I SUSPECT that it is for the same reason that people act like members of the Temperance League only when discussing Christopher Hitchens or sound like the producers of "Cocaine Fiends" when discussing the President's youthful indulgence in coke. In other words, CHEAP SHOT. -Thomas
Well, well , we've got the Heidegger one going then. OK. First of all the Heidegger debate did not originate with the pomo embrace, as revealing as the latter is. Rockmore (1991), amongst others, shows how this debate about Heidegger's philosophical nazism goes back to the thirties. The debate has always been about the implication of Heidegger's philosophy in his politics and vice versa, including his known anti-semitism.
The statement by the cretinous Toss in another message to the effect that H's philosoophy and his politics occured in two separate hermetically sealed parts of his brain is of course an issue that has been dealt with at length in this literature.
Here are some wothwhile references which you can access on the web:
Rockmore's book, On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy, is available in its entirety at: http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft6q2nb3wh&chunk.id=d0e37&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=ucpress
One of the landmarks of the debate is a work by Jean-Pierre Faye dating back to 1961. As far as I know this is not available in English, but two texts are worth looking at. One is a review of Faye's book by Loren Goldner, which you will find here: http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/faye.html
Then Faye's son, who is continuing with this enquiry, is interviewed here: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/faye.htm
Then, best of all, is the correspondence between Marcuse and Heidegger -- you really have to read Heidegger's reply to Marcuse to believe it -- which you will find here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/40spubs/47MarcuseHeidegger.htm
Then of course there are the various critiques by Adorno, including his book The Jargon of Authenticity.
That should be enough to be going on with. Now let's get back to the more substantial question of the relation of philosophy to politics. If I could remind everyone where we are in this:
1. It was claimed in the Butler piece that the philosophy of the subject (if I could put it so crudely) "forcloses" on the political. I enquired then as to what sort of alternative politics is opened up by this "critique" of the subject (and of the "referentiality of language" etc). There was a deafening silence, even though the political implications of Butler's statement had been trumpeted quite loudly and portentously to begin with. I then sent a reminder of my question, but still no takers. 2. The discussion turned to Foucault. I then said OK, let's ask the same question about the alternative politics opened up by Foucault. Again silence. 3. Now, in a most revealing contribution by Chris Doss, we have the statement that a philosopher's philosophy has in fact NO connection with his politics. I wonder how many will be prepared to go with this statement? And if he is right then does it mean that no-one's philosophical leanings have any bearing on their politics, for example in the case of Butler, Foucault or anyone else? Am I being too optimistic in hoping for a reply?
Let me throw out this little teaser about Heidegger too. In his younger days when he was an up and coming young philosopher he applied for a catholic professorship, which he was very confident of getting. He was overlooked for the post. Some time shortly thereafter he had a spiritual crisis, found he couldn't be a catholic anymore, and converted to protestantism. Then came his interest in nazism. There is much literature to show that he considered himself to be in line for the status of pre-eminent philosopher for the nazi movement. He even appears to have entertained delusions of being the intellectual leader of the entire movement. But he was disappointed once again. Then he seems to have become some sort of critic of the movement. He claims later that the "movement" (his favoured term, even after the war) turned out to be not what it had been in the beginning. But rather obviously this is one of his transparent lies. The truth is that the "movement" tired of him very early one, not vice versa. So his disillusionment with the movement was really the catholic professorship all over again, wasn't it? Just sour grapes, no change of heart or spiritual conversion.
Heidegger was a thorough creep, a snitch and someone who would deny people a livelihood, not just for being a jew, but for having jewish friends or associates. But of course this has nothing to do with his philosophy.
So what is philosophy then?
I'm still enjoying this. Another shot anyone, cheap or otherwise?
Tahir
-------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm