He expelled (violently, as his words erupted) that "so celebrated" academic liberty from the German University. "Given that, as purely negative, it was inauthentic. The concept of the freedom of the German student is now when it returns to its truth." The whole Rektorat Speech was woven in the steel of the talk about authenticity in Being and Time. It annoys me, at this point, not having explained in depth the theme of authenticity. I have time. A dilated time that extends me from here - if you permit me this irony, perhaps cruel to you, or to me - to the end of my days. Heidegger continued entwining with mastery his own ideas with those that drove National Socialism. He'd read Being and Time before us. He showed us how we should read it. Fundamental ontology was filled with political content. I have heard, in later years, in Argentina, son, country towards which my sorrows drifted, that fundamental ontology can fill itself with any content. That, I've heard, the French hack took it without much effort to the left and even, some prophesied, he takes it towards Marxism. Who gave him the right? Who but Heidegger could grant politics to fundamental ontology?

He spoke then of the possible links with the national community. Martin, son, that concept was in Being and Time. Heidegger didn't invent that then, for that moment (important, yes, but not ontological) in the Rektorat Speech, given that it was already in fundamental ontology. It had already been established and his mode of being was to be waiting for the storm that would reclaim him. That was it. It was now. One only has to read the great text, Martin. Undertake that chore. Take it seriously. Read it all. Who does so will reach paragraph 74. There, Heidegger says: "Our investigation excludes even the existential projection of the factical possibilities of existence" [BT P. 434; SZ P. 383]. That's right: Being and Time would not tell us if we should be social democrats, communists or National Socialists. Existential projection as laid out excludes factical possibilities of existence. But no, no, Martin. Barely a page later Heidegger was clear. He indicated, from 1927, the path that now, in 1933, he was choosing, for himself and for us. The two things weren't different. He was our Führer. And at Heidegger University the Führerprinzip ruled. Heidegger was to the University what Hitler was to the country, to the German community. One only has to read some fragments of being-with. Listen, don't skimp on your attention, it's the Master who speaks, the great philosopher of this century: "But if fateful Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, exists essentially in Being-with Others, its historicizing is a co-historicizing and is determinative for it as destiny [Geschick]. This is how we designate the historicizing of the community, of a people." [BT P. 436; SZ P. 384]. Geschick, Martin. This beautiful and deep word of our privileged language, privileged by the gods and the philosophers and the poets, expresses that powerful concept: the community of a people. Do you think a social democrat would talk of Geschick? Do you think a communist would? I'll tell you what they would say. The social democrat, liberals and capitalists and partycrats and feverish accomplices of electoral democracy would speak of Republic, of parliament, of civil rights, of citizens, of all that rubbish that comes to us from the French Revolution, that enthroned that sterile bourgeoisie, that seeks votes and places in the parliament, never the greatness of the nation. The communists would speak of the working class, of class struggle, of the unions, of the revolutionary state, never, ever, my son, would they speak of the greatness of the nation, nor, even less, would they speak of the national community. Heidegger in Being and Time already spoke to us of the national community. The language of National Socialism already spoke to us. Dasein could only arrive at its authentic being - within the national community - through being-with. The historicizing of Dasein "is a co-historicizing and is determinative for it as destiny". And if that were not decidedly clear enough, Heidegger adds: "This is how we designate (destiny) the historicizing of the community, of a people". I don't want to hear any gibberish on the political abstractions in Being and Time! Fundamental ontology has its politics. It was waiting for it. Demanded it. Great books anticipate and create their times. In 1933 Heidegger already had the facticity of the existential project. It was Nazism. And Being and Time waited for it.

Labels: The Shadow of Heidegger

¶ 7:17 AM