Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Heidegger, Hitler, Racism and logic.
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:34:00 +0000

zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes..

Me:
>Logic, by itself, can be a most dangerous tool. I hope that this
>story will go some way to explaining why I personally have stressed
>my own interest in elucidating the assumptions on which any
>philosophies are based, and also explaining some of the personal
>distaste I have for those who worship pure logic, without regard to
>the primary assumptions on which they based their arguments.

MZ:

>You wouldn't by any chance be dragging in Aunt Sally with your
>reference to "those who worship pure logic", would you?

Ah. Sally's a relative too? No. It was a backhanded apology to some
who I have offended...

LS:
>If - as Michael has suggested - Heidegger was a raving Nazi, I would
>not personally allow this to detract from his performance in terms of
>logic: Many Nazis have displayed an unswerving dedication to logic in
>their implementations of 'final solutions' [Extremely final in many
>cases] and 'medical research'.  I _understand_ the
>Nazi/Racist/Elistist perspective: I don't _like_ it, and I feel that
>it is based on false premises, but I _understand_ it.

MZ:
>Heidegger's logical performance is not in question here.

LS:
>I feel bound to say here therefore, that because Nazism is
>distateful, surely should not prevent us from accepting Heidegger as
>a philosopher. As a human maybe, but not as a philosopher .....

MZ:

>Here is where you make a leap that is wholly unacceptable to me.
>There is a well-established sense in which the goal of all
>philosophical inquiry consists in deducing an ethics from
>metaphysical premisses (I use the latter term in a sense which makes
>it applicable to even the self-professed "anti-metaphysical"
>thinkers). Spinoza's _Ethica_ is a classic example of one such
>attempt, and it may be argued that the fatal defect of such apostles
>of existentialism as Sartre or foster children of positivism as Quine
>consists in their inability to formulate any ethical principles. Now,
>clearly an ethics is never deducible from logic alone; nor is
>Heidegger's doctrine in any way limited to the same. In this sense,
>it is indeed important to note the moral failings of its creator, for
>these failings throw light on what may be interpreted either as a
>fundamental gap between theory and praxis, very likely due to an
>essential feature of the former, or as prima facie evidence of its
>internal inconsistency, which brings us back into the provenance of
>logic, or, finally, as a sign of a fatal defect in its basic
>assumptions. In no case does the philosopher escape unscathed by the
>ramifications of his personal scrofulousness.

Shouldn't that be 'scrofulosity?' ?

Well: Normally I would have agreed with you, but I have arrived at
the opinion, ably assisted by subscribers who post to this group,
that philosophy was about penetratingly acute logic, and had nothing
whatever to do with ethics at all ;-0)

In fact, nowhere have I heard it said that one should base ones
assumptions on what is morally or ethically good. The realists say
that you should base it on what is true - preferably self-evidently
true. This, I aver, is what my erstwhile racist was doing, or thought
he was doing.

The anti realists say you should assume whatever is necessary to come
up with a predictively accurate picture.

It is only the priests who say you should assume the existence of a
moral authority in order to constrain your behaviour with respect to
your fellow man.

In this respect Heidegger seems to be merely the precursor of modern
philosophy.

L>Leo

MZ>
>cordially,
>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."

Leo

"Mummmy, mummy, why do I keep going round in circles?"
"Shut up - or I'll nail your other foot to the floor"



Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta