/natsoc/ - National Socialism

Very hard to get into his psilosophical thinking, but he was a genius for sure.

Absolutely powerful. As you said,

>he's well liked among Critical Theory and Post-modern academics for his philisophical works

but this is because his thought was so potent that our enemies couldn't ignore him despite his anti-modern convictions. Though now that his private diaries have been published and it's obvious how much contempt he had for the Jews as a collective, it's suddenly become somewhat fashionable to dismiss him.

People argue that his work on phenomenology must be wrong because it came from a guy who associated with "Nazi" ethics. But phenomenology preempts ethics in the human train of cognition, so you can't put Heidegger's philosophy under review because of who he associated with.

Rather, you must put who he associated with under review because of his philosophy.

>>1842

He dated Annah Harendt, a jewish woman.

I have been interested in the Heidegger's philosophy and it's political dimension for a long time.

To be sure, Heidegger was concerned with the realationship between the Germans as a philosophical people and an ancient experience of being known to the ancient world (the Greek origins).

His books are about a philosophical awakening in the human being to a primordial state of Being. (Buddhist call it enlightenment.) Heidegger calls it the unconcealment of Being and makes it the subject of an ontology investigated through phenomenology in Being and Time.

Western philosophy - unlike Eastern philosophy - has not been concerned with the essential experience of Being with just a few exceptions. Plato is writing about it in the Allegory of the Cave. (The poet Holderlin writes about it). And later on, after 1933, Heidegger realises Nietzsche is writing about it too.

For Heidegger, the movement of Nat Soc was a philosophical awakening of a philosophical people.

As the only philosopher concerned with the essential experience of Being he saw himself as an authority. He deliberately sought to legitimise the authority of the regime (on philosophical grounds) as rector of Freiberg in 1933. He later revised his philosophical position and authority because of Nietzsche. Through Heidegger's interpretation Nietzsche's philosophy holds that the unconcealment of Being is a surpassing of man (ubermensh) and perhaps not original Being. Scholars overlook that Heidegger said "Nietzsche has destroyed me" and think that Heidegger went back on his actions because he was merely "a bad man" or "had no civil courage".

A Nietzsche quote in Heidegger:
"Perhaps some centuries later one will judge that all German
philosophy finds its authentic worth in that it is a gradual
recovery of the soil of antiquity, and that each claim to "originality"
sounds trite and laughable in relation to the higher
claim of the Germans to have reestablished the apparently
broken link with the Greeks, up until now the highest type of
"human being.""

The statement Heidegger made in the Der Spiegel interview that the movement had an "inner truth and greatness" meant that the truth of the movement is greater than philosophy.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByBmdFWIrZRhVEM0V0RDTU9yNGs/edit?pli=1

It's really about asking how do we come to terms with the fact that National Socialism was Heidggerian. This is a truth that makes it more difficult to understand the darkness of 20th century history.

I'm not a huge Heidegger fanboy but he was a smart guy.

People try to detach his philosophy from his Nazism and, well, they're so intertwined. If you understand his philosophy you understand why he was a Nazi and what he saw in Hitler. At best you can distance Heidegger from the holocaust but not from Nazism.

Derrida's philosophy is exactly that of Heidegger's. There's really no difference. Heidegger was even very enthusiastic about Derrida's work and wanted to meet him.

At the end of the day, I don't think Heidegger's philosophy is very successful at doing what it intends to do. I don't think you need Heidegger's thinking to avoid what he says are the problems of modernity, and I don't think what he sees as problems are really that problematic.

>>1862

>Derrida's philosophy is exactly that of Heidegger's

That's completely wrong. Derrida did everything he did in order to attack and destroy Heidegger. Derrida is a Jewish hijacking of Heidegger, like Marx is a Jewish hijacking of Hegel.

For Heidegger, Logos (logic) is historically contingent (being) on a certain people (race).

Derrida's bitch about Heidegger is that we can never know this historical contingency because it is itself contingent (on differance), and therefore we, very generally speaking, have to be politically-correct about everything.