From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Heidegger, Hitler, Racism and logic.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:12:56 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <memo.578614@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:
|> 
|> "Right" he said " you have to admit that the slant-eyes - the
|> coolies, and the blacks - they're different - right?"
|> 
|> "No" I said " I don't admit that".
|> 
|> "Well" he said "then there's no point in talking to you is there?"

There is somewhere (I forget where, of course) where Plato makes a
remark to the effect that in a disagreement there will be a point
where one can proceed no further.  One role of logic is to expose
such a point.

|> What frightened me was how compellingly he was able to build on that
|> one, seemingly innocent assumption, to demonstrate that the
|> difference should be preserved - by legislation - and that any
|> inter-racial conflict was a natural result of that difference, and
|> that he and I, as standing irrevocably on one side of that
|> difference, were bound to defend our own side.

This is why it is so important that people be trained in logical
and analytical skills.

|> Logic, by itself, can be a most dangerous tool. I hope that this

I hope this isn't going in a direction where an appropriate response
will be, "When logic is outlawed, only outlaws will use logic".

It may be fruitful to draw a distinction between logic and rhetoric
here.

|> 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.

Are there such people?

|> 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.
|> 
|> 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 .....

But do not overlook this point:  If Heidegger *was* a Nazi (and I think
the degree of his sincere committment is a matter of record), this can
and should be used to *understand* what is meant by his philosophical
writings.  I confess at this point that I have read little Heidegger.
My wife has read more and I asked her the other night why it is that
Heidegger seems to attract so many with an interest in *religion*.  I
am really puzzled by this phenomenon, and have been since my days of
teaching in a Catholic univeristy.  My wife speculated that these
people are taken with certain terms that Heidegger makes use of ("care",
"authenticity", etc.) and his apparent "humanism".  (I do not know if
this is even remotely correct, but it does seem to be consistent with
my [perhaps limited] experience of pastoral types.)  Now if (as seems
clear) Heidegger was a Nazi, then a careful reading of his apparently
"humanistic" writings may expose rather a different meaning to them
than one might first suppose.  Thus certainly in this particular case
I do not think we cannot distinguish Heidegger-the-human-being from
Heidegger-the-philosopher.


I would be interested to hear from the Heidegger-volken why it is
that Heidegger seems so attractive to those with a religious
perspective.





-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta