Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Heidegger and Nazism
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:39:52 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug20.191333.26899@a.cs.okstate.edu>
onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

>From article <1992Aug19.193954.18697@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by
>feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld):

COO:
>>>  However, I see no justification, on the other hand, to your second
>>>claim when compared to the first.   I think that you will have to 
>>>select which you feel is more adequate.  If you select the first, 
>>>I am all ears as to how you can arrive at Nazism from his text--even
>>>Derrida, whose methods may be questionable, failed to convience me of 
>>>anything on this regard.  If you select the latter, you have to
>>>be careful when thinking of God in this way.  There is always the
>>>issue of time which puts forth a significant stumbling block to those
>>>who would like to reduce _Sein und Zeit_ to a simple theological 
>>>treatise.  However, to maintain both propositions simulatneously seems
>>>undeniably absurd.

MF:
>> Before I try to meet this legitimate challenge (that is, risk making
>> (more of) a public spectacle of myself), let me just check on one
>> crucial point:
>> 
>> I take it that we all agree that Heidegger was a Nazi for a
>> significant portion of his Professorial career?  So the challenge is
>> to show either the compatibility of _Sein & Zeit_ with Nazism, or that
>> the text is itself nazi-istic?  Failing that initial understanding,
>> I've no inclination to play.

COO:
>  I would be intereted in either claim.  First, how you find a text
>that purposely avoids ethics as one that could support something
>like Nazism which requires an ethics.  And second, how you would
>support the text as Nazistic.  As to whether Heidegger was a Nazi
>for a significant protion of his Professorial career is a matter of
>some debate(as Mikhail and I have shown), however in light of the challenge
>I propose, it really makes no difference.

Since you are taking my name in vain, I will repeat that our "debate"
consisted of me stating verifiable, well-documented facts, and you
gainsaying them with a combination of vague generalities and outright
untruths.  For the purpose of this argument, I would appreciate hearing
your confirmation of the fact of Heidegger's membership in the NSDAP, as
well as on his authorship and delivery of the May 27, 1933 Fribourg
rectoral address, "The Self-Affirmation of the German University", as well
as other similar communications, with their encomium of the Fuehrer as the
sole German reality of the present, and of the future, and of its law, the
same claim repeated in print as late as in 1953, in the new edition of
_Introduction to Metaphysics_.  Also I would appreciate your confirmation
of Heidegger's role as an informer in the case of the chemist Hermann
Staudinger on September 29, 1933, as well as his denunciation of his
ex-student, the philosopher Eduard Baumgarten, accused by Heidegger of
belonging to the liberal democratic circle of Max Weber, and relations with
the "Jew Fraenkel".  All relevant documents are cuiited by Farias.  Please
limit yourself to stating your agreement or disagreement with these facts.

>> -- 
>> 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	                     

>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
>------------------------------------------------------------------------


cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta