``...it is as if this consnance allows us to dismiss Hiedegger asq theoretically irrlevant and thus to avoid the effort to think with and through Heidegger, to confront the uneasy questions he raised...''Zizek
-------
It gets much worse and much more difficult that Zizek is hinting at. The underlying problem that H was beginning was the assumption that conscieousness and society are not based on some rational system at all. I think its fair to say that H wanted to uncover the originary ontological domain of Man, as a manifestation of Being.
Cassirer comes along and notes this ontic is the source of conscieousness, language, society and cultures at large and except for some basic schematic potentially shared in common, all that we make out of this ground is our own (culture, history, symbolic forms), and can not be made universal in the way that rationalism is theoretically universal.
The consequence for political philosophy is the destruction of the privilage of place we give to our own systems.
The more this general idea is uncovered, disclosed to us, the more unstable the human world becomes. There are no timeless rules, no foundations as such.
This fits into Nietzsche's celebration of freedom, the lose of values, etc.
What made these ideas so frightening was that they were essentially lived as political life and experience in the chaos that followed WWI in Germany...
Democratic liberals are noticably uneasy with this whole history, and guys like Heidegger take the hit, unjustly in some sense, since he sure wasn't the only academic who went for the National Socialist program...
CG