Talk:Martin Heidegger and Nazism

message: Paul, I see that you were none too pleased about my revisions made to this article. I expected someone to do something like that. Do you understand Heidegger's work? The neat thing about revisions is that the evidence is, then, right there for doing hermeneutical work on the variance of readings, vis-à-vis available scholarship on the matter. So, I've copied your pages, and I shall have a good time with your preferences, via another venue. As someone who has a lot of background on this issue, I'm confident about the January 6, 2008, version of this article. In time, the truth of the matter, re: divergent readings, will win out. 
Paul responds (as first item on my "Talk" page): "Your revisions were pure special pleading. They were not NPOV, but turned the article into an apologia. I am not sure that most of your comments on my talk page are designed to serve any discernable purpose other than to gratify yourself." Those "comments" that Paul refers to are what I've noted above (more or less). 
"...special pleading....apologia...to gratify yourself..."? What could address his uncertainty about this ("I am not sure") but to dwell with the text, relative to Heidegger's work and discerning attention to context? This would be tedious, but that's what would have to be done. Gedavis (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a reply, but more self-satisfied solipsism. What you describe as " dwell[ING] with the text, relative to Heidegger's work and discerning attention to context?" is usually called WP:OR in these parts. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Barlow's revisions 

message: Santa Sangre, if you're going to split this off from the main Heidegger entry, could you shorten the section you copied?  Currently this is just a copy of the Heidegger and Nazi Germany section. Deleuze 16:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll do it in a close future. Actually I created the page in order to translate :fr:Heidegger et le nazisme, but in the meanwhile I just moved the English text from the Heidegger page. Santa Sangre 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I figured you would, just wanted to make sure.  Deleuze 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it should remain a complement to the main Heidegger article, which addresses this topic in its more-proper context of Heidegger's work. Whether or not you agree with Heidegger's undersanding of his Freiburg work, it's factual that his understanding is in terms of his philosophical work prior to that period, and the main Heidegger article addresses that. By the way, Heidegger did not eliminate the faculty electoral process; the Führerprinzip was required by the Nazi Minister of Education, and that Ministry also required Nazi Ministry policies on financial aid. Heidegger was against this (according to Hugo Ott's detailed examination of these years, in Martin Heidegger: a political life, 1993), and Heidegger was against so much of what the Minister of Education required that Heidegger resigned 11 months later. One should want to know what else Heidegger did during his short rectorship (including what other hirings and firings) other than what serves one's proper animus toward Nazism. One should also want to appreciate the Aristotelian sense of leadership that Heidegger endorsed in the 1920s, as indicated in his lectures on Aristotle. And one should want to understand what Heidegger meant by "National Socialist spirit" that he distinguished from the state. Gedavis (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a sense of irrelevance 

message: This page claims that he did not dismiss Husserl.  The main page claims he did.  Which is it?
: The main page is correct, according to Heidegger scholar Hans Sluga, who is sourced at the main Heidegger page. Gedavis (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he dismiss Husserl or not? 

message: This article does not follow NPOV and is not written like an encyclopedia article.
: I agree. I believe it should be either completely rewritten or deleted. The Heidegger and Nazism section in the main Heidegger article is by far better and more neutral. And I think it's comprehensive enough, as well. 212.54.14.3 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This quote from Derrida, which I am not doubting the veracity of, is utilized in a reductive and misrepresentative fashion. It can be easily argued that Derrida's most important influence was Heidegger, and while Derrida may never have denied Heidegger's Nazi past, he certainly would not have implicated Heidegger's philosophy as being fascistic having borrowed many of his important ideas from Heidegger. In fact, even the Wikipedia article on Heidegger contradicts this errantly deployed quote.  
As a result, I took the quote out until someone properly contextualizes it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieziege (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Derrida quote at the end of the article. 

message: I find this section unclear.  It claims that critics cite this relationship.  Critics of what or whom?  Furthermore, it is not clear what citation of this relationship implies.  Can anyone clarify this?
Brackfalker (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anybody knows what this affair implies (for Arendt and her Eichman book for instance). One funny idea is that Heidegger's wife who was a nazi much earlier than him, was strengthened in this because of the affair.--Radh (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they made a baby, it would have been called race-defilement. It was a crime punishable with concentration camp (yes, this would have included him). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Affair with Hannah Arendt

message: His work Mindfulness (Besinnung) was not available until very recently, and when Heidegger wrote it he intended its publication to be very delayed.  In it, he clearly denounces Nazism.  The translators, in their introduction, point out that this is evidence of his position against Nazism: unequivocally in his actual beliefs, and equivocal in his actions during that period probably for self-interested reasons.  Anyone curious about his writings against Nazism in Mindfulness should read the section #47, 'Truth and Usefulness,' on page 102 of the English Continuum edition, and the translators' introduction for reference to other passages.  Heidegger associates Nazism with machination, which he contrasts with that in which he places stock in this work, namely leap into be-ing enownment (or whatever).
Ark2120 (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Denunciation of Hitler in ''Mindfulness''

message: Shouldn't it be spelled "Naziism"?Lestrade (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably.  It has also been argued that "fish" should be spelled "ghoti."KD Tries Again (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: You might want to note this book review 
"Heil Heidegger!" of the publication of the 
English-language translation of Heidegger: the 
Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy" by
Emmanual Faye published by Yale University Press.
http://chronicle.com/article/Heil-Heidegger-/48806/
Regards, Rumjal 
--rumjal 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An observation upon a quote presented by Romano: Hitler was Germany's reality and law and its future, this is a statement of fact: he really was its leader and he did produce or at least inspire its laws. He was in power for 12 years, therefore he was still to be Germany's future when Heidegger was speaking. Otherwise, I think that Romano's article is a reliable source about Faye's opinions, but not about making statements of fact. In fact, Faye could hardly make statements of fact, because his value judgments are all based upon lots of interpretation, they are not like providing unambiguous proof for his case. In so far as it is one academic and kind of popular thesis, Faye's thesis could be mentioned, but merely as his own opinion. I would suggest that statements about the lack of political philosophy in Heidegger's works are closer to being statements of facts, since such information is verifiable (or falsifiable) without relying too much upon subjective interpretation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of English translation of Faye

message: I made several changes to this section based on a review of one of the principal sources, Thomas Sheehan's New York Review of Books article. In general, the source was quoted in a biased way with the intention of slamming Heidegger and exaggerating the extent of his Anti-semitism. A more balanced use of the source does not diminish Heidegger's evident collaboration with the Nazi authorities, but it makes it clear that Heidegger's involvement was political rather than racist.Wwallacee (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidegger's period at the Rectorate 

message: I must apologize for making a thorough edit to this article in the form of numerous small edits rather than one big edit. I had initially intended to make only a small edit, but I began to learn so much while doing so, that I felt compelled to continue editing as I checked on additional references and found new material.
In my last several edits, I forgot to log in, so I was identified only by my I.P. address. Among others I worked on the following issues:
*Removed last section and repositioned some of it into Intro
*Moved material on Hans Jonas from "post-rectorate" section into "Fuhrer principle" section
*Removed negative comment about Werner Brock, which I was unable to source, and replaced it with a positive comment which I found evidence for.
In some cases, I added significantly to the length of block quotes. I feel this is warranted because of the controversial nature of the material - by giving more context, the reader is enabled to come to his own conclusions, rather than being spoon-fed smaller excerpts which support a particular interpretation.
Wwallacee (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thorough edit 

message: quote"
Emmanuel Faye claims Heidegger criticized the "Judaization" ("Verjudung") of German universities in 1916, and favored instead the promotion of the "German race" ("die deutsche Rasse").[2] However, this claim is based on indirect evidence: a non-extant letter of Heidegger's quoted by Husserl twenty years later.[3]
"
The letter using the term Verjudung is in print.  Heidegger was a far-right supporter of the dominance of the German VOLK - this is not biological racism - it is rather a language-based but extreme ethno-extremism - and as dangerous and vile.
The letter was referenced by Jaspers - as having read it - in the famous Jaspers letter to Heidegger - also now in print.
The term Verjudung is in the Eduard Baumgarten advocacy letter - advocating for preference to be given to a non-Jew for financial aid.
The passage is also quoted in its entirety in the Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, pg 87.
Heidegger's wife was the straight-forward anti-Semite: see the letter to her by Hannah Arendt ... and Elfride's letter to Malvine Husserl - also in print.  
G. Robert Shiplett 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a trendy sociologist from the Netherlands, Willem Schinkel. He coined the term culture-ism. It can be argued that Heidegger wasn't a racist, he was a culture-ist, of the literary-philosophical sort, not of the real-life bully sort. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

text: So, Heidegger did not stand for Blood and Soil, he stood for Culture and Metaphysics. Or: for Culture and against Western Metaphysics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

text: For Heidegger, the keyword wasn't race, but culture. Race was subordinated to culture. That's why he could get along so well with Jewish women: for him they were culturally German, race was of secondary importance. Perhaps in his private musings (read: black books) he thought in racial terms, but culture was primordial for him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Heidegger did not enter the history of philosophy as a Nazi propagandist, he entered it as the father of Postmodernism, considered a guru by ecological leftists. A simpler argument is: in philosophy there is no consensus. Everything one philosopher states is likely to be challenged by another philosopher. So, there can be no consensus that Heidegger's philosophy amounts to Nazism. Imho, it isn't Nazism, but some smart aleck will say it is. "Dismiss him because he was a Nazi" is an ad hominem. Philosophers have knee-jerk distrust for people who use ad hominems. For us such people score even lower than those who speak gibberish. Because when one is heard speaking gibberish, the problem could be with the listener. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  another revisionist lie (or simple bullshit in the Harry Frankfurt sense) 

message: I'm surprised that the chief exploration of Heidegger's anti-Semitism is nowhere cited in this article. Berel Lang argues, in his book, Heidegger's Silence, that Heidegger was an anti-semite all his life, that he held the view from an early age, and never once changed it. The argument is subtle, and is constructed mostly around specific absences in Heidegger, both in his philosophical writings and in his personal writings. Yes, I know this sounds a little specious (how do you prove a negative?) but read the book and I have no doubt Lang will convince. I will try to extract the key features of the argument and amend the Anti-Semitism section. Theonemacduff (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not that antisemitic as to avoid extramarital affairs with Jewish women. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: I've read that a Mitläufer is actually no sympathiser, to the contrary : he gives in to peer pressure without conviction nor resistance, so no fellow traveler either, and plays no role.
(German Wikipedia : Ein Mitläufer schließt sich nicht aus innerer Überzeugung einer Gruppe oder Handlung an, sondern folgt einem Gruppenzwang oder sucht die soziale Umgebung. Er nimmt auch keine tragende oder treibende Rolle ein. Im Gegensatz dazu bezeichnet man jemanden, der aus Überzeugung handelt, als einen Sympathisanten.)
Filinthe (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks as always Filinthe for your insights. I both agree and disagree as far as the general sense of the term, as used in particular by the United States, during denazification proceedings in the Western sector after World War II. As everyone ought to know today there were many, many problems with denazification. The division between East and West Germany (and the division between East and West Berlin) are obvious examples. The Cold War, not to mention the enormous task of classifying every single German person, with the added problem of ex post facto law has made it an almost impossible set of problems to resolve. Mfhiller (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Carl Schmitt stated in his own defence that having faith in an ideology is not in itself a crime. E.g., he said, present-day Christians cannot be held accountable for the crimes of the Inquisition. These being said, as pointed above, Heidegger had lots and lots of occasions to write racist philosophy and did not do it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitläufer 

message: I am proposing that only Fedier references that can be cited from English sources should be kept. Wikipedia standards do not allow unverifiable information. The statement "so-and-so (never translated into English by a recognised translator) says"... cannot be allowed on English WP insofar as the source is inherently unverifiable and therefore un-encylcopeadic. I don't mind a few references here and there, but now that an entire article is being over-written on the basis of dubious French sources, I'm becoming uneasy. In the first instance, Tom Rockmore, in his book on Heidegger's French legacy, has stated something to the effect of "Fedier's arguments are so ridiculous that one can hardly call them arguments, let alone waste their time translating them." I believe Richard Wolin takes a similar position. I can provide good sarcastic quotes from Rockmore. Also from Wolin too, both good, highly respected Heidegger scholars. Mfhiller (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's almost too much here to tackle in one sitting. Yes, it is unfortunate that there are no English translations of Fedier. However, although Farias and Faye's insane books (btw I don't think Farias's book is insane) have had the honour to be translated, so also has Hugo Ott's book. There are no criticisms of Ott's book as far as I know. Ott provides plenty of evidence that Heidegger was no mere lemming but followed his conscience in supporting the Nazis. Can you dispute Heidegger's almost giddy enthusiasm with National Socialism in 1933? Can you dispute the Nazi uniform he wore? What about his denunciation of Staudinger to the Gestapo? In what sense was Heidegger not an ultra-conservative and a fascist? Like many philosophers he was at least a megalomaniac (think of Hegel's proclamations regarding the culmination of history in his own thought, or for that matter Marx). This doesn't mean that Heidegger wasn't a good philosopher (or Hegel or Marx); it just means that he was a megalomaniac and probably a fascist too. Why can't we just accept this? It is quite understandable why Heidegger might have tried, as you put it, to hide his own Nazism even when it was an everyday obligation to show enthusiasm for Hitler: quite simply Heidegger had become disenchanted with the Nazis for not following what he perceived to be the true path of Nazism. Heidegger made no secret of this. And why shouldn't Heidegger have cancelled his NSDAP membership? Many people took far greater risks and survived; many of course did not survive. Should we blame Heidegger then for being a coward? He probably was cowardly. You are right that statements about historical destiny in themselves prove nothing. But they certainly prove something when they are linked to antisemitism, and not just antisemitism as we all know. As soon as one raises the question of historical destiny in these terms one has breached a wall, justifying all types of indoctrination, violence, and industrialised murder. In that case one might hold Tony Blair in equal contempt with Adolf Hitler. There are very real dangers interpreting Heidegger. I don't agree at all, however, that if one of the greatest thinkers was a Nazi then Nazism is no insane ideology. Nazism is an insane ideology no matter what, even if one of the greatest thinkers was a Nazi. A great thinker can also become terribly confused, as Heidegger did. Nothing needs to be explained away. Let the right-wing extremists and antisemitics quote Heidegger: I don't give a shit what they think about Heidegger. The only thing Heidegger ever said was that it is the responsibility of philosophy to ask fundamental questions. Mfhiller (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing that only Fedier references that can be cited from English sources should be kept 

message: The article now states that Richard Rorty is both a critic and a supporter. I deem that this would be not only logically inconsistent, but also not the case. My expertise does not allow me to solve this problem, so I hope one of you could!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.130.3 (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * There's nothing illogically about being a supporter and a critic. Rorty can have both favorable and unfavorable opinions about Heidegger (although I have no idea whether he did or not). --Mathscienced (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RORTY - Critic or Supporter? 

message: === References ===
--Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 20 May 2013 

message: --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The account of the Baumgarten denuciation is incorrect. See Baumgarten's own account in the Appendix to Lang, Heidegger's Silence.  Theonemacduff (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidegger's denunciations 

message: The article should contain something about the Black Notebooks. I've proposed on the Black Notebooks talk page that the Black Notebooks article be merged here. Any thoughts? Mfhiller (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, especially considering how relevant those appear. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/oct/09/heidegger-in-black/ --Mathscienced (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This whole article could be read as "Heidegger wasn't a Nazi, and here's the proof". Something on the Black Notebooks might help, as would a section on the influence of National Socialism on his philosophy.--Te Karere (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Formally, he was a card-carrying member of NSDAP, thus a Nazi. This is beyond dispute. But, as NY Books notes, he got disenchanted with Nazism and became suspect for the regime. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: After the War, Heidegger was defined as a "Nazi follower". The category is controversial; due to efficiencies in the denazification process, many assignments were administrative in a bid to reduce caseload. In any case, the Black Notebooks, a stub-class article, has yet to be merged here. It would balance the article to some extent. In addition to the noted disenchantment with the Nazi bureaucracy, Heidegger expresses his privately-held anti-Semitism. Many scholars have founded their work on Heideggeran philosophy; he was an extraordinary ontologist. However, he was also a person. Denialism does not do him justice. Te Karere (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not peddling denialism. We have to distinguish between hard facts and mere opinions. Heidegger wasn't a racist ideologue, nor a war-monger-er. He was suspect to the regime because he had supported Ernst Röhm and because he had shown an inclination towards race defilement. So, the regime did not see him fit for political office, nor for propaganda tasks. Anyway, Heidegger's thinking was just too abstract to have an impact on the war/genocide. He wasn't a camp guard, a bureaucrat (except one year of being a rector) or a soldier, so he played no role in WW2/genocide. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Notebooks 

message: I would question the very relevance of this article. What does it matter whether one German philosopher was or was not a supporter of Nazism? I don't recall any articles on whether any given Russian composer, poet or philosopher was a supporter of Communism.122.59.167.152 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whole books have been written about this.Leutha (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I have added the image for the November 1933 election. I feel we could add a bit more as Heidigger is focusing on the election from a philosophical point of view. basically there was only one list and the image gives an important cue as regards the circumstances of H.s endorsement.Leutha (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Heidegger and Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107062318/http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/88-nazi.PDF to http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/88-nazi.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926142855/http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/NormalNa.pdf to http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/NormalNa.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Martin Heidegger and Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/past_issues/issue/winter_1989_v15_n2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303223914/http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11052004-163310/unrestricted/Gauthier_dis.pdf to http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11052004-163310/unrestricted/Gauthier_dis.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404150727/https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/330T/350kPEEHeideggerSelf-Assertion.pdf to https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/330T/350kPEEHeideggerSelf-Assertion.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902185841/http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html to http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902185841/http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html to http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Who is Eduard Langwald? Is this advocate in favor of Heidegger the best authority on Heidegger and Nazism? Why must many evidences on Heidegger and Nazism be concluded by «Eduard Langwald thinks the contrary»? This amounts to give again and again the last word to Eduard Langwald on important points. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eduard Langwald