[lbo-talk] Grappling with Heidegger (and other responses)

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Wed May 10 11:20:51 PDT 2006


At around 9/5/06 12:11 pm, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> (2) While H's works don't seem to stand up under scrutiny, Shockley's
> contributions to electronic engineering do. For S, you can separate
> the transistor from the man. They still work. (Similarly, Marx's ideas
> work -- when applied critically -- despite all of _his_ faults.) On
> the other hand, H's ideas don't seem to stand up independent of the
> man. (However, see the disclaimer under point #1, above.)
>

But that is the question being begged isn't it? Shane Mage wrote this:

SM=> The truth is that "there is always wrath and contempt SM=> against any Nazi held up as an Important Thinker.

Note the missing analysis of Heidegger's thought and its importance. Also the missing argument connecting Nazism and Heidegger's thought. All we have is this: If a Nazi (and note that there are different levels of being a "Nazi", but why such subtlety when is armed with wrath and contempt for fellow list-members?) is held up as an Important Thinker then that is sufficient reason for wrath and contempt at such a view. It is no leap at all to conclude from the above that for Shane Mage, being a Nazi precludes one's being an important thinker. Hence the Shockley analogy. But if you still do not find it useful, I submit instead, Karl Pearson.

To be subtle and fair, "important thinker" is a lot more general than "important physicist" or "important mathematician". The latter activities can be separated from other parts of one's life whereas it is more reasonable to assume that if you are a "good thinker", then your actions in all aspects of your life would reflect this capability.

This is a bit reasonable but cannot be stretched too far. Abstract thought is a different beast, and further one can be quite clairvoyant in one's thought but weak in its application. Other's have provided examples of other "general thinkers" and their contradictory/negative actions. I can think of a few... If one considers Aristotle the first scientist, the founder of the empirical method, what is one to make of the fact that the man thought women had lesser teeth than men, an issue he could have empirically verified on one of his own four [?] wives. Or what of Gödel's Platonism or superstitions? Einstein's recommendation of the nuclear option (which he grew to regret, and not just in hindsight)? Or his seeming belief in god?


> BTW, is it true that Hannah Arendt was H's lover?

Yes.

--ravi

-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list