> The individual does not produce meaning
> -- rather, it discloses it in the process of
> interaction with the world. What is true is that for
> Heidegger (and he's right, IMO) history is always
> appropriated by the individual in terms of the
> individual's understanding of the present and future.
> History is a value-laden enterprise, to use
> non-Heideggerian language. To put it in mundane
> political terms, the way a US conservative interprets
> US history is different from the way a US liberal or
> radical or neo-Nazi or whatever will interpret it,
> because they are looking for different things in the
> light of their own contemporary political projects.
Are you attributing to him the view of "truth" he rejected in the 1945 passage, quoted by Hugo Ott, explaining his involvement in the policy of “Gleichschaltung”?
‘Although the telegram mentions “Gleichschaltung”, I was using the term in the same way that I used the term “National Socialism”. It was not, and never had been, my intention to impose Party doctrine on the University; on the contrary, I wanted to bring about a transformation in thinking both within National Socialism and with regard to it. It is untrue to claim that National Socialism and the Party had no intellectual plans for the universities or for science and learning: they had them only too clearly, citing Nietzsche as their authority, who taught that “truth” does not have any content or substance of its own, but is merely an instrument of the will to power, i.e. a mere “idea”, a totally subjective concept. What was and is so grotesque about it, of course, is that this “politicized” science and learning is essentially in line with the teachings of Marxism and Communism on the “idea” and “ideology”. It was against this that my rectorship address of 23 May, given three days after I had sent the telegram [Heidegger confuses the 23rd with the 27th of May], was clearly and explicitly directed.” (Hugo Ott, Martin Heidegger: A Political Life, pp. 194-6)
Ted