Philosopher views
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Why Saying "Heidegger Was A Nazi" Isnt (Just) An Ad Hominem Attack
- Attacking The Defenders Of Heidegger
Answering HeideggerIntroduction One of the most amazing, mystifying and repelling spectacles from my perspective is that Martin Heidegger is still respected in American academia. That extends to academic debate, where his views on technology are very popular, startlingly, among normally progressive - even radical - debaters and thinkers. This is true even though this "philosopher" was an active and enthusiastic member of the Nazi Party from before the time Hitler took power, never forswore that membership, and continued to defend the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism years AFTER the war ended. It scares the heck out of me that a lot of people in a movement I hold dear (the environmental movement) still defend the guy's work. It scares me just as much that a lot of people in an activity I love (debate) still defend, sometimes passionately, the guy's views in rounds. I'm disappointed in academia, too, but I've come to expect the unquestioning approval of dead white racist philosophers out of academia -- as long as it will help get them tenure. It's a shame for Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the Ku Klux Klan, that he didn't publish something with a title like "Deconstructing Ontological Hegemony": somebody would probably be cranking out a doctor's thesis called "Forrest on Hegemonic Discursive Practice: Transforming Our Structuralist Paradigm" as we speak. Why is this? If I had to make a guess, I'd guess that it's for the same reason debaters have become fascinated with Foucault: 1. He wrote and his acolytes write very strongly worded evidence, evidence that is difficult to attack due to its use of mystifying vocabulary; 2. The argument on its face seems radical and innovative; 3. He has a cool foreign-sounding name. Ultimately, though, I think it’s a combination of these factors which adds up to this: it helps them win debates. To appeal to the better angels of your nature if you run this stuff, let me tell you that just because its different doesn't mean its good, or right, or correct. But to appeal to all facets of the debate community, its necessary to give out really good answers so that the critique starts losing. In the following few pages, I'll tell you how to whale on the Heidegger critique. It's one of few arguments I'd happily see expunged from debate, and the best way to do that is for it to start losing quickly. So strap in: we'll cover Heidegger's Nazism in depth, why that Nazism matters in depth, and why his philosophy is bankrupt in other ways so you can adapt to judges unwilling to confront his vile and insidious brand of racism. But first, I'll teach you how to adapt to ME as a judge. I'll tell you what, to me, are the four most persuasive arguments against the Heidegger critique of technology (or of anything): 1. Heidegger. 2. Was. 3. A. 4. Nazi. Or, if you want just one succinct argument: HeideggerWasANazi. But I prefer the four arguments: Heidegger was a Nazi. Okay, you say, enough kidding. To which I say, who's kidding? Hitler wrote some pretty flaming cards about vegetarianism being good. You're not reading those in your Ban Beef counter plan or your veganism critique, are you? Mussolini wrote FANTASTIC philosophical cards about how humans are only valuable insofar as they serve the needs of the state. You aren't reading those, are you? Ayn Rand wrote great cards about how people that can't feed themselves don't deserve to live. You aren't reading cards from Rand, are you? (Sorry, Objectivists, it's true.) As is my tradition, I've gotten ahead of myself. I can already hear some of you saying, "Isn't that an ad hominem fallacy?" (Congratulations on knowing some Latin.) Others are saying "Just because he did some bad things doesn't mean we shouldn't defend some of his ideas." (Shame on you.) Still others will say that his philosophy isn't linked to his Nazism: certainly not ALL of his philosophy. We'll tackle all of these in due time, but let me short-order them here so you can skip to the end of the smart-aleck comments at the end of the essay and tell your coach you read the whole thing. 1. No, this isn't just an ad hom, but the Latin catchphrase is always good to use in rounds. 2. He didn't break his mother's tea set, it's the darned' Holocaust, maybe the defining human tragedy of our time. 3. I'll forgive you for this one, because it's one of the most common misconceptions about the man and his writing. In fact, Heidegger's philosophical work (as he confided to a student, and is apparent to anyone with the eyes to read) helped to develop and justify his belief in Nazism. Why Saying "Heidegger Was A Nazi" Isn't (Just) An Ad Hominem AttackSo, ordinarily, I'd go into a section explaining the basics of Heidegger's "philosophy." And we'll do that next. I think it's necessary, though, to address the concerns of those who worry that this essay is going to degenerate into juvenile mudslinging. You needn't worry. I will continue to call Heidegger names. But I should explain why those names ("Nazi"; "fascist"; "goose-stepping proto-cracker"; if you think of any others, please let me know) have relevance to the argument at hand, and are not mere name-calling. We'll get into these reasons in more depth in just a second, but basically, there are two of them: 1. Continuing to push Heidegger as an important thinker promotes him; this is especially pernicious when there are available alternative philosophers who made equally important contributions and have much the same insights - without the baggage of Nazism. 2. Heidegger's philosophical positions, including his notions of authenticity, historicity, and "blood-and-soil" ideology are justifications for his Nazism. He admitted this to students, and continued to push these views even after the Holocaust ended. These arguments will not go unchallenged. Let's address some of those challenges, then get in some depth about why these two are winning arguments. Attacking The Defenders Of HeideggerDefenders of Heidegger have taken one of two paths. Either they paint him as a naive philosopher, drawn into the evil (read: real) world of politics where his work was misinterpreted and his loyalties swayed for a short time; or they paint him as a brilliant thinker whose philosophical work was unrelated to his political behavior. Sure, they say, Heidegger made some mistakes -- but many great thinkers have behaved in a manner contrary to their thought, such as Thomas Jefferson owning slaves while staunchly defending ideas of human liberty. This line of defense is demonstrably not true: Heidegger was a member of the National Socialist movement before Hitler took power, remained such throughout the war (despite his later claims, which turned out to be fabrications) and continued to defend the ideal of National Socialism after the war. Some of the things Heidegger defenders are likely to bring up are that he allegedly resisted the Nazi regime while rector of Freiburg University, asserting the university's independence from the Nazi state. This is an absolute falsehood, as direct quotations from this speech of his prove: "University study must again become a risk, not a refuge for the cowardly ... the battle for the institutions where our leaders are educated will continue for a long time. It will be fought out of the strengths of the new Reich that Chancellor Hitler will bring to reality. A hard race with no thought of self must fight this battle, a race that lives from constant testing and that remains directed toward the goal to which it has committed itself. It is a battle to determine who shall be the teachers and leaders at the university." Heidegger urged people to celebrate the Nazi dictatorship as "the march our people has begun into its future history." Fascist ideology rears its head constantly in the speech, as when he invokes "the power to preserve, in the deepest way, the strengths [of the Volk] which are rooted in soil and blood." Blood and soil being the Nazi racialist ideology which held that the pure blood of the Aryan people entitled them to land and living space (lebensraum) that others were not entitled to. It wasn't just the speech that proved his racist sympathies, though: it's his whole tenure as university head, where he: 1. Issued an order applying the Nazi laws on racial cleansing to the student body of the university. This ensured that "Jewish or Marxist students" (or anyone else thought to be non-Aryan) would be prohibited from receiving financial aid. 2. Chose professors for the university based on "which of the candidates ... offers the greatest assurance of carrying out the National Socialist will for education." 3. Drove out many Jewish students and colleagues, including former personal students and colleagues of his. All of this occurred in 1933 and early 1934. "But wait," the Heidegger apologists will proclaim, "didn't he resign his post as head of the university?" Yes, he did - on June 30, 1934 - but not to protest Nazi policies. No, he resigned after the so-called "Night of the Long Knives," where Hitler loyalists purged a faction led by Ernst Röhm, killing Rohm and the Storm Troopers loyal to him. After the war, Heidegger claimed that this point caused his break with the Nazis. But it wasn't true: in Heidegger's mind, Rohm's faction represented the ideal Nazi regime, one he was disappointed to see lose out. Over one year after he supposedly broke with the fascists, Heidegger delivered a lecture where he touted the ideals of National Socialism. This is what he said: "The stuff which is now being bandied about as the philosophy of National Socialism-but which has not the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely the encounter between global technology and modern man)-is casting its net in these troubled waters of 'values' and 'totalities'. So it wasn't that he opposed the Nazi regime: if anything, he thought that the Third Reich wasn't adhering closely enough to the true vision he had for the movement - an anti-technology regime composed of the German Aryan race. Though friends and colleagues urged him to condemn the Nazis, he never did. Indeed, he rarely referenced the Holocaust - and when he did, as in this 1949 speech, it was to trivialize its impact: "Agriculture is now a motorized food-industry-in essence, the same as the manufacturing of corpses in the gas chambers and the extermination camps, the same as the blockade and starvation of the countryside, the same as the production of the hydrogen bombs." So the Nazi regime wasn't bad because it murdered millions of innocent people. It was bad because it relied too much on technology (thus perverting what he thought were the original anti-technology goals of National Socialism). If you aren't shuddering right now, you oughtta be. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|