philosophers. Tragically, he believed the lie, seeing a vision of life lived in philosophy.

The same intellectual or moral weakness is perhaps exemplified by MH's mythologizing of the Greeks. Again, he is hardly alone in a naive glorification of a Golden Age, past or future. The flaw does not detract from his life-work, which is greatly admired even by many who deplore his Nazism in the strongest terms.

[cornelis]

You are probably correct. Apparenlty Voegelin's argument is that the empirical fact of stupidity and imbecility should not have our respect, even for the sake of possibility. It is the empirical factuality of Nietzsche that wins him favor; he outstrips Arendt by far in his analysis of the mob's priests. But there's a limit to how much empirical consumption and delivery--whether published in bulletins or literature--gives access to wisdom.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Any such partisan would have to have read Heidegger's easily obtainable public lecture, where he tied up his own philosophy, the pre-Socratics, and Nazism.

I have not read it.

[A. Pole]

As I said, I certainly believe it is appropriate to question in light of Martin Heidegger's Nazism whether those intellectual and moral flaws permeate his work.

Hmm, I read number of Heidegger's works and I am not sure how to see them "in light of Martin Heidegger's Nazism". You see, in 1930s many of intellectuals flirted with either Communism or Fascism, left wing with the first and the right wing with the later.

He was not the first or last brilliant and learned man or woman coopted by a charismatic leader and the empty promise of an ideology. In exchange for his work for the Party, MH was promised that the new Germany would be run in consultation with the philosophers. Tragically, he believed the lie, seeing a vision of life lived in philosophy.

You are very charitable to him and others who joined Communist, Fascist or Nazi party. I am afraid the real reason was the desire to get ahead and to make career. Same reason why American intellectuals follow Political Correctness, they do it out of cowardice, greed and laziness.

The same intellectual or moral weakness is perhaps exemplified by MH's mythologizing of the Greeks. Again, he is hardly alone in a naive glorification of a Golden Age, past or future.

I like his description of Greeks - ancient Greece was the Golden Age in a sense of being the marvelous craddle of Western civilization.

And he wanted to retrace the beginnings of Western thought in order to advance it not to go back.

The flaw does not detract from his life-work, which is greatly admired even by many who deplore his Nazism in the strongest terms.

Very few great minds are without some serious political or personal fault.

[A. Pole]

Any such partisan would have to have read Heidegger's easily obtainable public lecture, where he tied up his own philosophy, the pre-Socratics, and Nazism.

Easy to obtain? Please give the link. I would like to check if it was something substantial or some opportunistic flattery toward the power of the day.

[mrustow]

I just search unsuccessfully for an English translation. The title is Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universitaet. It was his 1933 "Rektoratsrede," his speech upon taking the reins of Germany's University of Freiburg, after the Nazi seizure of power.

Amazon has a collection of Heidegger's Philosophical and Political Writings, which includes "The Jewish Contamination of German Spiritual Life" (1929) and "Follow the Führer!," but I am unfamiliar with those essays, and thus cannot comment on their connection to Heidegger's philosophy.

[mrustow]

Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universitaet

[mrustow]

And he wanted to retrace the beginnings of Western thought in order to advance it not to go back.

Actually, he wanted to go backwards, to the Pre-Socratics, whose irrationality -- particularly Heraclitus, he revered. He hated everything rational in Greek philosophy.

[mrustow]

You are probably correct. Apparenlty Voegelin's argument is that the empirical fact of stupidity and imbecility should not have our respect, even for the sake of possibility. It is the empirical factuality of Nietzsche that wins him favor; he outstrips Arendt by far in his analysis of the mob's priests. But there's a limit to how much empirical consumption and delivery--whether published in bulletins or literature--gives access to wisdom.

I know of Voegelin (fled the Nazis, no?), but don't recall ever having read him. He sounds like a grand exception to the academics I've known, almost all of whom yielded to this or that mob, and were unable to distinguish -- even those with Ph.D.s in mathematics, between what was valid and what was merely popular.

[cornelis]

I hope you can find time to read him. Many people refer to his New Science of Politics which is not my style. But very interesting is a letter to Schutz about Husserl (where?)

Faith and Political Philosophy. The Correspondence between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934-1964 is worth the effort. I also enjoy his published essays, vols 11 and 12 from the Works.

[mrustow]

Thanks for the tips.

[A. Pole]

Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universitaet

My German is not so good, please tell in short what is the content.