In defense of reading Heidegger
Or “Yes, chapters 1-2 of Introduction to Metaphysics are still due Monday.”
Sam had the first TPP cut at the now strangely vogue question of Heidegger’s worth as a philosopher given his Nazi politics.
Judgment against Heidegger is easy. It is indisputable that he came to the defense of the world’s worst regime that presided over the world’s worst tragedy. However, the principle that we should therefore disregard his thought is flawed.
Philosophy, especially great philosophy, is valuable because it challenges conventional thinking, because it asks the reader to look beyond current values. It’s probably irresistible for many readers to condemn the actions of a particular philosopher. But by insisting that we not adequately come to terms with those authors’ ideas, we condemn ourselves to perpetuating conventional thinking.
It’s almost too easy to condemn writers who came to the defense of National Socialism. However, there are a host of other writers whose thought itself is deeply troubling (read: challenging). Nietzsche is an interesting case study. It is not true that Nietzsche defended some form of proto-Nazism. (He explicitly rejected German nationalism and anti-semitism; it was only at the hands of his profiteering sister that Nietzsche became associated with either). However, it certainly is true that his thought is anti-egalitarian, dangerous to the state, etc etc. There persists urban legends of professors that removed Nietzsche from syllibi after Leopold and Loeb. If a wide range of the public read Nietzsche and took him seriously, civilization itself might well be endangered.
Nietzsche would be joined by thinkers such as Machiavelli (cloak and dagger authoritarianism), Plato (strict ordering of the classes by intellect, opponent of democracy), and others as thinkers whose thoughts would be dangerously out of fashion today. But those thinkers remain solidly in the pantheon of the world’s greatest and most-read philosophers. Indeed, the value of their thought is that they articulate powerful critiques of modern values.
But you don’t see the same anti-Nietzsche screeds. And, interestingly, it was Nietzsche’s thought that is politically disturbing — he had no impact on politics (and little impact even the academy) during his lifetime. None of the popular anti-Heideggerians have a coherent critique of the man’s writing or ideas — just his actions. If Heidegger’s opponents could construct a coherent argument for how his thought leads unavoidably to genocide, there would be a much better argument. But, for students serious about philosophy, Heidegger would then be a figure to be engaged and refuted. It’s the role of the philosopher to identify and discredit demagoguery — not to ignore it, leaving dangerous thought to be taken up by future generations.
-John
Related posts:
- Reading the Pope in America
- The recession will not lead to better political science
- When bad people say good things
- My ancient Greek wedding
ShareComments
One Response to “In defense of reading Heidegger”
Leave a Reply
OK, so we now know why we shouldn’t NOT read Heidegger. Why should we? Isn’t his support of the Nazis something we should take into account, but weigh it against his thoughts as a whole?