Q. In relation to this same idea of strengthening gnostic religiosity, you have on occasion brought Ahmad Fardid into the discussion and spoken of the position of Fardid’s ideas and his followers in today’s setting. In this context, you’ve also spoken about Heidegger’s ideas and the Iranian interpretation of Heidegger. This argument of yours has met with much comment, criticism and approval. But now I’d like to know what you think of the criticisms. For example, you referred to a film by an Iranian director in which there was a shot showing a photograph of Heidegger in the house of a violent vigilante. You said that, in showing that photograph, the director had put his finger on the button. But some people were saying that Dr. Soroush shouldn’t blame Heidegger for the problems that stem from an Iranian interpretation of Heidegger. Now, I’d like to hear what you think of these criticisms.

A. The truth of the matter is that what I said about Heidegger and Fardid, and Fardid’s interpretation of Heidegger was not an emotional outpouring; it was the product of much reflection on my part since the revolution. From the beginning of the revolution, I could see Fardid and his students. Of course, his ideas were not very influential at that time but their influence grew as they infiltrated state bodies and cultural institutions and started disseminating their secret newsletters among officials. Their ideas took hold in some people’s minds. The worst aspect of it all was the interpretation that they presented of the idea of religious guardianship [velayat / wilayat]. To my mind, it was at this point that their ideas took on a dangerous form. In my view, Fardid wasn’t a person who cared about things. His heart never beat for Islam or for Iranian society; nor did he make any effort to tackle theoretical, social and political problems. He didn’t suffer for the sake of anything and he never had to pay a price for anything. After the revolution, he went to some powerful figures in the hope that he’d at least be given a seat in the Majlis. But he didn’t even succeed in this. But, unfortunately, he did succeed in putting poisonous viruses into the minds of some of his students.

Of course I distinguish between Fardid and the Iranian interpretation of Heidegger and Heidegger himself. But this distinction doesn’t mean that Heidegger is fully absolved of the taint of fascism. Heidegger’s European and American critics have written a great deal about his philosophy. Heidegger never expressed regret about joining the Nazi party. He betrayed a number of his Jewish students, thus helping the fascist government in Germany to arrest them. His anti-Semitism has been confirmed by some of the students who were close to him. Even some philosophers, like Adorno, have described Heidegger’s philosophy as fascist through and through. This is a story that has very deep roots. So, the story of the fascism in Heidegger’s ideas is not just a fairy tale; it is at least a possibility and a view that has been put forward by some opinion holders.

Q. Is it not possible, then, to be a Heideggerian and not to be a fascist?

A. You can say this about any thinker. There may be people today who knowingly avoid Heideggerian fascism. That is to say, people who try not to fall into this trap. But no one today doubts that Heidegger himself didn’t view his philosophy like this; his view of it was, rather, in line with Nazism and fascism. But, despite all of this, I believe that Heidegger’s philosophy should be discussed with exactitude and criticized like any other philosophy, and that the sacred tint its been given should be examined. Some staunch devotees and enthusiasts have gathered round him and they suggest and insist that Heidegger’s philosophy is the highest and most important philosophy since Plato. And that it was Heidegger who introduced a new conception and made it incumbent on all thinkers to follow him. These kinds of suggestions are lethal poison to thought and produce nothing but unthinking devotees and a kind of theoretical fundamentalism. This is why we witnessed a kind of verbal violence in Fardid and some of his students. To my mind, this violence is not unconnected to the truth of this philosophy. But, as you say, this is an Iranian interpretation of Heidegger’s ideas and there are other interpretations, in which we see a kind of fair-mindedness and moderation; they don’t by any means try to hide the fascist aspect of Heidegger’s thinking or refuse to criticize him.

In his book What is Philosophy?, Mr. Davari has described Heidegger as the wise man of the age and said that, since Heidegger hasn’t said anything about his link to fascism and Nazism, we shouldn’t say anything about it either. This is to put a ‘lid’ on criticism and to call for unquestioning devotion to a philosopher. But the one thing that we don’t have in the realm of philosophy is unquestioning devotion. This sort of thing must be left to Sufi retreats and the world of mystics and dervishes. Here, there must be criticism. Hence, a different reading of Heidegger in Iran – accompanied by criticism of his philosophy – would be welcomed by everyone. In the realm of philosophy, we believe in neither enmity nor unquestioning devotion; instead, we opt for reviews and criticism and we respect all great philosophers.

¶ 8:27 PM