Yes, that is what I was thinking of. But doesn't he have a rather lengthy discussion of Marxist views of technology, without mentioning Marx or Maerxism as such, in The Question Concerning Technology?
>
>I remember reading somewhere that H was furiously boning up on Marx near
>the
>end of WWII because he wanted to maintain his Great Philosopher position
>(actually, get it back, since the Nazis didn't think highly of him at all)
Well, why would they? I mean, how could they possibly have understood him? Not that I pretend to have other.
>even if the Soviets wound up occupying all Germany.
>
>He really was a distasteful son-of-a-bitch. Treated Husserl and Arendt
>shamefully -- though some of the Arendt-Heidegger correspondence from near
>the end of their lives is rather touching. Arendt signed her last letter to
>him with Augustine's definition of love -- volo ut sis, I want you to be --
>and dedicated it "To Martin, to whom I was faithful and unfaithful, but
>always in love." Awww...
Poor woman. What a sucker. He was wretch. So was Russell, btw, but far more charming and entertaining. Quine was also a jerk, a real hollow man, ever try to read his autobiography? A real behaviorist nightmare. I went there and I wrote this. No inner life at all. Skinner's autobiography, by contrast, is fascinating, there was in interesting guy, rather odd, tried to raise his daughter in a Skinner box. James and Dewey were wonderful people, by contrast, and by all accounts so is John Rawls.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com