Sunday, June 05, 2005
In-der-Blog-sein
There's been an uptick in Heidegger related blog posts because of the Emmanual Faye hullabaloo in France. Most of it doesn't rise above the level of chatter, but I found this bit about domesticising Heidegger on the Observing the Observer blog pertinent:
There's been an uptick in Heidegger related blog posts because of the Emmanual Faye hullabaloo in France. Most of it doesn't rise above the level of chatter, but I found this bit about domesticising Heidegger on the Observing the Observer blog pertinent:
So how do we make the 'Heidegger debate' relevant? Simple: In the words of Bourdieu, we need to not domesticise the exotic, but exoticise the domestic. We might not just be surprised about our own "blind faiths" and how they come about. We might also discover that we waste time and energy with irrelevantly handled "debates" and rather uselessly phrased questions that distract ourselves from more rewarding and pressing ones.But specifically what are the rewarding or pressing questions? ¶ 12:14 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for the link. My $0.02:
Pressing question: why is Heidegger being judged in this way? Why is it such a loaded question? [I kind of answered that one, I would argue, on my blog - but also check out the debate on Crooked Timber].
Arguably far more rewarding questions:
(1)How can we read our own contemporary philosophical situation (in particular: moral, political) with Heidegger? What rewards does this yield? (if any)...
(2)How would Heidegger react to Neoliberal and/or Straussian political philosophy the way it is interpreted and enacted by the Bush Junta? To the "War on Terror"? How would he react to the EU Constitution project and the referenda outcomes? etc.
Pressing question: why is Heidegger being judged in this way? Why is it such a loaded question? [I kind of answered that one, I would argue, on my blog - but also check out the debate on Crooked Timber].
Arguably far more rewarding questions:
(1)How can we read our own contemporary philosophical situation (in particular: moral, political) with Heidegger? What rewards does this yield? (if any)...
(2)How would Heidegger react to Neoliberal and/or Straussian political philosophy the way it is interpreted and enacted by the Bush Junta? To the "War on Terror"? How would he react to the EU Constitution project and the referenda outcomes? etc.
# posted by 
: 4:55 AM
: 4:55 AM
Why pick on Heidegger?
Simple recess politics. He's king of the hill. If you think your favorite philosopher should be, then knocking Heidegger off moves yours up. In 1933 all German universities had a rector, typically from the philosophy department, who supported or accomodated the Nazis. Anyone remember the names of the others? No? Then clearly Heidegger is famous for something more than being a Nazi. But it's hard to discern what because (1) ontology is inherently difficult, and (2) everyone else in the playground keeps yelling "Nazi!"
(1) To me Heidegger is interesting for his work in ontology. I also find some comments on art, religion, and technology thought provoking, but I wouldn't know where to begin applying him to current events. I'd probably have better luck applying Euclid or Godel, than an ontologist.
(2) I guess he would he would defend Europe from the foreign enemy. He certainly didn't go for democracy, nor spreading it. Politically he was a peasant, and believed in a string father figure to guide the country and opposed constitutional representative democracy. He was also convinced of the superiority of the german Volk, so probably wouldn't care for sharing Europe with the other countries. He would have no qualms about destroying Arab regimes and such. He was quite content to have the German army kill Orientals--his word for Russians in the Parmenides lectures.
I'm tickled that you think that Bush is enacting Straussian political philosophy. Have you read Strauss? What aspects of Bush's policy do you find congruent with something Strauss wrote?
Post a Comment
Simple recess politics. He's king of the hill. If you think your favorite philosopher should be, then knocking Heidegger off moves yours up. In 1933 all German universities had a rector, typically from the philosophy department, who supported or accomodated the Nazis. Anyone remember the names of the others? No? Then clearly Heidegger is famous for something more than being a Nazi. But it's hard to discern what because (1) ontology is inherently difficult, and (2) everyone else in the playground keeps yelling "Nazi!"
(1) To me Heidegger is interesting for his work in ontology. I also find some comments on art, religion, and technology thought provoking, but I wouldn't know where to begin applying him to current events. I'd probably have better luck applying Euclid or Godel, than an ontologist.
(2) I guess he would he would defend Europe from the foreign enemy. He certainly didn't go for democracy, nor spreading it. Politically he was a peasant, and believed in a string father figure to guide the country and opposed constitutional representative democracy. He was also convinced of the superiority of the german Volk, so probably wouldn't care for sharing Europe with the other countries. He would have no qualms about destroying Arab regimes and such. He was quite content to have the German army kill Orientals--his word for Russians in the Parmenides lectures.
I'm tickled that you think that Bush is enacting Straussian political philosophy. Have you read Strauss? What aspects of Bush's policy do you find congruent with something Strauss wrote?
<< Home
