There's an article in a German periodical on Giorgio Agamben, the latest "follower" of Heidegger to engage in a bit of the old épater les bourgeois--putting the boot into the establishment.

Agamben's fidelity to Heidegger is absolute. Until now it was difficult in Germany to use Heidegger for subversive purposes. What stood in the way was not only Heidegger's compromised Nazi past, but also his provincial cultural conservatism. The Frankfurt School was unconditional in its rejection of the Freiburg prophet of being. But now all this is history: a Heideggerian has become anarchy's new darling.

I wonder, do anarchists agree on something, besides no government, and agreeing to disagree?

I haven't got around to reading Agamben yet. And reading this article, that's just as well. But then anyone who annoys the establishment can't be all bad.

When the extremely nimble and widely read philologist goes about his proper business, he is always brilliant. Agamben's exaggerated pose and his "history of being" pathos have something dandyish about them. But it would be better not to try too hard to strip him of the role of the apocalyptic preacher. It is entirely possible that he himself does not take the hordes who hang on his every prophesy entirely seriously. Ultimately, every epoch gets the fashion philosophy it deserves. Our own seems once more to be running on empty.

It's best not to get one's politics from a philologist, or philosopher.  ¶ 3:11 PM