Why does everyone have to hate on Heidegger for being a member of the Nazi Party...

He was an antisemite who was complicit discrimination against Jewish intellectuals (including his own teacher who he later in his diary said his ideas were backwards not because of anything in them but because the thinker was a jew) and after war refused to apologise for his membership of the Nazi party. This is a man who used his membership of the Nazi party to profit while he was. He was still supporting the Nazi party well into 1935 when t extrajudicial killings were well known and massive discrimination against Jews (including confiscation of property and killings) were happening in full knowledge of him. Not only that but he has throughout his career spoken well of the Nazi party in his writings and talked about aspects of Nazi ideology line up with his own philosophy.
His relationship to the Nazi part is very complex and I am attempting to put forth a very unflattering profile of him as a counter point of yours. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But that is exactly the thing, his membership of the Nazi party wasn't nothing and is absolutely worth mentioning.

>he was 10x more important than your irrelevant ass
>someone was important therefore you can't criticise any aspect of them

Before people counter that his antisemitism is overblown or made up go read his diary which was released a couple of years ago. It removes all doubt.

Sartre is Shartre!

Derrida is purified Heidegger and from there on you have opened pandora's box and the SJWs, third wave feminists etc are all good readers of Heidegger.

Heidegger didn't fully realize the consequences of his philosophy. He thought what would lead to po-mo relativism would actually lead to social conservative provincialism but he was wrong. Has a German already tried to destroy (de-strukt) the dominant European beliefs and as a resulted created a massive cultural upheaval that took centuries to overcome?

Edit: I really needed to proofread that. There are a couple of sentences in there which were placeholders which I only got rid of half of, plus a few typos and missing words. It should still be obvious what it is I am trying to say though.

>hate on
More evidence of dysgenics.
You should be euthanised, OP.

>hate on

>Derrida is purified Heidegger

Are you jewish?

Yes but if Heidegger is admitted as obviously intellectually anti-semitic then he cannot be used to promote post-modernism, and academia will have to return to "doing actual fucking work that makes sense." Just watch how Farias or now Emmanuel Faye are absolutely lynched by the bourgeois academics for pointing out what is obvious.

Do you realize just how easy it is to write a paper on Heidegger? My Gott. And it's totally inconsequential. You know what a Heideggerian looks like? He looks exactly like what Bernhard described: Kitschy little upper middle class pseuds.

>Derrida is purified Heidegger and from there on you have opened pandora's box and the SJWs, third wave feminists etc are all good readers of Heidegger.
This is entirely wrong. Fuck off, Petersonfag.

Yes.

Destruktion of western metaphysics is different from deconstruction western logocentrism how?

"Justice cannot be deconstructed." - Derrida

Literally fucking Heidegger's interpretation of Heraclitus. Zizek is a bit of a meme, but a return to Hegel would do us much good after the Heidegger/Derridean post-modernism.

This, I feel like filtering Derrida just because of the clueless retards that bring him up

Shut up. Shut up you fucking idiot you have read all of zero of the names you have brought up. Stop fucking typing

I don't know Peterson outside of him being a meme on this board.

Derrida rightly critiques Heidegger in many ways, but those critiques are present in Heidegger, he was just too busy having sex with students to know.

> J-JUST CHUD UP!

The absolute state of Heideggerians.

Shhhhhhh

No.
inb4 your lying

>Yes but if Heidegger is admitted as obviously intellectually anti-semitic then he cannot be used to promote post-modernism
I don't see what this has to do with anything that I posted or to OP whom I was responding to. The people debating pomo in this thread have nothing to do with me.

Arguments from authority and ad hominem...

>neo-liberal
I'm not sure you know what that means

We have commandeered your thread to serve a higher purpose

I wonder why does not every book handling some author who supports communism, try to deny the authors link to communism, ''HE WAS NOT REALLY A COMMUNIST, HE DID NOT SUPPORT THOSE GULAGS AND SLAUGHTER OF THE INTELLIGENT HUMANS''

instead they are completly OK with that apparently, but most of books and humans are shit so what would you have expected?

Its Leftist code for when Leftists need to hide culpability

>I don't know Peterson
He's a pseud, just like you.

Elite universities are not neo-liberal? Hmm...interesting. How do they attract students again? What is their business model?

Perhaps they are anarchist or Catholic integralists...

Ad hominem is surely not pseud.

Communism is a reasonably board term that could mean lots of things. You can be a communist and hate the soviet union. The term Nazi is a narrow term that means something small. One can't really be a Nazi and dislike the basic elements of Nazism. A better comparison would be Bolshevism rather than Communism in comparison to Nazism.

Imagine posting this and thinking you're a smart well-reasoned person

>One can't really be a Nazi and dislike the basic elements of Nazism.

I don't think Heidegger was ignorant of or disliked basic elements of Nazism. I do think he was a retard who couldn't think anything out. Example is how quickly the Nazis went full objectivist technophile and, arguably, violated many Heideggerian 'virtues.'

Heidegger was so naive he thought he could see where Nazism would lead.

And of course he criticizes Spengler's conception of history and the man turned out to be much more prescient than Heidegger ever was.

But who cares? Don't admit you're wrong. Double down and start bitching about space exploration!

Not to mention when Stalin was busy purging people and filling up gulags he was claiming that the Soviet Union was this wonderful place run for the people. You can read about people like Shaw being taken on tours through fake villages and call them idiots but not necessarily nasty.

Hitler was pretty open and clear about what he was about.

Imagine if they mentioned that frege was a nazi every sentence in a logic textbook

>the state of philosophy

Its not philosophy its just Jews being Jews

Asides from the fact it isn't true it isn't relevant at all in that context. Heidegger's membership of the Nazi party isn't completely removed from his philosophy and is worth mentioning, and it is important from a purely biographical standpoint. Frege may have been an antisemite but it doesn't have anything to with his philosophy and doesn't actually enter into his life in the way he acted towards anyone IIRC.

Quads of truth? Faye isn't Jewish and Arendt comes out much worse in his view. Heidegger is Heidegger and not much of value was lost but Arendt destroyed her philosophy of totalitarianism by forgiving and really ignoring Heidegger being literally Eichmann. This is probably the most controversial of Faye's arguments. He proved that Heidegger acted like the bureaucratic Eichmann, preventing Jewish colleagues and some students from teaching. In principle, it's the same thing as Eichmann and the origin of totalitarianism.

Philosophers are in general shitposters, and it's pretty easy to shitpost about someone who was a literal Nazi.

Heiddeger deconstructivism is not exactly the same as Derrida's though. It doesn't really lend itself to such a relativism that everything goes.

Boohoo Heidegger was woke and didn’t cuck

>tfw overdosed on the Greeks

>deconstructionism
I think that's the right term. English not first language.

Anti-semitism is the rational and rightful conclusion of any serious analysis of Judaism as a Religious-Political force

Better question: why does everyone hate on the Nazi party? Hard mode: no "but muh 6 gubillion"

They kind of started a World War

Not even close. Jews had been destroying Germany for years and when the Germans did something about it judea declared war on them and lobbied all their vassals to go after them.

Because they dealt with the jewish problem in the most retarded way possible.

they were chauvinistic

>People hate on Heidegger because he invented post modern relativism and deconstruction.

he may have planted the seeds that led to stuff like derrida and foucault but he strongly opposed postmodernism and relativism

>Derrida is purified Heidegger
imagine being this fucking retarded

You know he was a literal cuck though, right? His son isn't his and it was agreed upon from the start. He raised his wife's son. He also fucked Hannah Arendt many, many times in his cabin.

Where is your god now?

It’s kind of fucked up that we are at a point where you read the mention that he was a member of the Nazi party as a ‘zippy diss’. I guess you don’t really appreciate just how traumatic the war was for every european who experienced it. Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party, and after the war he never really expressed regret over it, and now that we have his notebooks we know he was genuinely antisemitic as well, he wasn’t just a member of the party for expedience, he *was* a Nazi.

It’s hard to see how this isn’t an important fact to consider while interpreting his work. None of it is a fucking “diss”. It’s an attempt to come to terms with how a clearly great philosopher came to support an ideology as horrifying as Nazism.

Heidegger’s philosophy on the surface doesn’t *seem* overtly Nazi, I’m speaking as a passionate heideggerian, but the question of where it fits in is always there looming in the background. Few think Heidegger ought to be a priori dismissed for being Nazi (though some do argue that) but people have their guard up, the trauma of the war is such that the fact of his Nazism cannot be just not mentioned. To take Heidegger seriously is to confront that fact. It is to critically confront his thought as to understand the question of being, but not let ourselves get caught up in the same barabarism.

thats not cuckoldry you imbecile

> Deconstruction came to Heidegger's attention in 1967 by way of Lucien Braun's recommendation of Jacques Derrida's work (Hans-Georg Gadamer was present at an initial discussion and indicated to Heidegger that Derrida's work came to his attention by way of an assistant). Heidegger expressed interest in meeting Derrida personally after the latter sent him some of his work. There was discussion of a meeting in 1972, but this failed to take place.

Only reason the meeting didn't happen was because Derrida bailed at the last minute, thinking it better to never meet in person his biggest influence.

> Elfride then gave birth to Hermann in 1920. Heidegger knew that he was not Hermann's biological father but raised him as his son. Hermann's biological father, who became godfather to his son, was family friend and doctor Friedel Caesar. Hermann was told of this at the age of 14.

This happened while they were married. Its the definition of cuckoldry

meant for

cucked by a family friend during their marriage and the family friend remained a family friend

its peak cuckoldry

>thinking it better to never meet in person his biggest influence.

Chickenshit

My only question would be was it even a real marriage at that point. He was off fucking ever skirt he could grab at the same time

Because you are conflating a particular political party with an ideology. It doesn’t make sense to hold any republican (small r) responsible for the crimes of other republics. Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson are not responsible for Robespierre, but the other Jacobins are.

A French, British, or American communist can’t be responsibly held accountable for the acts of the Bolshevik Party, only Bolsheviks can.

Heidegger was a willing member of THE Nazi party, the same one Hitler was the leader of. And he never really showed any trouble with what the Nazis did, and after the war he never expressed regret. So yeah, that’s why Heidegger and Carl Schmitt are genuinely tainted by Nazism, but it doesn’t really make sense to say Sartre is tainted by Stalinism.

He did use the term but it was more to do with breaking down centuries of distortion in the understanding of Greek texts due to a 'Chinese whispers' of translation and interpretation than what most people think of when they hear the word.

Because if you knew anything about the black notebooks, you'd knew how Nazism actually structured his ontology. The supranazism he developed later in life is not evident, since he layered his thesis across the labyrinth that his work forms.

Still, Nazism as an ideology provides the basis of his whole philosophy of being.

>Nazism as an ideology provides the basis of his whole philosophy of being.

Other way around. Being and Time was written 1927. Historically, Nazism was nascent at this point and if you actually read the diary, he doesnt even as much as mention it til much later. His philosophy allows for Nazism but its not based on it. You wouldnt even have to read his stuff to know this. Simple chronology disproves this most egregious claim.

Schmitt was much more regretful of his involvement with Nazism. In his view, he was spied on and made a prisoner by the SS. He knew he had made a mistake, even more so because he initially sought to rescue the constitution from its inevitable implosion and also because he advocated voting against the Nazis.

Schmitt after the war was very upset that his work would forever be marked by Nazism but he felt unjustly condemned as a Nazi (in his view he didn't do much wrong and was more a victim) and saw others get by easily, or suddenly join the anti-German camp after WWII, when before they themselves had said anti-semitic things. Andre Gide is an example.

There is misunderstanding here, and it's on me, sorry about that. He both provided the philosophical foundation for Nazism and developed his later thinking around it.
Not to say that Nazi ideologues have read him, but he definitely epitomizes the spirit of his time.
In a way, he is utterly Nazi, even though (or precisely because) he ultimately rejected Nazism as it didn't go far enough (hence the introduction of the term supranazism). His ontology precisely advocates for the happening of Nazism, as mode of being in the world (not sure of the terminology in English), and the diary (aka black notebook I guess?) Demonstrates this well enough.

So where's the problem?

I guess if you believe Nazi propaganda, it’s pretty hard to convince you otherwise.

You think nahtzee propaganda is a problem when every news outlet is run by jews?

Apparently it’s not done a very good job considering people are making stupid ass threads like this.

Even if you were right, postmodernism is bringing in a new wave of fascism by deconstructing itself these days. People on the "far right" are getting into Foucault, Adorno, etc.

I don't understand. Rorty is explicitly not discrediting Heidegger's work.

>People hate on Heidegger because he invented post modern relativism and deconstruction.
I mean, you're almost not even wrong.

Because the educational system and media has shown me all the bad things they did without mentioning the bad things done by the allies and soviets to put it into perspective

Because there were better and worse Nazis, almost none of which got off easy after the war.
Whether their fate was right or wrong is beyond importance now, but it was their fate nonetheless

>Why does everyone have to hate on Heidegger for being a member of the Nazi Party?

I doubt this ever happens besides the lowest of plebs somehow learning about him.

99% of people I have ever discussed him with do not bring up him being a Nazi.

easymode response: because to the party everything East of Poland was nothing more than the Fuhrer's vermin-infested pantry. It is a large reason why the Nazis were squashed out rather than petering out weakly under an armistice with Russia in 45. There in fact was a short period of time where the Nazi party could have continued to sway the country post war, but it was lost to the infighting of the remaining general staff just before the end of the war.
Or you could just mention the fact that Hitler essentially was the party as far as anyone was concerned. Additionally he proved a nightmare of a politician--he went back on his word whenever it played to his advantage; he had little to no conception of economics, let alone wartime production; his iron will and over ambition helped secure swift victories but languished slower strategies.
Sure, they get a bad rep, but they most certainly deserve the majority of it

This isn't Reddit, pal.

>before they did too much bad stuff
Literally every intellectual, and even middlebrows like Sinclair Lewis, saw what was happening.

>They will kill jews with feathers and masturbation machines
Bet they didn't see that coming.

Are you the same pseud spewing bullshit as in the last Heidegger/Derrida thread? Lmfao, go read the people you talk about.

Actually a somewhat recent study (2015) was published on the subject of the black notebooks and the extent to which Heidegger's earlier works like Being and Time also exhibit tangible Nazism, Heidegger and the Jews by Donatella di Cesare. It caused quite a stir, I believe di Cesare actually needed bodyguards at one point because people were so pissed off.
The core argument, if I recall correctly, is that he didn't hate Jews as such, but rather that he ties into a larger German tradition of metaphysical antisemitism (and we know that Heidegger didn't have anything against real physical Jewish poon). You find this in Hegel and especially Fichte as well, like his piece on 'Johanneisches Christentum', and generally speaking it's the idea that (with reference to the Bible) Jews adhere to 'Fleisch', Christians to 'Geist'; that Jews are really a kind of nihilists, 'uneigentlich'. I believe the distinction between metaphysical and 'real' antisemitism is correct, but di Cesare goes on to make some rather speculative, dubious claims. If I remember correctly, at one point she claims a concept like Heidegger's 'Verwüstung' was coined with the antisemitic 'Verjudung' and doesn't event consider that fact that ver- is an extremely common and productive prefix with no set ties to any such notion.
I don't believe she ever goes so far as to make Nazism the basis of his ontology, which I think is also a stretch, but of course this doesn't prevent Nazism from being in many ways compatible with his ontology.

The bolshies welcomed Celine with open arms but he wasn't fooled by them for one moment.

with the antisemitic 'Verjudung' in mind*

oooh you're skating on thin ice here.
Washington Jefferson and Hamilton couldn't be held responsible for French Jacobin crimes because they were loyal to their ally, Louis XVI and perhaps they even recognized that the Jacobins were being somehow supported by their British Crown sponsors like Pitt as revenge for that treacherous alliance.

Of course Paine was openly a supporter of the French Revolutoin and a French Deputy, and openly worked for an equivalent revolution in Britain. But he was a Girondin and so regarded as an enemy of the Jacobins.

And I disagree with you that American French and British communists weren't responsible for the horrors of the gulag.

They all deserved to be hanged for treason and crimes against humanity.

I'll ask here since I don't want to make a new topic. Are there any good editions and translations of the works of Giovanni Gentile. I'm not so interested in his views on fascism per se, but more on education and philosophy. English or German.

>Nazi
You guys know this is a word jews made up, right? The "nazis" didn't call themselves "nazis." Are you aware that you are literally using a jewish propaganda word? Try to keep that in mind in the future, your argument completely loses credibility when you simply repeat jewish propaganda.

A. James Gregor is a great scholar and you should read everything by him including his new translation of Gentile's The Doctrine of Fascism.

You would also like the essay "Education in the Philosophy of Gentile" by Valmai Burwood Evans.

I don't see how you can be a Jew according to Heidegger and not concealed to being, or worse use dasein as an object. Catholics don't fair a lot better in his view but Lutherans have potential. I'm sure in Heidegger's mind he saw his philosophy as an attack against a conspiratorial view of Jews (the diaries attest to this) and the answer is a return to pastoral paganism as practiced by the Greeks before Plato and practiced by the Germans before Christianity. For Heidegger, like for Nietzsche, German culture and language is naturally drawn towards a pagan view of the world. If you don't believe them, see how late Germanics were in ending human sacrifice.

That said, Heidegger absolutely does not adhere to a material conception of race. He would be fine with Jews converting to paganism.

If the phrase "The nothing itself nothings" is not peak post-modernism I don't know what is.

Foucault rightly calls him the essential philosopher...essential for post-modernism.

Crazy how /pol/ is the mirror image of trannies raging about their pronouns.

>His relationship to the Nazi part is very complex and I am attempting to put forth a very unflattering profile of him as a counter point of yours. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
I, an enlightened centrist, etc.

sure