There's a response
to Thomas Sheehan's article "Emmanuel Faye: The Introduction of Fraud Into Philosophy?
" in Philosophy Today
, from François Rastier.
Heidegger having been compromised, to say the least, Dr. Sheehan thinks
he can defend him by attacking the reputation of Emmanuel Faye, and by thus
jeopardizing his honor.
In so far as I can tell, Rastier's argument can be summed up with: "Faye says Heidegger was Nazi, Sheehan says he wasn't. Everyone knows Faye is right", which is absurd. Heidegger's Nazism has been officially documented since the denazification committee published its report in 1945. Over the decades Sheehan has published many articles critical of Heidegger's Nazism. Sheehan's point is that Faye has added nothing to our understanding of Heidegger, much of Faye's interpretation of Heidegger is wrong (doesn't correspond with what Heidegger wrote or meant), and Faye has altered some texts to support his point of view. This response is an ad hominem attack on Sheehan that never engages with "Emmanuel Faye: The Introduction of Fraud Into Philosophy?".
The open letter is signed by 21 academics. I recognize three names. Sidonie Kellerer I believe studied under Faye. Richard Wolin is a historian, not a philosopher. Johannes Fritsche is the author of Historical Destiny and National Socialism in Heidegger's
Being and Time; it's on my list, but I'm into Andrew Mitchell's The Fourfold
We append to the present letter a short bibliography intended to enable the readers
of Philosophy Today to reach their own conclusions.
Gosh, papers by the same people who signed the letter. They will need to get some "name" Heideggerians on board, or respond to the items in "Emmanuel Faye: The Introduction of Fraud Into Philosophy?", to get any traction.
[Some version of some browsers (UC, Chrome) can't display the response PDF file when you click on the link. Try Firefox, Edge, or downloading PDF file.]