> No. In the world of the tribesman, predicting the
> future based on entrails is experienced as having a
> truth value and therefore is not inauthentic. The
> spouse in denial over the faithless husband/wife and
> the soldier who just "knows" he ain't gonna die are
> actually fully aware of the real state of affairs, and
> are choosing not to acknowledge it. That is why they
> are inauthentic. For that matter, I engage in constant
> self-deceptions on the matter of my nicotine intake
> that I know full well are utter bullshit but do anyway
> -- I've been "going to quit tomorrow" for about 5
> years now. That is inauthentic behavior.
>
> This has nothing to do with ethics, by the way. It is
> descriptive and value-free.
>
> It's a little weird to hear Heidegger attacked in this
> way, since he is usually attacked as a cultural and
> epistemological relativist who thinks Aristotelian
> physics and modern physics have equal truth values,
> talks about the gods a lot, and thinks pre-Socratic
> philosophy was the profoundest thinking in history.
In 1945 Heidegger explicitly dissociated himself from what he identified as Nietzsche’s teaching “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” and associated it instead with National Socialism and Marxism/Communism. Hugo Ott provides the context and reproduces the passage in the following extract from “Martin Heidegger: A Political Life”.
“In order to attain his political, indeed historic goals, Heidegger had to work, not to say fight, in a variety of different arenas. His own university was only ever a base, a point of departure, and an occasional refuge – at least to begin with. Even before his formal installation as rector he had already begun to stake out the territory that he planned to occupy. Some considerable stir, not to say indignation, was caused among the few people in the know in Freidburg when it emerged that Heidegger had sent the following to Adolf Hitler on 20 May 1933: ‘I respectfully request postponement of the planned reception for the Board of the Association of German Universities until such time as the much needed realignment of the Association in accordance with the aims of Gleichschaltung has been accomplished.’
“With this the new rector had unequivocally stepped up on to the national stage, which he no doubt saw as his proper field of action – though there is not a word about this in the apologia published in 1983. To sketch in the background briefly: the University Association in those days – in contrast to its post-1945 successor – was the corporate union of all German universities, whose principal purpose was to represent the interests of university teachers as a social and professional class. In effect it was an organ of the Conference of German University Rectors. Heidegger planned to replace this dual structure, not least because it had overtones of a parliamentary system, with a single, integrated Conference of Rectors, modelled on the principle of totalitarian leadership (Führerprinzip).
“The agitation in Freiburg was provoked principally by the reference to Gleichschaltung, whose meaning then, in the early summer of 1933, was clear enough: the realignment of all institutions, all areas of life; in conformity with the principles of the totalitarian state and the totalitarian society and the new power structures of the centralized National Socialist regime. This telegram weighed heavily against Heidegger in 1945, and in November of that year he submitted the following explanation to the chairman of the denazification commission – furnishing further evidence of the way he conducted his defence:
‘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