Heidegger, Žižek and Revolution [electronic resource] /
Vadén, Tere.author.
Why did Martin Heidegger, the giant of continental philosophy, believe in 1933 that Hitler is the future of Europe? And why does Slavoj Žižek, "the most dangerous philosopher in the West", support Heidegger's right wing militancy? Heidegger and Žižek are not only erudite thinkers on human being but also incorrigible revolutionaries who even after the catastrophic failures of their favourite revolutions - the October revolution for Žižek and the National Socialist revolution for Heidegger - want to overcome capitalism; undemocratically, if necessary. The two share a spirited and sophisticated rejection of the liberalist worldview and the social order based on it. The problem is not that liberalism is factually wrong, but rather that it is ethically bad. Both argue for building and educating a new collective based on human finitude and communality. In the tradition of the Enlightenment, Žižek advocates a universalist revolution, whereas Heidegger sees the transformation rooted in particular historical existence, inviting a bewildering array of mutually exclusive criticisms and apologies of his view. The crisis that Heidegger and Žižek want to address is still here, but their unquestioned Europocentrism sets a dark cloud over the whole idea of revolution.
Description based upon print version of record.
Includes bibliographical references.
Preliminary Material -- Introduction -- Metaphysics is Politics -- Heidegger on Revolution -- What is Wrong in Heidegger's Revolution? -- Industrial Agriculture and Concentration Camps or the Will and Evil -- Žižek on a See-Saw -- Žižek and Heidegger Avec Means -- Bibliography.
Why did Martin Heidegger, the giant of continental philosophy, believe in 1933 that Hitler is the future of Europe? And why does Slavoj Žižek, "the most dangerous philosopher in the West", support Heidegger's right wing militancy? Heidegger and Žižek are not only erudite thinkers on human being but also incorrigible revolutionaries who even after the catastrophic failures of their favourite revolutions - the October revolution for Žižek and the National Socialist revolution for Heidegger - want to overcome capitalism; undemocratically, if necessary. The two share a spirited and sophisticated rejection of the liberalist worldview and the social order based on it. The problem is not that liberalism is factually wrong, but rather that it is ethically bad. Both argue for building and educating a new collective based on human finitude and communality. In the tradition of the Enlightenment, Žižek advocates a universalist revolution, whereas Heidegger sees the transformation rooted in particular historical existence, inviting a bewildering array of mutually exclusive criticisms and apologies of his view. The crisis that Heidegger and Žižek want to address is still here, but their unquestioned Europocentrism sets a dark cloud over the whole idea of revolution.
Education.
Education, general.