Sunday, November 23, 2014
Peter Trawny on the limits of Hegel.
But if we suggest that Hegel‘s career was a model for Heidegger, we have to admit that Heidegger refused to go to Berlin and Munich in 1930 and 1933. Of course, he would have found there better opportunities to win political influence. Obviously, he balanced the situation quite intensely. With respect to Munich, he speculates in a letter to Elisabeth Blochmann from autumn 1933 about the possibility “of approaching Hitler and so on” – typically misinterpreting his standing. Different from Hegel, Heidegger was never the philosopher of a “capital.” But all this happened before he gave up his position as rector of the university in Freiburg. In winter 1934/35, the semester of the Hegel-seminar, Heidegger did not have any means to obtain political influence. The fictional identification of Heidegger with Hegel insinuated by Faye might be an error.
From "Why Hegel? Heidegger and the Political".
Any thoughts on the related conjectures expressed here? (i'm too poorly read in Nietzsche and Hegel to have any myself)
It's in the thirties that Heidegger overloads Ereignis with its new meaning of an ontological change in historical epochs. It took him longer to shake that off, than other pointless paths I ascribe to his engagement with Hegel. I buy the argument that Heidegger was mystifying historical events at the time.

Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version