From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Reflections on Heidegger(Philo, Nazi, etc.)
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 07:39:39 GMT

From article <1992Aug21.170152.28415@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld):
> I'm out.  "This has gotten silly."  I'm taking my doll and dishes and
> going home.
> Luck to those who stay in the pool.
> -- 
> Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
> Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
> University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
> Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada	                     

 The intent of the article was to show that "this has been silly."
I think that if you review the writtings between Zeleny and I, you
will see that both sides, his and mine, are filled with vaugeries and
parries that have lead nowhere.  I wrote the introductory remark simply
to explain why any "academic seriousness" may have been lacking in
previous replies.  Further, that I intend to maintain a seriousness
in further discussion.    It is too bad that my explanation put
you off enough to have you want to drop out of the discussion as I found
that your claims seemed more workable to the actual problem at hand.

Otherwise, I maintain what I have always maintained:  1.) Heidegger is
one of the most influential philosophers of this century, 2.) Heidegger
is not a tried and true Nazi, 3.) Heidegger's text does not support
Nazism but shows the "how" of Nazism.

For example, turn your attention to "Building Dwelling Thinking."  
Therein lies the possiblity for an ethics, which I attempted to 
construct in a paper not so long ago, in dealings with relocation.
A practical philosophical
ground upon which a responsible nation should work when relocating
peoples.  On the other hand, we find that the same text could explain
how to destroy a race of people.  Neither of these two possiblites
from the text are necessities, they are simply possibilities.  What
we find Heidegger doing most often is explaining the "root" or 
"ground" upon which philosophies are built.  "Building Dwelling Thinking"
is a case in point.  Although I have not reviewed the long list of
books left by another poster, whose name I have forgotten, I wonder
if the difficulties of seperating Heidegger's philosophic life and
his political life lie in the difference between the prescriptive
properties of other philosophic works and the explanatory properties
that I find are inherent to the philosophical methodolgy employed
by Heidegger.

If you do not want to play anymore, and Mr. Zeleny as well, fine--neither
do I.  This was precisely the point of the article.  If, however, 
you want to have serious discussion on the issue, I am all ears and ready
to go.  If not, I understand.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta