From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Reflections on Heidegger(Philo, Nazi, etc.)
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 03:09:19 GMT

   Before we move any further on this issue, I would like to make
some remarks concerning Heidegger and Mikhail Zeleny.

   I will first begin with Zeleny since it constitutes the lesser of
what I am trying to say.   The "discussion," "argument," "debate,"
"one sided failure to accept facts," or what have you that has been
carried between Zeleny and I has been a jeu lugubre. Zeleny's chain
is easy to pull, and since he presented it for pulling, I took full
advantage of that.  Zeleny reminds me of those rough nosed professorial
types who surround themselves in the "truth" and do anything they
can to protect it.  THis is admirable.  In parallel, he reminds me of
a nun who is so holy she has spent her life protecting herself from
any manisfestation of evil and when that evil be present, she rebukes
it vehemiently and with purpose.  In the same fashion, I find that
Mikhail feels that anything less of rigourous study is an evil, and
as such is to be rebuked.  There is nothing wrong with this, in fact,
I find it quite admirable.  However, I feel it my purpose in life at this
time to create a sort of academic infidelity so as to achieve a certain
reaction out of Zeleny that I find humorous--but my purpose stops not
at that, but rather to allow Zeleny the luxury of going beyond the
normal "rough and rigour" of his books and venture into a world of
temporary insanity.  Thus, my methods have employed vauge argumentation
and philosophical sophistry.  Let us be reminded, however, that philosophy
was first founded on sophistry and as such it remains a tool to expanding
our minds even in light of "academic progress."

  However, that game has become lugubrious--now especially that others
have decided to participate. So I find it my duty to return back to
the world of the "rough and rigourous" so as to make some progress in
this area.   In this way, I want to present some reflections on Heidegger
that may help us understand him in a better light.

  First and foremost, Heidegger's works can be divided into two 
periods:  first, "Sein Und Zeit," and his latter works.  

  Second, ethics was never an academic concern of Heideggers.

  Third, the task of _Sein Und Zeit_(Being and Time) is to reduce
philosophy down to a fundamental set of "possiblities" which reside
in Dasein(translated as "Being-there"; however, think of it as the essence
of consciousness).  Instead of basing a philosophy on the concrete definition,
Heidegger intends to base Being on possibilities.  The effect on 
philosophy has been, and this is all, to expalain _why_ philosophers
came to the conclusions that they did.  It does not explain them "away"
nor does it denounce them as "wrong"; but rather provides something
underneath them that explains the production of this "history of philosophy."
This is the central purpose of _Sein Und Zeit_ and whether it succeeds
at this is a matter of debate.   Heidegger doesn't want to
replace philosophy; but to explain it.  Becuase of this, Heidegger's
_Sein Und Zeit_ can be used to "justify" a number of things, including
Nazism.  However, let it be known that _Sein Und Zeit_ not only justifies
Nazism, it justifies theology, Christianity(and there are those who
believe them to be incompatible with Nazism, for example, myself),
and philosophy.

  Mr. Feld has proposed to explain the "tie" between Nazism and
Heidegger's work.  Although he has not produced this, for reasons
explained to me in email, I suspect that what Mr. Feld will provide
is an explaination for Nazism rooted in Heideggerian thinking.  This
is a different claim than to say that, and Mr. Feld has not said this,
"Nazism and Heidegger are intimately tied together."  If, on the other
hand, what we find from Mr. Feld is a Heideggerian explaination for
Nazism, I can hardly say that Heidegger has failed.  In fact, it 
would be evidence suggesting that _Sein Und Zeit_ succeeded at its
original purpose, to explain philosophy.  Since Nazism is a philosophy,
Heidegger's _Sein und Zeit_ should be capable of justifying it.  This
justification, however, is no means an "approval" but rather a
ground upon which any form of philosophy, in this particular instantiation
"Nazism," could be explained.  Once Mr. Feld has provided his argumentation,
I will analyze it with the intent to show that what has actually happened
is a philsophical "justification"(not approval) for Nazism; instead
of an intimate connection between Nazism and Heidegger.   However, if
Mr. Feld can convience me otherwise, I would be more that willing to
hear it.

  As for Mr. Zeleny, none of the sophistry on "sign" is necessarily
Heidegger, but rather was a form of sophistry for reasons explained
above.  However, I made a claim that I still stick to and as of
yet have not found a satisfactory reply from Mr. Zeleny and this
was that Mr. Zeleny thought the first task of philosophy was to
"Find the structure of reality," and that the second task of philosophy
involved the study of "signs."  I argued that the two are not seperable
and that what Mr. Zeleny should have claimed, and in effect does claim,
that the task of philosophy is to "find meaning."  This is the only
argument in the chain of hysteria that I stick to and maintain with
honest academic sincerity.  Further, Mr. Zeleny has presented 
"historical facts" concerning Heidegger's involvement with the Nazi
party.  Here again, I do not seek to deny these facts as the question
for me is "To what degree was Heidegger a Nazi," and in another arena
not discussed by Mr. Zeleny and myself, "Does this mean that we
should categorically denounce the writings of Heidegger?"  These
are both important questions.

  Thus I promise to throw away the sophistic towel, and begin a serious
pursuit of a topic that seems to have gained some interest and which
I believe could be of vital importance.

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------