In-der-Blog-sein

Alphonse van Worden, towards the end of a post on recent political positioning by Zizek as an example of political positions as a post-modern commodity for intellectuals [that's you, gentle reader random browser], states that:

Even a devotee of Heidegger will see some value in the work of a scholar dedicated to showing that Heidegger's whole philosophy is nothing but debunkable airy fairy excuses for Nazism. Product into which Heidegger's defender, if sincere, will read, engage, happily sink teeth into. The idea of refusing such debate - if you don't like Heidegger or Schmidt or whomever, why don't you just change the channel and read Benjamin instead? - would be an eccentric response.

I don't know about that. While speculations about the relationship between Heidegger's thinking and his political involvement may prove fruitful, particularly to those concerned with the implications of Heidegger's ontology for ethics, politics, or moral philosophy. There have already been many studies published from many different perspectives documenting the intersection of Heidegger and the Nazis. So it's hard to imagine a scholar thinking that Heidegger's basic philosophical insights, already in place at least a decade before the the appearance of the Nazis, are some kind of pre-cog exculpatory exercise.

It's not about refusing debate, its about being skeptical.  ¶ 9:19 AM