From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Paul Barlow's revisions 2 This article lacked a Heideggerian balance---until today 3 a sense of irrelevance 4 Did he dismiss Husserl or not? 5 NPOV 5.1 Removing Derrida quote at the end of the article. 5.2 Affair with Hannah Arendt

[edit] Paul Barlow's revisions

Paul, I see that you were none too pleased about my revisions made to this article. I expected someone to do something like that. Do you understand Heidegger's work? The neat thing about revisions is that the evidence is, then, right there for doing hermeneutical work on the variance of readings, vis-à-vis available scholarship on the matter. So, I've copied your pages, and I shall have a good time with your preferences, via another venue. As someone who has a lot of background on this issue, I'm confident about the January 6, 2008, version of this article. In time, the truth of the matter, re: divergent readings, will win out.

Paul responds (as first item on my "Talk" page): "Your revisions were pure special pleading. They were not NPOV, but turned the article into an apologia. I am not sure that most of your comments on my talk page are designed to serve any discernable purpose other than to gratify yourself." Those "comments" that Paul refers to are what I've noted above (more or less).

"...special pleading....apologia...to gratify yourself..."? What could address his uncertainty about this ("I am not sure") but to dwell with the text, relative to Heidegger's work and discerning attention to context? This would be tedious, but that's what would have to be done. Gedavis (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article lacked a Heideggerian balance---until today

Today, I've made some revisions to this article that retains full fidelity with all quoted material, while extracting incriminatory asides that are not commentary on quoted material. My intent, as student of Heidegger's thinking for many years, is to venture a Heideggerian balance to the incriminatory slant of the article, as it existed prior to today. To my mind, I don't pretend to make the issue uncontroversial, but only to imply new kinds of questions (tacit in my revisions). One question: How is critically constructive engagement possible within domination? One may reject Heidegger's brief hope for a sense of national renewal that lacked clairvoyance or a post-1945 perspective on 1933. But one should appreciate that Heidegger never endorsed Hitlerism. (No part of Habermas' essay on the Heidegger controversy, in The New Conservatism, 1989, shows that Heidegger endorsed Hitlerism, though Habermas surely believes otherwise, in his extended caricature.) However, a complete sense of the issue takes monographic proportions, and there are those monographs other than Victor Farias, such as Fred Dallmayr's The Other Heidegger; Julian Young's book on the matter; Hans Sluga, of course; Otto Pöggler, Heidegger's Path of Thinking; Theodore Kisiel's definitive work on the development of Heidegger's thinking; and more. No one, as far as I know, has responded to Habermas' caricature from an avowedly Heideggerian point of view (a rubric which has only heuristic value anyway). In my view, Heidegger's thinking remains largely missed by most readers, which of course just reads as a self-serving comment by nobody you know, and that's OK with me. What's most important is that we, planet wide, work to make our localities contribute to solving global issues, such as global warming, reification of The Other (that still reaches genocidal proportions), predatory capital, etc. in light of some truly practicable sense of humanistic union that advances human potential, efficacy of the United Nations, global public health, and the like. Gedavis (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a sense of irrelevance

Santa Sangre, if you're going to split this off from the main Heidegger entry, could you shorten the section you copied? Currently this is just a copy of the Heidegger and Nazi Germany section. Deleuze 16:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do it in a close future. Actually I created the page in order to translate fr:Heidegger et le nazisme, but in the meanwhile I just moved the English text from the Heidegger page. Santa Sangre 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I figured you would, just wanted to make sure. Deleuze 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is still not really a lot more than in the original article and not an article in its own right. I think it should just be reintegrated. --Kricket 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it should remain a complement to the main Heidegger article, which addresses this topic in its more-proper context of Heidegger's work. Whether or not you agree with Heidegger's undersanding of his Freiburg work, it's factual that his understanding is in terms of his philosophical work prior to that period, and the main Heidegger article addresses that. By the way, Heidegger did not eliminate the faculty electoral process; the Führerprinzip was required by the Nazi Minister of Education, and that Ministry also required Nazi Ministry policies on financial aid. Heidegger was against this (according to Hugo Ott's detailed examination of these years, in Martin Heidegger: a political life, 1993), and Heidegger was against so much of what the Minister of Education required that Heidegger resigned 11 months later. One should want to know what else Heidegger did during his short rectorship (including what other hirings and firings) other than what serves one's proper animus toward Nazism. One should also want to appreciate the Aristotelian sense of leadership that Heidegger endorsed in the 1920s, as indicated in his lectures on Aristotle. And one should want to understand what Heidegger meant by "National Socialist spirit" that he distinguished from the state. Gedavis (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did he dismiss Husserl or not?

This page claims that he did not dismiss Husserl. The main page claims he did. Which is it?

The main page is correct, according to Heidegger scholar Hans Sluga, who is sourced at the main Heidegger page. Gedavis (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article does not follow NPOV and is not written like an encyclopedia article.

[edit] Removing Derrida quote at the end of the article.

This quote from Derrida, which I am not doubting the veracity of, is utilized in a reductive and misrepresentative fashion. It can be easily argued that Derrida's most important influence was Heidegger, and while Derrida may never have denied Heidegger's Nazi past, he certainly would not have implicated Heidegger's philosophy as being fascistic having borrowed many of his important ideas from Heidegger. In fact, even the Wikipedia article on Heidegger contradicts this errantly deployed quote.

As a result, I took the quote out until someone properly contextualizes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieziege (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affair with Hannah Arendt

I find this section unclear. It claims that critics cite this relationship. Critics of what or whom? Furthermore, it is not clear what citation of this relationship implies. Can anyone clarify this? Brackfalker (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)