Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Early version

This is an extraordinarily poor synopsis of MH. It focuses primarily on the controversies regarding and offers little in the way of understanding...even regarding those controversies. -- 2002 Nov 26

Political ontology

I recently happened to read a paper speculating on the links between Heidegger's political views and his ideas of phenomenology. According to this analysis, Heidegger saw the rootedness and sense of place (analysed through phenomenology) of the Germans in direct contrast to the rootlessness and placelessness of the Jews and appreciated/ admired the former and had strong negative feelings towards the latter. The speculation also remains whether his political views led to the philosophy or vice versa. I was shocked when I first read this. If this is a valid academic debate, I think it is important enough to be included in the page. I hope that someone who knows about this better would contribute. KRS 09:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is the thesis of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's book 'The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger'.--XmarkX 09:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sexism

I noticed that one of the minor edits to this page consisted entirely of the replacement of "her" with "his" and of "herself" with "himself" in the following sentence: "Implicit in this traditional approach is the thesis that theoretical knowledge represents the most fundamental relation between the human individual and the beings in his [her] surrounding world (including himself [herself])." I know that the sentence originally had "her" and "herself" because I wrote it. I've noticed that this sort of thing has happened on at least a few other pages as well. What's going on here? An explanation I saw on one of the other pages was that "herself" is "too political to be considered NPV," as if "himself" weren't equally (if less obviously) political. Please, people, no reactionary editing! (I know this may seem like a trivial point, but it obviously wasn't so trivial to the person who took the time to change the sentence. It doesn't bother me when people use masculine impersonals--I do it a lot of the time--but editing for gender is just dumb.) -- June 13, 2004

Title

"What does Thinking mean?" would be a more accurate translation of "Was heisst Denken" than "What is called Thinking", the translation suggested in the entry. (Or at least that's how I feel:) ) --Tamas 19:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since the title for the English translation is "What is called Thinking?", and readers here are likely to seek the translation, I think it makes more sense to retain it. -- Simonides 04:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sartre a student?

The article claims that Sartre was a student of Heidegger. I believe this to be false. Heidegger at one point adored Sartre's writings, but they met only much later in France, hardly a teacher-student relationship. AxelBoldt 18:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sartre studied Heidegger, but he did not study under Heidegger, IIRC, so I too think the sentence should be changed. -- Simonides 04:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nazi sympathies

This article on Martin Heidegger has to undergo some deep changes since some of its parts were written in a totally accusatorial animus, even by reversing the statements of the german version. In the deutsche Fassung we read: "Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass Heidegger nicht antisemitisch und kein Anhänger des Führerkults um Hitler war, wohl aber ein Rechtsintellektueller mit starken Sympathien für die Nazi-Ideologie. Diese Sympathien können als Konsequenz aus seinem philosophischen Denken betrachtet werden, dahingehende Äußerungen Heideggers während des Dritten Reichs sprechen dafür, dass auch er selbst dies so sah" [ It is unlikely that Heidegger was either antisemitic or a suporter of the cult for the Führer, though he was surely a right-wind intellectual with strong sympathies for the nazi ideology...]. In the english version, we read: "It is not unlikely that Heidegger was antisemitic, and he may not have adored Hitler, but he had clear sympathies for certain elements of Nazism, and he certainly tried to be the Nazi "court philosopher". Whether this is in any way a result of his philosophy is still contested; what is clear is that while Heidegger certainly was a Nazi, the Nazis at large were not Heideggerian in their philosophy." I will have to erase some parts of the article because they go against the repeated and clear statements of Heidegger himself that he was not anti-semite at all; if we`re not willing to take his words seriously we can´t accuse him of anything. There are other pointless far-fetched unproved assumptions like "he certainly tried to be the Nazi court philosopher" and that "he certainly was a Nazi". What scholars discuss fiercely until today becomes magically all of a sudden a strong adverb like "certainly". If it is true that he never defended himself properly from the accusations of being a nazi sympathizer in regard of some matters, it is also true that he protested a lot of times against the accusations of antisemitism. He repeatedly explained, even in his letters to Hannah Arendt, that he took off from his book the dedication to Husserl on account of a personal issue which had had nothing to do with antisemitism.

You don't have to erase anything. Heidegger was in fact a Nazi for some time; how much of a Nazi he was, what sympathies he had with them, his anti-Semitism etc may all be contested but that he was a Nazi is a point that should not be ignored or removed from the article.

What I don't think belongs in the article is the "Nazi Germany" category. -- Simonides 04:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. We will never be sure whether Heidegger was a Nazi or not. There is enough contradictory data to refrain us from doing this sort of utterance. Judging him by his own words, he certainly was not anti-semite; whether he had nazi framed conceptions on other matters is something we can`t really know as he declared himself a lot of times ignorant of this field in which Arendt was clearly expert: politics. Ultimately Arendt, who had all the reasons to hate Heidegger, finally declared, by the time of his death, that he was enmeshed in a complicated situation of which he really hadn´t a grasp. She compared him to Plato when he supported the siracusean tyrant. So why can`t we just mention that there are discussions about this topic “nazi sympathies” ? I think Wiki doesn´t have to bear a judgment in such a delicate and polemical matter. It is better and easier if we let the readers conclude for themselves...In my opinion, Heidegger was definitely not a Nazi. One can easily reach this conclusion by reading his “Brief über den Humanismus”, where we find Heidegger supporting Marx´s ideas. That would be totally unacceptable for a real Nazi...

I think his membership in the Nazi party, and the bit where he followed orders directly given by the Nazi party, are both pretty good pieces of evidence that he was a Nazi. I mean, the degree to which Naziism influenced his philosophy, that we can hash out at length. But his political affiliation? No, that was pretty clear. Snowspinner 04:55, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

As Snowspinner says, he was a member of the Nazi party, and there is plenty of documentation to support the fact he took orders from the Nazi bureaucracy and was initially in agreement with them on some points. What you are concerned about is the extent of his guilt as a Nazi member and supporter; his motives, unspoken beliefs, etc and whether his Nazism was only nominal. You're right in that we can't be judgemental about it, but there is no doubt that he was once a Nazi. -- Simonides 05:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That´s nonsense. You can´t accuse someone who was not anti-semite (indisputable) and supported Marx`s ideas (cf. Brief über den Humanismus) of being a Nazi. That he belonged to the Party and obeyed orders doesn´t mean anything as a lot of germans did that without really being nazis. Whether they did that out of fear, lack of courage, confusion etc is another point which is far beyond the theme of this article. He was living under a regime of strong repression and totalitarianism. Had he been at ease with that he´d not have left his rector function at all. In my opinion, he was just confused. Like I said yesterday: “So why can`t we just mention that there are discussions about this topic “nazi sympathies” ? I think Wiki doesn´t have to bear a judgment in such a delicate and polemical matter. It is better and easier if we let the readers conclude for themselves…” I think easy and unilateral moral judgments are not what Wiki is really about. People – the readers – don´t need to be tutored by Wiki; they can make an use of the encyclopedia to reach their own conclusions. Well, that`s exactly what the Germans did in their article on Heidegger: those excerpts with outbursting blunt judgments were easily eliminated (“he tried to be the Nazy court philosopher”, “he was certainly a Nazi” etc.) Heidegger didn´t have a grasp of politics. He declared himself a lot of times ignorant of these matters and this ignorance, in my opinion, finally led him to those of his most right-winged statements supporting the Führer. By that time the perspecutions were not so fierce as they would be some years later so I think it`s totally defensible to say that he didn´t really know what he was enmeshed in. It happens also that someone as the Hitler`s secretary, who served him till his death, remained completely ignorant of all the facts regarding the persecutions. She was clearly not a Nazi and I do believe in what she says because she lived in a totalitary regime, not in a mere dictatorship.

I find much to dispute in the claim that he wasn't an anti-semite. For instance, his consenting to the order to fire all the Jews. Snowspinner 14:32, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Actually there`s no scholarly disputation about this specific topic. He was certainly not anti-semite and he protested a lot of times against these accusations. As I said, if we really want to accuse him of anything - what I find useless -, we have to take his words seriously, for better or for worse. Where do you got this info from? When Heidegger was a member of the Nazi Party the harsh persecution against the jews had not even started yet. There was no order by that time to "fire all the jews". In fact, I think your statement is entirely fanficul since there was never a public order issued by the Party to "fire all the jews". The final solution was agreed in a secret meeting (Wannseekonferenz) almost ten years after Heidegger had left the rectorship and the Party, so he was not supposed to know that.

Your facts are quite wrong and you are touting hypotheses that have already been debunked at length (re: Heidegger's political innocence, long recognized as untrue); "Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism", "The Heidegger Controversy: A Critical Reader", "Heidegger et le Nazism", "Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to the Later Heidegger", "L'ontologie politique de Martin Heidegger", "Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism" and other books all document and discuss this. In brief, the only scholarly dispute worth noting is whether Heidegger's philosophy can be interpreted as supportive of Nazism, not whether he was a Nazi - on the latter there is no serious doubt. -- Simonides 23:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Obligations and Unsplendid Silence (What else than an Apology): Heidegger, Celan, and Deconstruction Meet at "Todtnauberg"

Looooooong heading, I think. This section seems poorly written, and its heading needs to be reduced. It mixes factual information and critical analysis of the meeting with Celan. All the information is interesting, but needs to be broken up in my opinion.

The rest of the section is on Heidegger and his behavior with other people connected to the time and place. There really should be a separate place, in my opinion, where the critical reception of his work by critics who did not personally know Heidegger or Celan, namely Lacoue-Labarthe (1940-), hardly a major figure in philosophy, and his assessment of Celan’s tête à tête with Heidegger can be drawn into his analysis of each writer’s deeper purpose. Perhaps add a section on Deconstruction, not just a small Existentialism heading.

Another point, which is just a pet peeve, as well as a suggested practice on Wikipedia, is maybe the article that is on a referenced figure should be fleshed out before heavy reference is made to her in another article. Example being Lacoue-Labarthe, a page on him cannot be too hard to construct before presenting him as an authority on Heidegger and Celan. In fact, a brief-non POV- introduction about him- that he is- currently a professor of philosophy and esthetics at the University of Strasbourg and director of the doctoral Formation of philosophy- would anchor the comments made in the section. I think the edit gets too close to being an article on what Lacoue-Labarthe has to think about Celan and Heidegger’s meeting and not what Celan and/or Heidegger thought it meant. A person who could add to that issue, would greatly improve the article, and section’s content. --Mikerussell 17:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't like breaking things out into more and more sections. I believe concision is a more relevant criteria than length. I'm still trying to renegotiate the divisions imposed on the Derrida article after the fact, and it's a pain when you realize how scattered the article becomes. Threads are broken; more often than not I'd prefer to yarn a sweater than see an impressively long table of contents for a piece we're asked to keep under 32K. I may not be happy with all of my writing either, but I find the results preferable to continuing omissions. I find that the wikipedia format leaves me updating articles and trying to improve them progressively. Usually someone swoops in and does something baffling to the content organization in the interim, while someone else flames me, and I spend time puzzling over wikipedia organizational conventions, asking myself how I'm ever going to put a twice-fallen Humpty-Dumpty back together again, and producing more jumbled content in an effort to point out exactly how out of line the flame was. In short: please be patient.

Yes, I intend to improve the Lacoue-Labarthe piece (pending some additional research), and, no, Lacoue-Labarthe is not "hardly a major figure in philosophy". It's not untoward to find that virtually whenever Derrida speaks about Heidegger and politics or Heidegger and Celan, he highlights Lacoue-Labarthe's work as a long-standing pursuit yielding authoritative and thorough scholarship -- I really don't think that this is Derrida being generous to a former student. As for "what Celan and/or Heidegger thought it meant," I concede Derrida's point: it remains a secret. If someone can point me to sources with more information as to the matter, I'll gladly do the research.

In any case, I think a number of issues on this talk page have been addressed and ought to be archived. Objections? Buffyg 18:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I said it is poorly written, I think I would say what you acknowledged- the difficulties of a concise, coherent narrative is difficult to achieve at times. I think as things go, it makes good sense. I will reserve comment on Lacoue-Labarthe until later. As for the Celan-Heidegger meeting, there is an American Academic who wrote a book on Celan, quite detailed about his life in Paris and marriage, and his son the prestidigateur. I wonder if that could be a source for further research. I should try to find out myself.--Mikerussell 00:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The literature on Celan exploded in volume such that it was difficult to keep track even a decade ago. Could you be more specific about the Amercican you referenced (a name would be most helpful)? As far as I'm aware, the most authoritative biographical source on Celan is John Felstiner's Paul Celan: Poet, Survivor, Jew. I'm happy to update my bibliography if you have leads. Buffyg 01:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, John Felstiner is the author I was thinking of. --Mikerussell 04:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've also referenced the Heidegger-Celan meeting in the Celan entry. Felstiner is one of the sources cited for that entry. As it is, I've got a quote from "Todtnauberg" and a different context on the Celan page. Given parts of the story appear in both entries, I suspect a separate entry is needed for the poem and/or their meeting. I'll have a go at breaking it out later today. Buffyg 09:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To add my two cents' worth late in the game, especially as I see that "Todtnauberg" doesn't have an entry yet, I would say (POV) that Felstiner is not reliable to Celan interpretation, because he forces his narrative in such a way as to yield to his preceonceptions and therefore makes Celan one-dimensional. On "Todtnauberg", naturally there are several interpretations, but I think that by far the best and most illuminating one is that by Hans-Georg Gadamer (precisely because of his close involvement both with Heidegger and Celan, and because of his insistence on the non-biographical focus of Celan; "Todtnauberg" is usually under-interpreted). Unfortunately, in Gadamer on Celan. "Who Am I and Who Are You?" and Other Essays by Richard Heinemann and Bruce Krajewski (SUNY Press, 1997), this essay is inexplicably missing, which means that it is not really available in English. It is available in Gadamer's Gesammelte Werke, vol. 9. I would also say that Lacoue-Labarthe gets indeed by far too prominent a place here and in the Celan entry; even if one is friendly, he is hardly a paradigm-setter on this topic and just one voice of many. In this article - which I am of course not changing because it is not an "open" text in the current format -, it looks as if he were a more central character than he is. Clossius 10:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Existentialism

"Heidegger was one of the central figures of the existentialist movement, though he never considered himself a member of the movement." Whaaat? He was strongly against existentialism and thought Sartre's work inherently faulty - sentence removed. -- Simonides 23:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sentence re-added. I did not write the original sentence, but there is a widespread consensus that Heidegger provided some of the key ideas in the existentialist movement (the existentialism page on Wikipedia mentions him four times). Whatever do you mean by your claim that he was "against existentialism" (philosopical positions tend to be a little more complicated than "for" or "against"). And though Sarte coined the term, he is not the end-all of existentialism. It is loose grouping of thinkers (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, etc) with widely divergent views.

I am not a Wikipedia moderator or administrator, but I do think it would be helpful if you did not delete whole sentences without first proposing it on the edit page for others to consider. Or if you did you could at least warrant your claims. -- Samopolis 06:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am quite content with Buffyg's edit, which modifies your baseless generalisation Heidegger was one of the central figures of the existentialist movement, though he never considered himself a member of the movement. to the more accurate statement Heidegger was regarded as extremely influential for existentialism (as was Husserl), although he explicitly disavowed the importation of key elements of his work into existentialist contexts in such texts as the "Letter on Humanism". It would take much more energy than I have at the moment to quote every authoritative book or text which explains the significant difference between these two viewpoints, but since you are interested in "complicated philosophical positions" and defining existentialism apart from Sartre, let me just say that you have to look beyond the traditional, oversimplistic preface to an anthology of so-called "existentialist" works collected on the broadest interpretation of the term. -- Simonides 00:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What? Did you miss the part where I said that I DID NOT write the original sentence? I just put back a sentence which (while simplistic) was much more helpful than your lazy assertion that Heidegger was "against" existentialism. All I ask when I call for "complicated" philosophical positions is what Buffyg has provided: a nuanced and thoughtful discussion about the dynamic relationship between Sartre, Heidegger, and existentialism in general. What I oppose is the kind of simplicity embodied in the original statement (and your crude deletion thereof).

If you have such an informed viewpoint on these matters, why didn't you write the section that Buffyg did? And please don't belittle me for relying on my undergraduate texts as a guide -- they are much more substantive than any contribution you've made to this discussion. Samopolis 21:54, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Spiegel interview

Hello, I am de:Benutzer:Chef originally working in German wikipedia, among others on the Heidegger article. The lines about H's Spiegel interview I have taken out are factually inaccurate. I have got the entire interview here before me, and he never says anything like it. He does in fact not answer forthrightly and says some (my POV) weird stuff about Nazi ideology, Germany etc. I will replace in the article the lines with something more accurate soon.--217.93.116.109 00:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do. The article as is seems to be an attempt to mix guilt by association and general ad hominem attacks on Heidegger into a propoganda peice about how Heidegger and his philosophy should be disapproved of. Reductio ad Hitlerum seems like it might make a good internal link for the current version ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I won't say that there aren't sections that remain badly in need of revision, but there are two very different commentaries on Heidegger and National Socialism in the current article. The initial discussion of the "Right Conduct?" section has not been substantially altered, while the two sections that follow don't hold onto much from the first and cannot reasonably be said to ultimately "disapprove" of "Heidegger and his philosophy". The article is in short a lot more equivocal than you allow and does in places rise to a higher standard than that of a "propaganda piece".

You've made a number of revisions to the article. If you're say that the article is still insufficient, might you be precise as to your remaining objections? For my own part, I've researched and written new materials, but I haven't revised much of what previously existed, some of which contradicts materials I used.

What this article and its current flaws need is concrete editorial direction. There is some commitment implied in marking an article NPOV and that taking a couple of shots at the article isn't answering to that, particularly when the shots aren't that sharp themselves.

So... Yes, it is certainly true that some of the summaries given for the Spiegel interview are mostly incorrect (the phrase relating food production and the production of corpses was, among other things, from a much earlier public lecture [1949 IIRC]; discussion of the 1935 comments on the "inner truth and greatness of this movement" come from the Spiegel interview, where much is made of a parenthetically introduced specification of the "movement"). Yes, in the interview Heidegger is evasive on a number of questions, but much of what is raised wasn't so well-researched at the time that the reporter can point to many facts which would refute or even complicate Heidegger's representations; we're left taking testimony from a witness whose character is being question with little other evidence or testimony marshalled). Let's not entrench ourselves in that position. Buffyg 02:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to help where I can, and intend to continue to edit the article (perhaps I'll bring some dubious portions to talk) but I'm only just beginning to learn about Heidegger, and can't make a great deal of additions due to my limited scope of knowledge on the subject. What I can do is detect bias and such, hence the dispute header. No one really seems to have suggested here in the talk page that the article isn't both POV and factually innaccurate, so clearly there is enough work to be done for all ;) I'm going to ad a request for attention header. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

moved from article

Right Conduct? Heidegger and Nazi Germany

Professor Heidegger's life was marred by episodes requiring serious consideration for anyone wishing to assess his character as a man; namely, his affiliation with the Nazi Party and his extra-marital affair with one of his young students- Hannah Arendt.

Heidegger (among other German scientists and intellectuals)

name some (e.g. Carl Schmitt) or take out this bracket

joined the Nazi Party on May 1st 1933, before being appointed the rector of the university in Freiburg. He resigned from the rectorship in February 1934. During this time Heidegger's former teacher Husserl, who was Jewish, was denied the use of the university library at Freiburg because of the racial cleansing laws issued by the Nazi Party.

In the Spiegel interview, Heidegger denies that he denied Husserl this right. If we take this as correct, the sentence does not necessarily belong here.

Moreover, Heidegger removed the dedication to Husserl from Being and Time when it was reissued in 1941.

Correct. Heidegger says that this was due to pressure from his publisher Max Niemeyer. This apology cannot be proven, but should be mentioned as Heidegger's statement.

Why? It cannot be proven- as you state. What more does a reader need to know? You seem to have a bias, a POV which masquerades as fairness. You, nor I, know what Heidegger really thought, the fact of the exclusion- on his book- not Max Niemeyer's, is primary. Publishers are entities all writers must deal with, if Heidegger had withdrew the book it would be different. You seem to be searching for an exculpation. --Mikerussell 08:30, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Additionally, when his Introduction to Metaphysics (originally 1935) was reissued after the war, he declined to remove a glowing endorsement of the Nazi Party, nor comment on that endorsement.

The critical phrase in "Einführung in die Metaphysik" is innere Wahrheit und Größe dieser Bewegung (nämlich [die] Begegnung der planetarisch bestimmten Technik und des neuzeitlichen Menschen) (inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely, the contact/opposition of planetary technology and modern man)). In a way, the phrase in brackets is a comment (however idiotic). The problem here is not that he never removed it or that he was unclear about it, but that he in fact kept this belief in an "inner truth" of national socialism, much the same as socialists until today believe in the "inner truth" of communism.

The phrase is a comment, true, it is also an attempt to clarify his consistent belief. I fail to see how you have added much here, whatever you think the 'problem' is, the fact remains the same and the section should be in the article. Your analogy to "socialists" is hard to take with much veracity or value- it is your POV and a valid topic for the Discussion Pages, not a reason to delete the long standing article sentence.--Mikerussell 08:30, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

A further complication to the story is his affair with Hannah Arendt, a Jew, when she was a doctoral student of his at the University of Marburg.

which is, in the 20s, long before Heidegger's rectorate

It did not even end when she "fled" from him and moved to Heidelberg to continue with Karl Jaspers, and she later spoke on his behalf at his denazification hearings, and their friendship resumed, if extremely cautiously, after the war, despite or even because of the widespread contempt that Heidegger was held in for his political sympathies, and despite his being forbidden from teaching for a number of years. Heidegger engaged in a sexual affair with Arendt while he was married and she was his student, both of which have been viewed as improper.

Some years later, hoping to quiet controversy, Heidegger gave an interview to Der Spiegel magazine, in which he promised to discuss the issue provided it was published posthumously. When the article was finally published, however, he did not quell rumors, making a comparison between the hardships encountered after the War by Germans in Communist East Germany with those suffered during the Holocaust. Incredibly, the only reference made about the Holocaust in the entire interview was a rationalization that the Holocaust could not have happened without technology. In effect, he blamed the organized, systematic destruction of millions on the increasing world power of techne, or technology, despite the interviewer's repeated attempts to get him to assess Germany’s culpability.

As I have said before, this is wrong. My suggestion would be the following:

What is wrong? The whole thing, be more clear about what you are claiming as a factual inaccuracy as opposed to interpretation. --Mikerussell 08:30, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

[... provided it was published posthumously.] It should also be mentioned that the published version was not a real interview, but the protocol had been largely "corrected" on Heidegger's demand. In this interview, Heidegger's defense of his Nazi involvement runs in two tracks: firstly, he argues that there would have been no alternative; he says he had tried to save the university (and science in general) from being politicized and had to make compromises with the Nazi administration. But secondly, he also saw an "awakening" ("Aufbruch"), something which might help to find a "new national and social approach". From 1934 on, he would have been more critical towards the government. - Heidegger is evasive on some questions in this interview. For example, when he talks about a "national and social approach" in national socialism he links this to Friedrich Naumann. But Naumann's "national-sozialer Verein" was not at all national socialist, but liberal. Also, he changes between his two arguments quickly, not regarding they are in a way contradictory. And his statements often tend to take the form "others were much more nazis than me" and "the nazis did bad things to me, too" which is true, but misses the point in question. [paragraph] Also, the Spiegel interviewers did not bring to question Heidegger's quote from 1949 where he compares the shoah to engineered food production ("essentially the same"); in fact, they were not in possession of much of the evidence for Heidegger's sympathies towards nazism which is known today.

I think the issue you have failed to address is his analogy between the Holocaust and the plight of communist East Germany. You need to be more constructive and percise, as opposed to sweeping 'corrections' based on your own assessment of the interview and argument. Not a very good edit. --Mikerussell 08:30, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Heidegger's involvements with the Nazis and the lack of a clear apology for them complicated many of his friendships, and continues to complicate the reception of his work. It is disputable whether Heidegger was antisemitic or if he was taken in by the charismatic projections of Nazi propaganda, but he had clear sympathies for certain elements of Nazism. Whether this is in any way a result of his philosophy is still contested; what is clear is that while Heidegger certainly was a Nazi, the Nazis at large were not Heideggerian in their philosophy.

I would cut out the part after "contested;". Heidegger was a member of the NSDAP. Whether Heidegger was a nazi in ideological terms is the very disputed question. If "the Nazis" existend as a homogenous mass, had one philosophy and how far this was heideggerian is irrelevant. - For the matter of antisemitism, someone in de:Diskussion:Martin Heidegger used the fitting phrase of Heidegger being an "anti-intellectualist intellectual", regarding that anti-intellectualism and antisemitism were roughly the same in Germany even before 1933 and perhaps up to the 1960s. Heidegger was not an aggressive antisemite, but antisemitism would fit into his nationalist (and, one could argue, völkisch) Weltanschauung. At least, he would accept the nazis' antisemitism if it were for their "good" aims.

Obligations & Unsplendid Silence: Celan at "Todtnauberg"

Shortly after giving the Spiegel interview and following Celan's lecture at Freiburg, Heidegger hosted Paul Celan at his chalet at Todtnauberg. The two walked in the woods. Celan impressed Heidegger with his knowledge of botany (also evident in his poetry), and Heidegger is thought to have spoken about elements of his press interview. Celan signed Heidegger's guest book.

Celan, often taken to be one of the great post-war poets writing in the German language, was born in 1920 to an Orthodox Jewish family in Romania and orphaned by the Shoah. The Shoah is the explicit subject matter of numerous Celan poems, including earlier work such as "Black Flakes" and "Death Fugue" and later ones such as "Stretto". Peter Szondi was perhaps the first critic to begin to understand that Celan's poetry was not hermetic but incorporated extensive references to Celan's own experiences. Celan's poetry ought not, however, be taken as strictly or primarily autobiographical because of this experential substrate -- Celan offered only a handful of essays on poetics, but these give us better to understand a number of things. One is that Celan's poetics are deeply informed by Heidegger's philosophy (Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe argues that poems such as "Tübingen, January" could in any case only be understood on the basis of Heidegger's remarks on Hölderlin). Another is that Celan regarded poetry to exist as a distinct field of linguistic experience, the content which cannot be exposed simply through biographical explication, even if the latter remains indispensable. It is with such caution then that one ought to read "Todtnauberg", which Celan composed very shortly after their meeting and sent to Heidegger in the first copy of a limited bibliophile edition.

In his Poetry as Experience, Lacoue-Labarthe advanced the argument that, although Celan's poetry was deeply informed by Heidegger's philosophy, Celan was long aware of Heidegger's association with the Nazi party and therefore fundamentally circumspect toward the man and transformative in his reception of his work. Celan was nonetheless willing to meet Heidegger (although he may not have been willing to be photographed with him or to contribute to Festschriften honoring Heidegger's work). Heidegger was a professed admirer of Celan's writing, although he did not attend to it as Hölderlin or Trakl. "Todtnauberg", however, seems to hold out the unrealized possibility of a profound rapprochement between their work, albeit on the condition that Heidegger break a silence that virtually blanketed his work to the end (Lacoue-Labarthe has commented on the insufficiency of Heidegger's one known remark about the gas chambers, made in 1949). In this respect Heidegger's work was perhaps redeemable for Celan, even if that redemption or what need was had for it was never transacted between the two men. Lest one implicitly take this as Celan simply demanding an apology of Heidegger (such a scenario seems simplistic, the more so given that neither was given to simplism), there are reasonable grounds to argue that it was (and still is) at least as important to specify how the Nazi period is das Unheil (disaster, calamity) (which is to say: specificity as to a great deal more than counting the dead). What compelled Heidegger to write about poetry, technology, and truth ought to have compelled him to write about the German disaster, all the more so because, on the basis of his thought, Heidegger attributed an "inner greatness" to the movement that brought about that disaster.

Lacoue-Labarthe and Jacques Derrida have both commented extensively on Heidegger's corpus and both have remarked on affinities links with his Nazi commitments that persisted until the end. It is perhaps of greater important that Lacoue-Labarthe and Derrida, following Celan to a degree, believed Heidegger capable of a profound criticism of Nazism and the horrors it brought forth and hold Heidegger's greatest failure not to be his involvement in the National Socialist movement but his "silence on the extermination" (Lacoue-Labarthe) and refusal to elaborate a thorough deconstruction of Nazism beyond laying out certain of his considerable objections to party orthodoxies and (particularly in the case of Lacoue-Labarthe) their passage through Nietzsche, Hölderlin, and Richard Wagner, taken to be susceptible to Nazi appropriation. It would be reasonable to say that both Lacoue-Labarthe and Derrida regarded Heidegger as capable of engaging Nazism in this other fashion and have undertaken such work on the basis of his (one ought to note in due course the questions raised by Derrida in "Desistance" in calling attention to Lacoue-Labarthe's parenthetical comment: "(in any case, Heidegger never avoids anything)").

This whole paragraph should be strictly shortened. The Celan meeting is more or less a parenthesis of this excerpt from Safranski's book.

Then do it! Why delete the entire passage? If you want to shorten it, correct it, edit it, improve it- please do so. A deletion from the article is not warrented. it is a strict POV edit. To suggest it is a "parenthesis of Safranski's book" is grotesquely incorrect. It comes from a variety of sources independent of the biography, as buffyg discusses on this page.--Mikerussell 08:30, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Conclusion

The possibility that Heidegger's affiliation with the Nazi party was the result of his philosophy would lead many to discredit Heidegger as a philosopher solely on this basis (please note that such criticism would be prospective in application; as Jean-François Lyotard remarked, the formula becomes "if a Nazi, then not a great thinker" or, conversely, "if a great thinker, then not a Nazi"). It is worth noting, however, that whether or not this affiliation is distasteful or even ethically horrifying, it cannot as such be reduced to a sole criterion for judging the validity of his philosophy; to understand Heidegger's philosophical wrong one must arrive at a scholarly understanding of the extent to which the one partakes in the other (rather than attempting to "have nothing to do" with either). What is most objectionable in sharply dismissive criticisms of Heidegger's work is conflation of the two or the assertion that the two are simply but thoroughly coextensive (for example: Adorno's remark, offered in mitigation of his concessions to the National Socialist regime, that Heidegger's philosophy was "fascist down to its innermost workings," in contrast to his own failings, incidental by the contrast offered).

Having mentioned the contributions of Derrida, Lacoue-Labarthe, and Lyotard, it is worth noting that Heidegger's relation to the Shoah and Nazism was the subject of great and occasionally fractious debate across various deconstructions, whose stakes included the extent to which specific practitioners of deconstruction could entirely do without Heideggerian deconstruction (as Lyotard in particular may have wished) or were therefore obliged to further (and in the cases of many mis- and uninformed criticisms, recall) already extensive criticisms of Heidegger which considerably predated (in the case of Derrida, by decades) the broad recognition of Heidegger's activities as a National Socialist precipitated by press attention to the Farias book and extensive treatments of the Shoah and its implications (for example, the proceedings of the first conference dedicated to Derrida's work, published as Les Fins de l'Homme, the essay from which that title was taken, Derrida's Cinders and "Restitutions of the Truth in Pointing," or the studies on Celan by Lacoue-Labarthe and Derrida which shortly preceded the detailed studies of Heidegger's politics published in and after 1987). On so many of these matters, please see Avital Ronell's "The Differends of Man" in Finitude's Score. Particularly given that the ways in which various deconstructions have more or less self-consciously inherited from Heidegger is often used to find them complicit in his most reprehensible politics by implication, one ought to review at least the above readings before indulging such a line of argument or when otherwise wishing to understand what filiation has been taken to mean in a philosophical context.

What is missing here is the Conservative Revolutionary movement, cf. de:Konservative Revolution and also de:Sein und Zeit (both en articles are in need of help). If you crossread Being and Time and, e.g., writings of Carl Schmitt, you see the correlation. Heidegger believed in some kind of "true" and "good" national-socialism. He may be a great thinker, but his works, which do contain political aspects that can lead to nazism, are highly dangerous.

See also

To further evaluate the nazi issue, read "Only a God can save us now"

The German title is "Nur ein Gott kann uns retten"; there is no "now".

Der Spiegel interview with Heidegger(1966) and Jurgen Habermas, "Work and Weltanschauung: The Heidegger Controversy from a German Perspective." translated by John McCumber, Critical Inquiry 15 (Winter 1989): pp. 431-456.

The above needs work

So I moved it in here. Feel free to return undisputed portions as you see fit, but much of it certainly should not be in the article, especially not with that slant. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've made my comments. Please excuse mistakes in language.--80.143.52.124 20:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Chef)

You've done a great service. We should now slowly begin trying to merge some of it back in. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed

I think the article has undergone a rather shocking revision of some very forthright and factual information on Heidegger's conduct with Nazism. The sweeping, and rather poorly explained, deletion of contributions regarding Celan really mutilates the article. I did not contribute the parts which I am speaking of, and I think the Wikipedians who did, BuffyG in particuliar, have been unfairly treated. Some effort should be made to reinsert the massive deletion. The above comment by Sam Spade is really almost comical, You've done a great service. We should now slowly begin trying to merge some of it back in. YES! I think it might be wise to merge some back in, I think BuffyG might be the author we need to ask to do the job. I have made some comments in the sections above, although they are rather confusing, I suspect, because I have tried to insert them under the section/comments in question.

I have added the heading above the article because it was mutilated for POV reasons, not improved upon or corrected. Perhaps some serious consideration should be made to reinsert Right Conduct in total and edit out ambigous or incorrect parts. I hate to belabour the all-too-obvious, but Martin Heidegger was a Nazi party member, a person reading this article would not know this unless they read the Further Reading section which does not make sense. Why say further rading? Further reading from what in the article? --Mikerussell 08:13, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Heidegger

Dear Mikerussell, you have heavily attacked my comments on the Martin Heidegger - Talk page. I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding. Sam Spade had taken out the parts of the article, and I commented on them. You are right that the article is now very unneutral because the whole nazi involvement is missing. I will try to reinsert the thing. - You accuse me of having a bias, this is true as of talking privately, I heavily reject the largest parts of Heidegger's philosophy and see its connections to nazism. You accuse me of searching for an exculpation, which is ridiculous. Please read my comments and keep in mind they are not to be taken into the article, but were comments on a paragraph on the talk page taken out my someone else, Sam Spade, of whom I have no knowledge at all. The problem I had was the Spiegel interview. You ask: "What is wrong?" I have told so: in the whole interview, there is no comment anyway that links nazism to eastern German communism - this was a factual inaccuracy in the article! So I cannot have failed to address this analogy because H. never built it. Nor is there, in the interview, a reference to the holocaust comparing it to food production. Heidegger made this comment, but not in the Spiegel interview, but in a lecture, c. 1949. I wanted to clarify this. --217.93.124.204 16:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Chef)

See, I have reinserted it. I still do not see what is the point of the whole Celan paragraph, and, by the way, the so called "conclusion" is far more POV pro-Heidegger than anything I have written.--217.236.169.247 17:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I was a little cranky, and I did not know who took what out, in fact I had a difficult time knowing who- you, or Sam Spade- was making the comments. You might want to 'sign' after ever comment to make things clear. I thank you for letting me know that you are sensitive to the issues, and I wish i had more time right now to investiagte the der Speigel interview, I still think there was a reference to East Germany and the Holocaust, You say there is not, so until I can get to the library, I will defer to your judgment. I appreciate your input.--Mikerussell 21:41, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikerussell"

Since I added the The neutrality and factual accuracy tag, I will remove it now since I think the article is being edited in good faith.--Mikerussell 21:51, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

---

archived addition to May 2006---------

New Nazi section edits April 1st, 2005 & Emmanuel Faye

I removed large chunck in the belife that they were not needed to offer readers an adequate impression of what Heidegger was thinking/doing. i would suggest readers go to pages on the Deconstructionist authors to further understand the response to heidegger's 'naziam'.--Mikerussell 18:34, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

removed:Whether or not this affiliation is distasteful or even ethically horrifying, it cannot as such become the sole criterion for judging the validity of his philosophy; to understand the extent of Heidegger's philosophical wrong one must arrive at a scholarly understanding of the extent to which the one partakes in the other (rather than attempting to "have nothing to do" with either). What is most objectionable in sharply dismissive criticisms of Heidegger's work is conflation of the two or the assertion that the two are simply but thoroughly coextensive (for example: Adorno's remark, offered in mitigation of his concessions to the National Socialist regime, that Heidegger's philosophy was "fascist down to its innermost workings," in contrast to his own failings, incidental by the contrast offered).

Having mentioned the contributions of Derrida, Lacoue-Labarthe, and Lyotard, it is worth noting that Heidegger's relation to the Shoah and Nazism was the subject of great and occasionally fractious debate across various deconstructions, whose stakes included the extent to which specific practitioners of deconstruction could entirely do without Heideggerian deconstruction (as Lyotard in particular may have wished) or were therefore obliged to further (and in the cases of many mis- and uninformed criticisms, recall) already extensive criticisms of Heidegger which considerably predated (in the case of Derrida, by decades) the broad recognition of Heidegger's activities as a National Socialist precipitated by press attention to the Farias book and extensive treatments of the Shoah and its implications (for example, the proceedings of the first conference dedicated to Derrida's work, published as Les Fins de l'Homme, the essay from which that title was taken, Derrida's Cinders and "Restitutions of the Truth in Pointing," or the studies on Celan by Lacoue-Labarthe and Derrida which shortly preceded the detailed studies of Heidegger's politics published in and after 1987). On so many of these matters, please see Avital Ronell's "The Differends of Man" in Finitude's Score. Particularly given that the ways in which various deconstructions have more or less self-consciously inherited from Heidegger is often used to find them complicit in his most reprehensible politics by implication, one ought to review at least the above readings before indulging such a line of argument or when otherwise wishing to understand what filiation has been taken to mean in a philosophical context.

Additionally, I removed a senetence or two that I think I originally wrote, and seems rather cheap, or written in a gossipy tone, Professor Heidegger's life was marred in the eyes of many critics by his affiliation with the Nazi Party and his extra-marital affair with one of his young students - Hannah Arendt. Additionally, the fact that Heidegger engaged in a sexual affair with Arendt while he was married, and she was his student, thus wielding considerable power over her future, reflects poorly upon him in the eys of many. I cut.--Mikerussell 18:34, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

To remove all of the above completely on the view that they belong with articles covering deconstruction is to overlook the fact that Heidegger's work is regard as itself already deconstruction. The question of how one is to inherit from Heidegger is a relevant one, and it should not be removed from this article: this is essential to "what is left" of Heidegger. I have therefore moved the second paragraph to be the conclusion to the section on French reception. I think the reference to Adorno should be noted, so I've worked it into the conclusions section on Nazism. Buffyg 11:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finally, the person who writes comments into the HTML coded text should 'sign' the comments, or stop doing it and redirect comments to the TALK page. the following comments were edited out by me

Heidegger had not only clear sympathies for certain elements of Nazism, but he was entirely engaged in these doctrine : see Emmanuel Faye, Heidegger, l'introduction du nazisme (avril 2005).

If you're talking about a Faye, Heidegger, and the Nazis, I'd have thought you're talking about Chomsky's mate Jean-Pierre Faye, who's been commenting on Heidegger for ages. Emmanuel Faye seems most prominent as a Descartes scholar. Odd coincidence is that one of the addresses I found for Jean-Pierre Faye is in the Rue Descartes. Doesn't appear to be much info immediately available on either or the book on the Internet. Anybody known what relationship exists between the two, if any? In any case, this wouldn't be the first time that someone's published a book in French claiming to establish that Heidegger was an irretrievable Nazi. Perhaps you might elaborate on its content and what distinguishes the scholarship of this book from the rest of the pack to justify a starker claim? Buffyg 04:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Emmanuel Faye is the son of Jean-Pierre Faye. He uses texts not-published where we find for example this ontological proposal : the racial selection is a metaphysical need.

It is a bit difficult to accept immediately a substantial radicalization of the interpretation of Heidegger's work based on otherwise unpublished work (unedited seminars) brought to light by scholarship which has just been published in French. Emmanuel Faye's scholarship has only recently been printed. Let's wait to see what sort of responses he draws before crediting one account so strongly. His father's previous work on Heidegger and deconstruction has been received in some quarters as, for lack of a better expression, nutty (and his general views of the nuttiness of French intellectual life seem to have contributed to the more absurd statements by Chomsky on the matter). Emmanuel Faye's been publishing on Heidegger since 2000, but I don't have the resources available to do a literature search for critical responses (or for that matter to track down French journal articles in general). Given the lack of exposure and seeming novelty of the source materials, I'm rather reluctant to treat material from the recent work as well-established for the purposes of this article (although perhaps it is time to order a copy and add it to the shelf of reading I ought to do). Buffyg 22:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heidegger was racist and antisemit. A french philosopher, Roger-Pol Droit, writes (in Le Monde) :

"Finalement, le penseur de l'Etre en vient, au cours de ses séminaires de 1934, à remplacer une méditation pouvant s'adresser à tout être parlant (la philosophie) par le culte exclusif du peuple allemand, de son essence et de son destin (le nazisme). L'Etre est assimilé à un peuple en particulier, et toute universalité est récusée en raison de son "absence de sol". Il s'agit, dans la pensée même, de défendre et de développer ce que Heidegger nomme expressément "les possibilités fondamentales de la race originellement germanique". Oui, la race. Malgré tous les efforts passés et présents pour le faire oublier, on constate de page en page que cette pensée est, dans son fond comme dans son vocabulaire, raciste. Pas seulement quand il dénonce dans sa correspondance, dès 1929, "l'enjuivement croissant" (wachsende Verjudung) de la vie spirituelle allemande, pas seulement dans les discours politiques (où il affirme, comme en août 1933 : "Pour tout peuple, le premier garant de son authenticité et de sa grandeur est dans son sang, son sol et sa croissance corporelle"), mais bien jusque dans ses cours de philosophie.

Un exemple : le célèbre cours sur Nietzsche, professé à partir de 1936, a toujours passé en France pour une sorte de résistance de Heidegger aux interprétations biologiques des courants völkisch. Ce n'est possible qu'à condition d'ignorer deux faits, qu'Emmanuel Faye expose en détail. D'une part, la version disponible en français est celle fortement remaniée par Heidegger en 1961, où il s'emploie, sans en prévenir son lecteur, à rendre le texte anodin ou même critique envers certains courants racistes, alors que l'original de 1936 était fort différent. A cette date, le professeur recommande à ses étudiants la "judicieuse postface" du raciste Baeumler à La Volonté de puissance, alors qu'il semble blâmer ce même auteur dans la version de 1961. D'autre part, et c'est un point essentiel, le racisme nazi n'est pas uniquement une doctrine biologique. Hitler lui-même recommande de considérer la race sous l'angle de l'esprit et de la culture. On peut être völkisch en ne parlant que d'âme. Au bout du chemin, la mort de l'ennemi est la même."

Roger-Pol Droit's an interesting character. He may be a philosopher, but he's not particularly an academic philosopher. He's a journalist (his interviews with people like Foucault are fairly well known) who's had some of his work on "popular" philosophy printed in English translation (which is to say: it's fairly popular). Given how much newspaper print Droit's personally responsible for, could we also get a cite on the full article from Le Monde? Buffyg 22:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know more than a year has passed, but you may be interested in this English [http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/faye.htm interview of Emmanuel Faye]. BTW, he based himself on the last edited German volumes of the complete works, in particular one volume published in 2000 if my memory's correct. Remember that Heidegger maintained until his death complete control on the publication of his works. No wonder this kind of work was published posthume... Santa Sangre 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Have edited blacklisted link (NOWIKI) to permit saving. Hope that is permitted by policy.--Boson 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

sentence in need of correction

Lacoue-Labarthe and Jacques Derrida have both commented extensively on Heidegger's corpus, and both have remarked an idiomatically Heideggerian National Socialism that persisted until the end.

Can anyone make this sentence both grammatical and accurate? There seems to be a word missing (maybe an "on" between "remarked" and "an"), but I'm loath to replace it because I don't really get what the sentence is trying to say. --goethean ॐ 17:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely needs correction. I suspect we don't understand it because its author didn't understand it... Maybe we should just delete.

In fact, it is both accurate and grammatically sound - just a bit old-fashioned. The author uses "remarked" in the sense of "noticed". The reference to a Heideggerian N.S.-ism is clear to anyone familiar with the subject, but probably meaningless to anyone who isn't.

Hermeneutics hasn't been covered in this text

...although much of 20th century hermeneutics has been attributed to Heidegger.

http://www.google.com/search?q=heidegger+hermeneutics http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_theory/hermeneutics-_2.html

Whether you want to say that it's been "covered" or not, it is in the discussion of Being and Time, which includes a link to the hermeneutics entry. Not sure that it's reasonable to say that "much of 20th century hermeneutics has been attributed to Heidegger," particularly given the role Gadamer plays (although it may be equally unreasonable to make the sole section of that article on "Hermeneutics after Dilthey" a reference to the Gadamer entry). Perhaps a more lengthy discussion might begin by de-stubbing the entry dedicated Being and Time. Buffyg 19:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"Obligations & Unsplendid Silence"--Unsplendid Indeed

The section that's brilliantly titled Obligations & Unsplendid Silence: Celan at 'Todtnauberg' really needs to go. I mean come on, just look at it. "Obligations and Unsplendid Silence"? What does that mean? And why is it be relevant in an encyclopedia article about Heidegger that he walked in the woods with Paul Celan? Or that Paul Celan signed his guest book? Or whether or not "Heidegger's work was perhaps redeemable for Celan"?

If you want to write a pretentious article examining the influence of Heidegger on Paul Celan (or whatever this is supposed to be about), I certainly won't stop you. But the Wikipedia entry on Heidegger isn't the place for it. Delete. --** signed by Frederick T. "Squirrel Boat" Thronton III **--

If you want to discuss this, please consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette. In particular: please sign your posts and be polite. Buffyg 30 June 2005 11:45 (UTC)

You still lost me at "Pretentious Douchebaggery" and a lack of signature. Buffyg 3 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

Alright, I've gotta be good by now, right? --** signed by Frederick T. "Squirrel Boat" Thronton III **--

Now it is possible that we can discuss this. I'll give you a reply over the weekend. Buffyg 6 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Who knows if this discussion is still on, but i agree that this appears to be an inappropriate section in this entry and should be removed and rerouted. Platypusjones 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. The content is better served in other articles and the section is much too long. COndense with better linking or delete.Amerindianarts 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Word Choice Question

shouldn't it be "lost, deprecated" instead of "lost, depreciated"?4.244.87.47 3 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Well, the usage note at dictionary.com [[1]] says that in some ways the two words have come to mean the same thing... But I still prefer "depreciated" – has a ring like "devalued" or something, which I think is more appropriate here. --** signed by Frederick T. "Squirrel Boat" Thronton III **--

Heidegger and Nazi Germany:Conclusion

The Conclusion subsection of the discussion of Heidegger's Nazi affiliation really isn't neutral or encyclopedic. Non-neutral phrases include "it cannot as such become the sole criterion for judging the validity of his philosophy" and "What is most objectionable in sharply dismissive criticisms of Heidegger's work" - in both of these, these views aren't attributed to anyone. Unfortunately, I don't know Heidegger's work well enough to know how to fix this, or if this section can be removed as incurably non-neutral, or even as original research. Anyone? CDC (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I had exactly the same thoughts, so I'm going to be bold and delete them. Junes 22:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is unfortunately this problem at Wikipedia with neutrality on all the articles relating somehow to National Socialism. I'd recommend (i.e. with Heidegger) to separate the person/works completely from a comment relating to his involvement with National Socialism ("Nazi" is already a loaded term and selfdisqualifying).

I think that Heidegger's philosophy can only be interpreted as being a Nazi text with a great deal of work, and some pretty tenuous assumptions about meaning. The assertion that "fallen" is implied negativly for example is wrong and quite demonstrably wrong with a direct referance from Being and Time itself! (opening words of section 38). Indeed the wider implication that being anti modern makes you a Nazi is just plain weird. I fail to see a connection.--Korona 18:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify Heidegger's remarks equating the Holocaust with mass-production of foodstuffs. There's a lot to be said about the controversy in that remark, and the way that the previous author drops it into the text ignore the way "essence" is a word fraught with a lot of important caveats in Heidegger's work. (Esse means being, basically, "essentially the same" makes a comparison based in Heidegger's account of what makes an essence comparable, i.e. technological enframing.) Anyway, I added this text, and I'm wondering now if it should really be included in the section on the Der Spiegel interview, since this is explicitly -not- referenced by them.

>>[The Der Spiegel interviewers also did not bring up Heidegger's 1949 quote where he compares engineered food production to the Holocaust ("essentially the same.")] While Heidegger's apologists have attempted to account for this "similarity of essence" by reference to his essay "On the Essence of Truth," this overly jargonistic account of the technological frame that now infects human nourishment and human mortality certainly ignores more normal reactions to genocide. Moreover, many of those who align themselves with Heidegger philosophically have pointed out that in his own work on being-towards-death, we can recognize a much more salient criticism of what was wrong with the mass-produced murder of a people. Thinkers as diverse as Giorgio Agamben and Judith Butler have made this point sympathetically. Commentators differ on whether this philosophical shorthand is evidence of a profound disregard for the Jews or simply the astygmatism of an old man concerned more with his own legacy than with that of the Holocaust.<<----Anotherpanacea 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This article could use references to Farias and Rockmore, also to the critical reader on Heidegger and the Nazis.

The article thoroughly underplays the Nazi years. Heidegger had so little judgment about him, as Rockmore and Farias both note, that he deserves to be shown for the bungling Teutophile he was. He joined the party, he celebrated his membership, continued saying hile hitler all through the war, and so on. He is the biggest ass in the history of philosophy, but not just for his inability to see the sickness in front of him.

a great example of the lack of neutrality the previous discussion has been trying to avoid: the problem of memory and of German's coming to terms with a Nazi past (virtually every German family has members who joined the Nazi Party) is highly complicated, and not served or aided by such a comment as that. And for your information, it is spelt 'Heil' [CFH]

I would not go so far as to say that Heidegger is the greatest ass in the history of philosophy (although, while I have no way of personally knowing, he strikes me as somewhat of an ass). There have been plenty of greater, really big asses in philosophy; Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, etc. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "ass" (expand the definition enough and it will entail the likes of Wittgenstein and Popper... come to think of it, alot of German philosophers were asses). Drifter 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes think the whole Nazi issue gets blown up too much and given illicit contexts that are really questionable in regard to participation, and to a great extent better if just left alone. Historical context and a lack of temporal distancing can distort the real story. I studied under a German philosopher who at one time was in the Nazi army. He realized the sickness, hated fighting in Siberia, but really had little choice. People in that country at that time were drafted and more or less had to pretend to like it. This philosopher was a nice individual and no more of an "ass" than any other philosopher I have known or read. By analogy, I considered my own situation. Drafted, went to Viet Nam, saw the sickness of that unjust war, but really didn't want to consider alternatives. I didn't want to go to jail, or Canada, so I was inducted into a fest that I didn't want to be a part of. I've been called a baby-killer, which I'm not, and castigated for being a part of something I thought was wrong. At the time I didn't feel I had any viable alternatives. It was more or less simple survival.Amerindianarts 03:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He hated fighting in Siberia? Really? The poor man. Let us all shed a tear for him...--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather shed my tears for those that I perceive of as having limited scope and lacking in insight. Amerindianarts 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself. But tell us: Where exactly in Siberia did your philosopher warrior fight? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't specific and I didn't ask. He died in 1993 so it's a bit late to ask.Amerindianarts 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have asked. After all, if you believed the man that what Herr Heidegger wrote is philosophy, why not believe him that he fought in Siberia. Or on the moon, for all that...--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to answer this, if I could make sense from it. It makes undue assumptions.

• "After all, if you believed the man that what Herr Heidegger wrote is philosophy".--I did not state that I studied Heidegger under him, nor did I state that he stated a positive position on Heidegger and philosophy.
• "why not believe him that he fought in Siberia"--Where did I say that I didn't believe him?
• You seem to be inferring that because I do not know specifically where in Siberia he was, that I do not know for certain that he was in Siberia. This is faulty reasoning. Amerindianarts 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I seem to be inferring that, this must be my fault. So let me try again: You are willing to believe a German that he fought in Siberia without ever looking at a map to find out where Siberia is. In the same way, you are willing to believe - and explicitly state - that the only thing that matters for the article is what Heidegger wrote: without ever opening a book to find out what the man really did write.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know where Siberia is. I also know the Nazi army stationed troops in Siberia when it invaded Russia. I don't understand how you are coming by these presumptions. Did I say that I had never opened any of Heidegger's books, or is this another presumption on your part? WHere did I say that and where do I say don't know where Siberia is? Yes, it is your fault by making unnecessary presumptions which are not based upon anything I said, but simply on your inferences which have no basis in this text. Not only that, but you have missed the general point of the conversation and have decided to concentrate on mundane issues which are irrelevant to the big picture here. My bookshelves are lined with Heidegger's work and I have read them all. I did several seminars in my graduate work on Heidegger, including two semesters specifically on Being and Time as a part of my concentrated area of Kant and German philosophy. I suggest you get it together and try reading the conversation to find out what was really said. When you can reply in an informed manner, I will reply.Amerindianarts 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the famous battles of Siberia, the Yenisey, the Lena, the Yakutsk Kessel ...

But you are right: let us not waste our time on such "mundane" matters. And you are also right to remind us that "the whole Nazi issue gets blown up too much" and that "there is only what Heidegger wrote". I quite agree.

So tell us: What is according to Heidegger the only thing that matters (das Erste und Einzig Wesentliche) in PHILOSOPHY?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"What is ?" it with Heidegger? Is that your question???? Does it escape your thinking?? Do you think I have forgotten it?? Or do you have some other motives?? Do you think I really have the time for talk page chatter of questionable motive? Amerindianarts 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Chatter"? Das Erste und Einzig Wesentliche you dare to call "chatter"? What your teacher fought for in Siberia is "chatter" for you??--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What I call chatter is your inability to confine the discussion to the topic at hand. Your ill-defined motives in your queries have been nothing but attempts to discredit the interrogated party. Not resolve any Wiki issues or follow the discussion. ARe you familiar with Heidegger's "idle" talk? That is you. Yes, you are wasting my time. You're a fraud. Conversation is over.Amerindianarts 09:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I discredited you?? How can you say such a thing? If it weren't for me, who would know that your bookshelves are lined with Heidegger's works? Who would know that you read them all? Who would know about your graduate work on Heidegger? Who would know about your teacher who fought Communism on the banks of the Yenisey? Who would know about your powers of analysis, your logic, your debating skills, if it weren't for me? I discredited you?? You must be joking, Amerindianarts!

But tell us: Why do you refuse so stubbornly to enlighten the readers of Wikipedia on the subject of Das Erste und Einzig Wesentliche? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, and just as I suspected, you didn't get it, which is why I suspected you as a fraud. It is easy to cite "Das Erste und Einzig Wesentliche" and ask for a definition, another thing to recognize it when it is given. Once again-"What is ?" it with Heidegger? Is that your question???? Does it escape your thinking?? Do you think I have forgotten it??" Or, how about this?? "Das Seiende?" es mit Heidegger?? For as the scholar said "it remains only to listen to the answer proper to the word", and you must first ask the question in order to hear the word. The scholar continues "The word I have in mind is not my discovery, it is merely a scholarly thought", and the scientist replies "And thus,if I may say so,an historical reminder". Perhaps of that which we are in forgetfulness of???Amerindianarts 10:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re DEFINITION. But Amerindianarts, that's not what I asked you for. YOUR definition - especially in its German version - is of course appreciated and would look great in the article. But I asked you to tell the readers of Wikipedia what HEIDEGGER explicitly termed das Erste und Einzig Wesentliche in philosophy. "There is only what Heidegger wrote". Remember?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No. You are missing the point. What I told you was what he wrote--quotes from his work. What YOU are asking for is fine if you wish to be Encyclopedic by designating what you are asking for by a word, but this was not Heidegger's intentions and misses the point of "das Erste und Einzig Wesentliche". This is Heidegger's position: you can designate Being and Nothing by name, but this is all you can do, and to name them is not very scientific. Being and Nothing co-exist necessarily and to designate, e.g. Nothing by name is to treat it as something, which it is not. Thus, the first and foremost question (but not in the chronological sense) is "why is there something (Das Seiende) rather than nothing (Nichts). There is no definition-read the first page of the intro to B & T. If you want a word, you will not get it from me because it is a corruption of Heidegger's real intentions, that is, it is only a naming, a mere convenience which I will not provide you. If you want to inform WIkipedians as such, then you do it.Amerindianarts 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re "NO DEFINITION". But there IS a definition, Amerindianarts. In Heidegger's own words. Crystal clear. Not a matter of "naming". No "corruption" of his "intentions". A definition and plenty of examples. So as to leave no doubt. Your teacher fought for it in the Yakutsk Kessel. He fought for you too. The least you could do for him in return is to look it up and present it to the readers of Wikipedia.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're nuts. He didn't fight for me. Where does it say that?? He fought in the Nazi cause. Where in Siberia?? How is this relevant and who gives a shit except for you? So, why?? Why the questions which by your own admission have nothing to do with my original comment?? Why the comments which are absolute distortions of the previous discussion. How does any of your questions relate to what has been said here?? Is this some warped idea of the Socratic method?? Is this an attempt to exhibit some self-professed superiority of Arian intellect?? Why, why, why? If you are so concerned that Wikipedians should know (as if anyone is really following this conversation, how vain can you be), then tell them. Give us a taste of that superior intellect.Amerindianarts 11:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re TELL THEM. So who's talking about this page, Amerindianarts? In the ARTICLE you have to tell them what Heidegger wrote. In the ARTICLE you have to give them your interpretation of it.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re "YOUR INTERPRETATION". Wrong, in the ARTICLE we have to show what Heidegger wrote, but we are to do it by the interpretation of scholars, and not our amateur selves. While it may indeed be correct that we cannot escape giving it a somewhat "subjective" interpretation, this is subjective by the very fact, at least in part (and I could go in length on the sociological detail), by our very historicity. Historicity is not entirely subjective (in my own intepretation of the concept... no pun intended), but is found among the greater objection relationships in the social world. So, if we are at all to talk about interpretation in a wikipedia article, it would only be appropriate to say that we should give the interpretation of knowledgeable scholars, and we will likely also implicitly give the interpretation latent in objective social relationships, but never that we give our own interpretation of it. The talk page is also not merely a page about the main article, but it is also to enlighten readers as to various aspects of Heidegger's thought, and propose to add these when it is not clear that that would be a first instinct. --Drifter 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not make an exception, Drifter? Such a beautiful interpretation. Besides, if this will get Amerindianarts to enrich the article with Heidegger's definition, it will be a small price to pay.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving the quotes to wikiquote

I created a page for Heidegger in wikiquote and added a link to it on this article. Should we remove the quotations section from this article? Alex 04:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Section on Sein and Zeit

I think the remark in this section: "In his approach to this question, Heidegger departs from the tradition of Aristotle and of Kant, both of whom, despite the vast difference between their respective philosophical positions, approach the question of the meaning of being from the perspective of the logic of propositional statements", is misleading, or simply incorrect, and should be corrected. Aristotle was the last philosopher to know all there was to know given the knowledge of his time. He was comprehensive and his writings on "being" were not limited to propositional logic, e.g. the Prime Mover, actuality and potential, and his distinction between ousia and esse. Likewise with Kant who is reknown for his statement that "existence is not a predicate" in his refutation of the ontological argument. He also distinguished between existence as Dasein and existence as Existenz, the later being the propositional reference to being. Heidegger may have departed from these predecessors, but he was also heavily influenced by both. For Kant, logic was judgment, but judgment also presupposed proceeding on an "as if" basis, thus the distinction between Dasein and Existenz.Amerindianarts 04:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the author should be more explicit with the sentence" "Heidegger’s refusal to adopt current concepts such as the fact-value distinction..puzzled many philosophers". It can raise eybrows (to philosophers included) because it is not very clear.

I think you are correct that the statement is ambiguous, especially in referring the "fact-value" distinction as a "current concept". The terminology appears social-psychological but alludes to the same dichotomy that philosophers have quibbled over since philosophy has had a reason for being. The distinction is eternal, it is only the terminology that can be considered current. However, in regard to Heidegger, it is true. For example, Heidegger's concept of intentionality as "care." "Not-caring" would be a value judgment. To Heidegger even the most notorious serial killer would care about something, conscience or not. To say that "they don't care" is a value judgment. "Non-caring" in contrast doesn't exist. In sentient beings it has no reason for being. Thus, the distinction between caring and not caring is dependent upon a personal value judgment but is irrelevant and the fact-value distinction doesn't apply. All Beings care, and is in contraposition to non-caring, which doesn't exist, or belongs to beings (thinghood). The reference to Aristotle and Kant that I mentioned above though, is not true. Rather than spending the space to explain something that would have to be an original project, it should be deleted as NPOV, or linked to another page where someone wishes to undertake the project of explaining it. This article could become quite lengthy if these points are explained as they should be for clarity's sake. I think "fact-value" may be a good point, but a poor choice of terminology.Amerindianarts 04:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the section on criticism needs a little work. It contains colloquialisms and the word order of the sentence beginning with "saving" is bad. It doesn't have the clarity in parts that one would expect in a page on philosophy. Amerindianarts 23:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means change the word order, and replace the colloquialisms with something more suitable. No one's going to stop you. It probably would have taken you as much time to carry out those tiny modifications as it did to write a comment about them. -- Miai

Not very congenial on talk pages, are you? "Saving" is a colloquialism that is difficult for foreign translation and readers. You made some good edits (corrections) in regard to the inception of continental philosophy. I was just giving you a chance to make your own edits. Amerindianarts 00:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm new to Wikipedia culture and didn't understand the purpose of your comment, so I misinterpreted it as a mere non-constructive snide remark, and replied in kind. Personally I'm just happy if people do minor edits of that sort for me, so by all means go ahead and correct the perceived deficiencies. I do find it somewhat amusing, though, that I am charged with making it difficult for "foreign" readers, since I am such a reader myself ("foreign" in this context presumably meaning "non-native speaker"). -- Miai

Yes. I thought you were a Non-native. I realize that more and more non-natives receive English in their education, but there is a lot of things in English that don't translate well. You seem to "have a handle" (a colloquialism) on the language. Amerindianarts 05:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW. Putting the name of Ryle's article in the sentence may help. I would like to know it myself. I had problems only with "saving" and the placement of the "of" between the publications. Amerindianarts 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember the name of Ryle's article (which most likely was simply something like "Review of Being and Time"), and I have no reference handy where I could look it up. As for my use of language, again, please do correct the parts you perceive as inadequate. You're the one having trouble with it, so presumably it would be best if you would also be the one to correct it. I don't mean to be rude, but this subthread has dragged on for long enough already, don't you think? Maybe it's time to just change what should be changed and then move on to other things. -- Miai

Introductory edits

"Of course, Being is a fundamental concept in metaphysics, Heidegger did not deny this, 'to be' is not a material object to be encountered like a door, and like 'meaning' Being must be considered after physics."

This sentence should be rewriiten, or just eliminated. Being is a fundamental concept for Heidegger, but to say "'to be' is not a material object to be encountered" is misleading. Heidegger distinquished between "Being" and "being", or the "ontological" and the "ontic", but he did not say that objects could not "be". "Being must be considered after physics" contradicts what was stated in the previous part of the sentence as well. Being is fundamental and Heidegger reminded us that we are in forgetfulness of being and our roots, so "after physics" means what? All it means is that Aristotle placed the book after the Physics and this entry has no bearing or consistency with what the sentence states, or Heidegger's position. Amerindianarts 20:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm gald to see Anglo-American power and control in action. So, Amerindianarts, you are an authority on Heidegger? Maybe you should say why metaphysics was unimportant to Heidegger? And by the way, your attitude to the "Non-native" speaks volumes. - Martin.

Yes, I am a professional philosopher and versed in Heidegger. I did not say that metaphysics were unimportant to Heidegger, you did. I know all about Sorge, it is referred to later in the article because I put it there. You completely distorted what I said and your misinterpretation and distortion, and your poor choice of forum, reflects quite a bit of hostility. Interpretation, Anglo or non-Anglo,should be the same in order to be NPOV. There is no Anglo version. There is no non-Anglo version. There is only what Heidegger wrote. Your efforts to make this an ethnic or political issue reflects really poor judgment. Amerindianarts 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well as long as you say that it is not Anglo-centered then it must be true. You stated that Heidegger wanted to move Western philosophy away from metaphysical questions, how? Again, in what way are questions over the meaning of being non-metaphysical? I believe that this article completely omits to tackle metaphysics in Heidegger's thought. If I am rude it is because you delete my comments without a response to my question. I get the impression, from reading this article, that Wikipedia is over run by 'experts', and yes, I do contend that Wikipedia is an Anglo-American project, as is much on the internet. - Martin.

Please don't edit other people's comments, Martin. I restored your edit. --FranksValli 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So, are the people who dictate on this webpage looking for an article on the importance of metaphysics in Heidegger's Being and Time? This article completely ignores this important aspect of his thought. Are there any Europeans willing to speak up on the use Heidegger makes of metaphysics in Being and Time?

"Please don't edit other people's comments", that's rich, considering you have deleted all of my comments from the article. Lets have some non-Anglo views please. - Martin

Martin, I have only restored your edits to another person's comments on this talk page. --FranksValli 04:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are you people to keep deleting my comments on metaphysics in Heidegger's thought? Is Wikipedia run by autocratic fascists? Why are you not going to answer my question, thus: In what way is the question of the meaning of being not metaphysical? I assume you will not answer it because you are Anglo-American types whose analytical thought struggles to get past your own noses. Do you even know what metaphysics is? - Martin.

I do. See my comments above concerning instigation of ethnic issues. Does any one Know?? How does one file a complaint against a user who edits other peoples comments on talk pages, uses articles as a forum for comments and the general instigation and negativity for ethnic purposes? Amerindianarts 01:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do believe you were talking about a "Non-Native" in an earlier discussion. What do you mean by that? - Martin

I do not know to what you are referring, although you seem to assume that I am an Anglo. Do you know this for sure, as if it really makes any difference for the purposes of NPOV. As for the non-distinction you are trying to make use of between metaphysics and ontology, that is not correct. Metaphysics is much more general than ontology (have you read What is Metaphysics?) Why don't you try to rewrite the sentence?Amerindianarts 01:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you fear my comments on the Anglo-American centered view point? Accusing me of being racist for wanting to challenge what I consider to be an Anglo-centered position in this article (and others) is not only poor judgement on your part, but you also prove my point on the overweening control of the English speeking world in Wikipedia by your wish to have me banned from what is susposed to be an Open Source project. What are my rights reguarding defamation? Considering the world is run by Anglo-American culture and politics, you have no need to fear my criticisms, and infering that I am racist is nothing short of a disgrace. - Martin.

If it is acceptable I would like to add a short article on what I consider to be the importance of metaphysics in Being and Time, in due course. Yes I have read What Is Metaphysics? I wish to end this discussion now as there seems to be little respectin it.

The ethnic issues were your doing. The record is clear. Don't try to put it off on me. NPOV is neither Anglo nor non-Anglo. I also don't want to see you banned. You just need to know proper etiquette. YOU made the article your own personal forum. I simply tried to control what was not a neutral point of view in your personal forum. It is an Open project, but that does not mean making the articles personal forums as you tried to do. I will be looking forward to you making a contribution true to Heidegger's position, and not your own.Amerindianarts 02:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to write anything from a neutral point of view? I don't beleve it is. And it was YOU who inferred that I am racist, and damm right I'm going to be annoyed at that, okay? I think I will obtain a proper encyclopedia from a book shop, it will be more enlightening. - Martin

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY, that says it all. - Martin.

I have reread my comments and do not see the word "racist". Perhaps you could point it out. I do see, however, references by you to ethnic differences and political comments such as "autocratic fascists". I think if someone were to read the history of the edits you (user 86.135.53.17 )made to the Heidegger article when using it as you own political and ethnic forum they would see the slurs and innuendos you purport. Amerindianarts 02:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I said you 'inferred' it, get it right. So you don't think that Wikipedia, and by extension the internet, is Anglo-centered? I see you have my IP number, and have published it.....exactly the actions of a fascist. You will not intimidate me.

OK that is not my IP address, but I wouldn't put it past you, as you wish to ban me from this site. I don't believe you when you say you don't. Incidentally, people who claim to write from a neutral point of view are either lying or they are dangerous or both. That is my honest opinion and it is not a neutral one. I would have more respect for Wikipedia if they stopped being in denile about their suspposed neutrality. Neutrality is an idealistic dream usually perpretrated by those with too much control.

No one's out to get you - this is only what is showing up in the edit history. This is the address that is editing the article and also leaving these comments, including your comment above. You can see the edit history by clicking on "History". It might not be your actual IP address if you're connected to the internet through a proxy or if your IP address is spoofed. Please create an account if you don't want to be associated with that IP. --FranksValli 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The tone of this discussion isn't helpful. It would be better if someone were able to make a distinction (if there is one) between 'metaphysics' and ontology. Brotos.

While the two concepts overlap, there is a definite distinction and they are often confused. An occasional Philosopher in the past has used the two terms interchangeably but for the most part ontology is considered a subdivision of metaphysics. Some see ontology as one of the four major divisions in philosophy and metaphysics as the 'first philosophy' which permeates the divisions. Others treat metaphysics as one of the four divisions with ontos as a subdivision. "Ontology" as a term was first used in the seventeenth century as a term to distinguish taxonomic structure from the scholastic natural theology. The Wolffian school used "ontology" to distinguish a deductive method distinct from metaphysics, utilizing the principle of contradiction and sufficient reason. Kant used ontology to distinguish rational psychology from empirical psychology, and it is often used to denote taxonomic structures in being. Heidegger used the term "ontology" non-systematically and non-deductively. He criticized the Wolffian "Why is there something rather than nothing?" by stating that the query presupposes knowledge of Being and Nothing. Quine's use was a logical preoccupation with the distinction between intensional and extensional logic, questioning to what type of entity is our existential commitment. The list goes on. Amerindianarts 22:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

To bypass the inunendo and refer to the question of 'metaphysics': it is quite clear (see What Is Called Thinking? and 'What Are Poets For?') that Heidegger considers metaphysics as an aspect of philosophy that is not a fundamental. To quote: "Therefore the thinking that in Being and Time tries to advance thought in a preliminary way into the truth of being characterizes itself as "fundmental ontology." It strives to reach back into the essential ground from which thought concerning the truth of being emerges." -Letter on "Humanism", p 271. Thus metaphysics constitutes a human endeavour in the field of philosophy, one that Heidegger would no doubt consider an example of 'muddled thinking' -his description of philosophy in Poetry, Language, Thought. His project is to recover the basic nature of thinking that was 'practicised'in the presocratic times (by Heraclitus et al). But to answer the question concerning metaphysics directly: Nietzsche completed the project of Western metaphysics. It is for Heidegger no longer a 'live' issue, the only question might be how current thinking is affected by this juncture; this specifically can be seen in his discussion of Rilke's poetry in What Are Poets For? Nietsche's philosophy (his Superman etc, which represents to Heidegger this completion) is discussed in What Is Called Thinking? Tsop 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Gestell

There should be some mention of gestell imho. Anyone agree?

Put it in the proper section, keep it short and in the context of his position on technology, and link to Gestell (which is where the real work should be). Amerindianarts 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of a Work of Art

Vincent Van Gogh. "A Pair of Shoes". (1885). Heidegger used this painting in his exposition of the essence of art

Someone should write something about "The Origin of a Work of Art". Or would that be better suited for a separate article?

Changes re Biography

The article was lacking a formal biography section, which is particularly bad for Heidegger, seeing that his biography is so much the focus of the discussion of his philosophy. Thus, I added what I hope to be an objective biographical sketch, without any references to influences etc. I also added as another subsection something on his personal and family life, for the same reasons - I do not like the keyhole approach to biography, but Heidegger's affairs are important and so are, actually, those of his wife. I am not sure whether that segment is correct at that point or in that category; could be a subsection in "Biography" as well. I've then restructured the rest of the article accordingly, I hope with as little damage as possible - just deleting duplications (and one erroneous mixup of his PhD with his Habil) and sorting out general remarks on his philosophy, things on his education and influence, and biographical stuff. The article needs much more work, especially a.f.a. the structure is concerned, but I hope it is at least a bit more informative now. Clossius 10:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

only rivalled by Wittgenstein?

This statement strikes me as somewhat subjective:

Heidegger is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century, his only rival being, perhaps, Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The first part is quite accurate—he's one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century by any measure. The claim that his only rival for most significant is Wittgenstein is rather subjective, though. What about, say, Bertrand Russell? It is hard to compare their significance, since they influenced wildly different fields apart from philosophy (Heidegger had much more influence in literary theory; Russell much more in mathematics; etc.). --Delirium 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re SIGNIFICANT. What's your problem? Wittgenstein would have LOVED that. Wo ist der verdammte Poker? That is what he would have answered.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. My point is that claiming Heidegger and Wittgenstein are undisputably the two most significant philosophers of the 20th century is a subjective claim that is not sourced and likely false, and should therefore be removed. (I should emphasize that I'm not in any way disputing the notability of either Heidegger or Wittgenstein, or even that they are two of the most notable of the 20th century, only the more narrow claim that they are the two most notable.) --Delirium 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re REMOVED. I'm with you, Delirium. Nearly 90% of the way. But take a closer look:
The claim is definitely subjective. It is also DEFINITELY (not only "likely") false, and would also definitely be false if it were "sourced". Any value judgment that claims indisputability is false BY DEFINITION.
Should it therefore be removed? I don't think so. Wikipedia should reflect what is regarded as "knowledge" by the people that count, and it is unfortunately a fact that the Herren Professoren of Deutschland have somehow managed to convince all other Herren Professoren that Heidegger's stupid babbling about Kehre, Geviert, Gestell, Geworfenheit, Sein, Seyn (simple and crossed) et cetera et cetera is Philosophie and that this obscurantist fake was a great if not the greatest Philosoph of the 20th century. We may not like it, Delirium, but the claim reflects current opinion and should therefore not be removed. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How is your POV regarding what Heidegger said at all relevant? noosphere 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Heidegger is an extremely bad writer. Extremely bad. However, I consider him to be a great philosopher for his ideas, not his writing. Heidegger gave us a way of escaping the dubious dualism set forth by such modern philosophers as Descartes between the mind and the body, man and world, subject and object. Heidegger showed, hermeneutically, that theoretical intentionality (consciousness, thought, etc.) presupposed a more primordial backdrop of practical involvement/skillful coping. This is a great idea! Heidegger's emphasis on practice, use, and involvement were ingenious (though perhaps a little obvious) and were great for escaping the cuffs of traditional philosophy. Another of Heidegger's major contributions to philosophy was the notion of ready-to-hand, as opposed to the present-at-hand. While most of traditional philosophy, and especially metaphysics and ontology, were concerned with the present-at-hand, Heidegger showed readiness-to-hand as a mode of being prevalant in many things (or, considering that they were ready-to-hand, 'objects'). This is just a few of the reasons why Heidegger is considered great, and why he will be considered one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century. I am that it may be agreed that some other philosophers, such as Merleau-Ponty (though I have not read him), contribute like theories and with much better writing, Heidegger was in some sense the "first", and unfortunately it is a finders-keepers world. Now, I would also ask of you, Mr. Zollinger, what you deem to be true philosophy? Why is it that you so adamently refuse to consider Heidegger a true philosopher?

Please note, also, that much of Heidegger's ideas concerning practice have great implications for empirical research.

One more thought. Heidegger's writing was terrible, for everyone. But he was trying to escape the confines of metaphysical discourse. He was trying to avoid using rational-calculative, technological language, for he would then merely perpetuate the doctrine(s) that he wished to do away with. I think this has to be taken into account when considering Heidegger's writing. Kind regards, Drifter 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

3 Re POV. Let me point out that what you call my POV is in fact the POV of Wittgenstein and Russel (very well documented). But I'm proud indeed that you credit me with it. But tell me, Noosphere, are you trying to suggest that the opinions of the Herren Heideggerverehrer are NOT just POV? You may be right. Perhaps we should give them another name. But you'd have to elaborate. In your opinion: What, exactly, is the high regard for that great Philosoph and his even greater Philosophie based on? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So a couple of philosophers and you don't like Heidegger. Again, how is this relevant? As to Heidegger's POV, whatever it may be, it is very relevant to the article, but not at all relevant to the issue in question. So why do you bring it up? Do you have anything relevant to contribute on this question or are you just looking for a little soapbox to tell us about your contempt for Heidegger? noosphere 18:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Re CONTEMPT. Contempt for Heidegger, Noosphere? What makes you think that? Russell and Wittgenstein had contempt for Heidegger. And Schlick, Carnap, Neurath, Reichenbach, Popper and Tarski HATED him. POSITIVELY! I, on the other hand, love every word of his. Listen: Das Zeugsein des Zeuges, die Verlässlichkeit, hält alle Dinge je nach ihrer Weise und Weite in sich gesammelt. Die Dienlichkeit des Zeuges ist jedoch nur die Wesensfolge der Verlässlichkeit. How can anyone have contempt for THIS, Noosphere? Heaven forbid!
But you haven't answered my question, Noosphere. What, exactly, is the reason that the Herren Professoren aus Amerika hold Heidegger in such high esteem?
In Switzerland such a question would be considered as eminently relevant to the article. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear once more that you, personally, don't think so. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you are speaking of the early Wittgenstein or the later Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein II had much in common with Heidegger, namely the emphasis on practice. Indeed, when you say that it was the opinion of Russell and Wittgenstein it would suggest you are speaking of the early Wittgenstein. Note that the later Wittgenstein completely rejected all of his earlier views. If you are speaking of Wittgenstein II, god forbid that you placed him in the same conjunction as Russell! Further, it seems like all the philosophers you mentioned who had contempt for Heidegger were analytic philosophers, more specifically logical positivists, and many were (or wanted to be... Popper you sly dog... poker duels anyone?) in the Vienna Circle. It is no wonder they hated Heidegger, they were diametrically opposed to most of continental philosophy, and HATED metaphysics (yes, later Heidegger also rejected metaphysics, but Sein und Zeit was itself a metaphysical endeavor). More, they DESPISED obscure language (ummm... analytic philosophers... hello?!).-Drifter 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re LABELS. Analytic Philosophers/Psychologists: Do you really think that such labels matter? And do you really believe that there is more than one Wittgenstein? How about Heidegger? Also more than one?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Re LABELS. Such labels do matter. It is from such labels that we may more appropriately determine the various dispositions and thoughts of a philosopher within a like range of dispositions and thoughts. We understand, when we speak of analytic philosophers, a certain type of philosophy, and are able from thereon to compare and contrast it with the philosophies of other schools and thinkers. When one speaks of logical positivists, we can make out the situations of the thinkers, and more appropriately understand the thinkers. Situation matters.

While both Wittgenstein's were certainly fascinated with the same stuff, i.e. language, it cannot be denied that Wittgenstein applied to two completely differant schools of thought on the matter in the course of his life. Early Wittgenstein believed that all linguistic propositions could be reduced to basic logical ones, and the world (if I understand it correctly, I have not read much Wittgenstein, only about him). The Later Wittgenstein completely, absolutely rejected this view, and as I understand it had nothing but contempt for those who maintained it. Wittgenstein II saw language as embodied in use, and not basic logical functions, and not chained to the world of objects. Now, to say "more than one Wittgenstein" is not at all to make an ontical statement. We refer instead to those theories, ideas, and schools of thought denoted by the name Wittgenstein, and not his physical self. To use Wittgenstein, if you believe that we must be making an ontical statement when we say "more than one Wittgenstein", you certainly do not understand how language is used in ordinary life.

I would also beg of you to lay down the many questions that are framed such that it is obvious that you think you have an answer to them. While I appreciate the opportunity to think on such matters, I would love to be enlightened as to your own thoughts. Do you really think that such labels matter? Why do you believe Heidegger is cannot be considered a philosopher (I know Heidegger himself would reject the label, for he believes philosophy to have ended, but you seem to have a much rawer attack, which is not a bad thing)? I ask for the sake of knowledge, and am sure that your opinion will provide some valuable insights to the work of Heidegger (early and late), Wittgenstein (early and late), and the so-called 'analytic philosophers'. However, I feel that this particular thread is getting quite disorganized, and that you would please answer these questions, or reply to my reply, in a new thread, or perhaps on my talk page. Kind regards, Drifter 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So, once again it appears that you've got nothing more to contribute than your hatred for Heidegger and esteem for the opinions of the logical positivists. Why don't you go make yourself a blog about it and stop wasting our time?

As to your question regarding why Heidegger is held in such high esteem, that question may irk and haunt you but is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand, which is whether the article should claim he is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century. To be significant one does not have to be held in high esteem. Even the positivists found him significant enough to execrate.

Anyway, to answer the original question, I think the statement is POV and should be removed unless a source can be cited (which shouldn't be hard to do, considering the POV that Heidegger is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century is far from uncommon). noosphere 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Re LOGIC. You are right, Noosphere. The hatred and contempt of the Wiener Kreis makes Heidegger SIGNIFICANT. It also makes Alfred Rosenberg SIGNIFICANT. But that does not make either of these men significant PHILOSOPHERS. At least not according to the Logic that is taught in Switzerland. In Switzerland you wouldn't get away with pontificating about POV and Original Research. In Switzerland you'd have to prove your assertions, Noosphere. But then, of course, you don't live in Switzerland. Lucky you! --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to study Heidegger without the help of the Swiss?

Re FINNEGAN'S WAKE.
The works of James Joyce are written in English. Except for Finnegan's Wake. This is written in Joyceish, an UNTRANSLATABLE variant of English. Not everyone who speaks English understands Joyceish. But no one who does NOT understand English can understand Joyceish.
All the works of Martin Heidegger are written in Heideggerish, an UNTRANSLATABLE variant of German. Not everyone who speaks German understands Heideggerish. But no one who does NOT understand German can understand Heideggerish.
Switzerland is the only country, where a majority of people can still read and evaluate a German text. Among these people, there are at least SOME that might also be able to read Heideggerish. You can't do without the Swiss. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Re RELEVANCE. We are now ready to answer Noosphere's question as to how my POV regarding what Heidegger said is at all relevant. The answer has been provided by Amerindianarts in an earlier post: There is no Anglo version. There is no non-Anglo version. There is only what Heidegger wrote. Exactly: There is only what Heidegger wrote, and, unfortunately, NONE of the people that have been working on the article can be said to be able to read, much less understand, what Heidegger wrote. If this observation of mine (my POV, or better the SWISS POV or SPOV) is not relevant to the article, then what is??
Which brings us to another question: Finnegans Wake is too difficult a text for me to understand. As can be seen, I can't even get the title right. Would I dare to write an article on the book? Would I have the gall to raise my voice in a discussion telling other people what is and what isn't relevant? Certainly not! So how come the Amerikanische Studenten and other Experten think that they are qualified enough to do all these things when, by their own admission, the only thing that matters is what Heidegger wrote? Does anyone here have an answer to that?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger was fond of the quote, 'Possibility is higher than actuality.' Considered explicitly with regards to Heidegger's 'text', this entails that to understand his words it is necessary to 'do violence' to what he wrote. While this is not so much so with B&T/S&Z it is more so with his later texts that could be considered as containing a mystical/poetic 'gloss' [cover]. Heidegger was deliberate in his manner with language so that his points would not be conflated with the stale concepts of the Western philosophic cannon. I think the most rigorous manner in debating points of contention would be to quote the text that is contended. While obviously the translation can be a killer when debating in English, some basic understanding of his most frequently used German terms is not impossible to come by and may ameliorate matters somewhat? Tsop 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Bruno, you really make me laugh (in the good sense, I do agree with you), ich meine dennoch, dass du nicht auf Deutsch sprechen sollst. People may generally don't understand (my own german is quite poor) and it may be seen as pedantic. In fact, it is the kind of thing a Heideggish admirer in a non-german language will often do.YoungSpinoza 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re LOL. LOL, YoungSpinoza? LOL on a Wikipedia Talk Page?? LOL in a discussion about Herr Professor Heidegger??? It won't take long and you'll be banned. You will have to lie on the doorstep of Wikipedia and all Wikipedia Philosophers will step over you when entering the Temple of Wisdom.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Only Philosopher to write about other philosophers?

I think this inaccurate, and misleading, to suggest he was the only philosopher to write 9except for Aristotle) to write about other philosophers. Also, is it a little unbalanced just to say in "Influences" Kierkigaard was his primary influence? --Mikerussell 04:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger and the Kyoto School

There is no evidence at all that Heidegger spent any time whatsoever in Japan as insinuated in the text. Several members of the Kyoto School however did attend Marburg University whilst Heidegger was there, most notably Hajime Tanabe, a founder member of the Kyoto School. I suggest that this is changed. but there is no insuation in the text that Heidegger actually visited Japan, rather that his philosophy may show traces of East Asian influance, Chinese as well as Japanese e.g. through his student Paul Hsaio, with whom, I think it is clear that he did attempt making a translation of the Tao Tse Ting.

I might suggest that real reason why people neglect this side of Heidegger's work is because it is interfers with thier petty minded and predujidced view of him simply as a German nationalist, 'local' thinker.

Heidegger and Misanthropy

I'm no great Heidegger scholar, but there seems to be a totally bogus discussion of Heidegger in the Wikipedia article on [Misanthropy]. Someone adequately clear about Heidegger's philosophy should correct this.

World and nature

I am in the process of writing an environmental ethics paper that focuses on the various issues raised by Heidegger (avoidance of subject-object schema; being-in-the-world; thought as presupposing a world of practical involvement as the backdrop; etc.). What I am having trouble with is making sure I don't commit a fallacy of ambiguity with "world".

How can we reconcile 'world' in the Heideggerian sense ("that 'wherein' a factical Dasein as such can be said to 'live'") with "nature". I am trying to discuss nature as the fundamental world in which we are involved, by there are obviously a multiplicity of worlds, and I am trying to reconcile this fact with the "natural world". I know Heidegger talks about nature in his later works, does he address this? -Drifter 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

++ Heidegger recognized an ambiguity in the word and concept of world. He would say world/Welt is a concept that arises in the metaphysical tradition, one that implies the subject/object manner of thinking, because we think we are in a unified world as a collection of things. Ta panta (the whole collection of things) in this sense means we are objects among other objects. He's very clear in positing being-in-the-world as a more primordial phenomenological manner of Dasein. Look at Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics (1929) for more on 'world'. Don't confine yourself to Being and Time.

To my mind, there is an unsolved problem within Heidegger's thought concerning his seeming perspectivalism (with trying to see past the predominant modern, scientific, being-at-hand thinking) and his criticism (aimed at Karl Jasper's) of the notion of "world-views" "Weltenshauung"(sp?)(in Contributions, for instance). Zeusnoos 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have recently taken "Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics" out of the university library. However, is there any specific place in the book that addresses the natural world, or nature in contrast to world? I also have the Hermeneutics of Facticity. While useful, it deals much more with hermeneutics, facticity, and Dasein, than it does with world (so it is only half-helpful to me). Thanks again, Drifter 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Drifter, you are entering a thick forest with this topic. What is the deadline for your paper, and what works by Heidegger have you read so far? Heidegger has had much to say about nature or phusis in many places. While he does much with world too, he does not pay the etymological attention to the conceptual origin of kosmos as he does phusis. Kosmos originally meant 'ornament'. Scholars of ancient philosophy such as F. Cornford have made much of this (cf Plato's Cosmology). For H there is the world-making of human beings (in contrast to the world-poor of animals and worldlessness of rocks) and there is a critic of 'world-view'. Nature, not as a collection of beings but as something pre-socratically identified with Being, seems to be more primordial than world. Zeusnoos 18:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nature, not as a collection of beings but as something pre-socratically identified with Being, seems to be more primordial than world." I was actually wondering if this case could be made. Could we say, then, that nature is veritibly an essential part of any world, insofar as nature is in some sense identified with the beings of that world? Drifter 16:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only provide my knowledge of Heidegger on these matters. Your use of them, meaning making a case for a philosophical position, should be your own conclusion. H might say that Nature is not 'part' of any world and is only perceives as such through the secondary present-at-hand sort of thinking. As far as the identity with beings in the world, H's method is to let beings reveal themselves for what they are (phemenomenally) rather than for how we compartmentalize them. This will sound cryptic - how do beings reveal themselves? H turns to presocratic experience (his understanding of it) for the answers. Zeusnoos 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV check April, 18 2006

Concerning the "Heidegger and Nazi Germany" section

Is this NPOV? "None of these fazed Rector Heidegger, who spoke of the thugs as pure spirits attempting to impose true German values on campus"? And shouldn't it be cited?

NPOV? "During his time as Rector, Freiburg denied Heidegger's former teacher Husserl, born a Jew and an adult Lutheran convert, access to the university library, invoking the Nazi racial cleansing laws." Cite?

"Many readers, notably Jürgen Habermas, came to interpret this ambiguous remark as evidence of his continued commitment to National Socialism." Shouldn't this be cited? I've read only a little of Habermas on Heidegger and J.H.'s view may well be called hostile, but I've not heard this claim before.

Concerning subsection "Der Spiegel interview"

"It is simply not believable that he was trying to save the university or anything else from politicization given that his own speeches and publications at this time call for the politicization of everything. Heidegger even wanted to blend education, military service and party service into a single institution! With this plan, he tried to catch the eye of Hitler (to whom he sent two telegrams)." I hardly think exclamation points used in an uncited assertion are NPOV. And shouldn't these telegrams be cited?

There is no debate about Heidegger's moral/ethical failure in not only joining the Nazi party, but finally never dealing with his Nazi past. However, the assumption here seems to be that M.H. was a life-long N.S. follower, something very few Heidegger scholars (if any) believe or claim. Indeed, Arendt's (and let's not forget that her most powerful work was done in response to the Holocaust and National Socialism) reconciliation with Heidegger would lead us to believe she very deeply felt that his affiliation with N.S. was much more one of convience and lack of moral character, rather than that of an evil Nazi. I think a far more accurate represenation of the mainstream (Continental) assesment of Heidegger's tainted legacy would mention his clear ethical lapses, an unfortunate attempt to "lead the leader" (a Habermas quote from "The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity") by assuming the rectorship and trying to reform German higher ed using the Nazi push, and finally of being seduced by Nazi ideology to some extent (as were millions of other Germans citizens). The real scandal is not Heidegger's failure as a human being when confronted with Nazism as did so many others, but rather his truly disappointing failure to ever offer a mea culpa, tell the truth, and regret his decision.

At the very least, this section should include discussion of the contemporary discussion about Heidegger from Heidegger scholars and not just Habermas, who is as a pupil of Adorno, is avowedly anti-Heidegger. Where is Dreyfus? Wrathall? Charles Taylor?

Dieziege 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Update Ok, since there has been no response up to now, I have gone ahead and removed the three sentences I considered NPOV or unproven by cititation. Feel free to put them back in if citation is provided.

Dieziege 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dieziege- i wonder if the NPOV check is still necessary. You appear to have removed the contentious sentences (per your last post), although note the entry itself is still tagged. are there other NPOV issues remaining, or can we go ahead and remove? Any other feedback? Platypusjones 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV check. Diezige has some points (I too feel that Heidegger's refusal to speak about his past is very disturbing). However there is no doubt about Heidegger's connexions to Nazism, including in his work. Dreyfus, Wrathall, Charles Taylor maybe, but also Victor Farias, Hugo Ott, Emmanuel Faye... See fr:Heidegger et le nazisme. Santa Sangre 16:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

LABELS (cont. as requested above)

Re SMALL TALK. You are absolutely right, Drifter. Labels allow everybody to make small talk: Heidegger is a Philosopher, Heidegger is not a Philosopher, Heidegger was a Nazi, Heidegger was not a Nazi, The Famous Psycho-Historian X said..., The Famous Psycho-Historian Y said..., and so on ad infinitum.
Now, this is what articles in an encyclopedia are here for. But a commentary is a different thing, Drifter. A commentary on Wittgenstein's attitude towards Heidegger e.g. cannot be answered with gossip about Wittgenstein I, II, or XVII. The commentator will just tell you that this is irrelevant at best because none of your Wittgensteins would have wanted to be compared to Herr Heidegger. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"none of your Wittgensteins would have wanted to be compared to Herr Heidegger". This is precisely what my question was. I thank you for answering it. I now understand that labels are merely utilized (appropriately) in the making of small talk. This makes me feel much better, as I was earlier under the impression that only the Swiss could properly study Heidegger. But because "Swiss" is nothing but a label, and does not apply to commentary, I find that now I can myself, as well as Hubert Dreyfus and some of the other prominent American scholars, study Heidegger with the potential for proper understanding and commentary. You have reinstilled me with optimism and hope! Thank you so very much Herr Zollinger! Drifter 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re SWISS. Ah Drifter, we were talking about The Swiss, the people, not the label. But never mind. I am glad to see that you got the main point: There is no way to find out anything about Heidegger without taking up German. Keep up the good work!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And I was talking about Wittgenstein the person, and Heidegger the person. But yes, I do get the main point, and perhaps I will take on German. Thank you for all the thoughts. Drifter 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re WITTGENSTEIN. Not quite, Drifter. If we are to believe what you said previously, you were never talking about Wittgenstein, the person. You were talking about About-Wittgenstein.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)