Christian
>
> Well, it depends on what you mean by "fascistic". Heidegger wasn't a mere
> propaganda hack of the Nazi regime or a paid agent of the SS per se, but
> his work is part of what might be called the culture of Fascism, in
> the same sense as Leni Riefenstahl's movies or the novels of Celine and
> Wyndham Lewis. The best analysis of Heidegger is in Adorno's "Negative
> Dialectics", where Adorno takes a sledgehammer to fundamental ontology, by
> decoding the historical categories at work beneath the veneer of the
> jargon. In general, Heidegger's word-puns follow the same logic as the
> notorious acronym NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei,
> or literally, National Socialist German Workers' Party). Why do you think
> the Nazis put "socialist" and "worker" into their party name? Bogus
> populism, of course; Hitler was always going on about the evils of finance
> capital (Jewish moguls, etc.). The point was to canalize the Leftwing
> critique of capitalism and use it against the Left. The same is true
> of Heidegger, whose categories have this populist veneer to them: they're
> always simple amalgams of common German words, so they project a plebian
> moment, while at the same time they ruthlessly suppress *any* concept or
> cultural moment which has not signed over its content to the supremacy of
> Being. Heidegger's whole philosophy is the supreme effort of not
> permitting himself (or anyone else) to think.
>
> -- Dennis
>
>
>
>