Heidegger: la question de l'être (6)

Sure; and you would turn right around and declare that Jesus is, or Ghandi, or some other feel good doctrine that spreads herd warmth; Heidegger, both his thought, and the man, is dangerous, because it strips away those comfortable, fraudulent veils that we have been consoling ourselves with to the point of their own exhaustion "God is dead"--yes, Heidegger is Nietzsche's direct heir; those who push forward into the unknown and are prosecuted for it--that is more like courage.

"as a man". This translates into herd-prosecution, he who endangers the mob, and we all know how that ends up; with the crucifixion of the individual--the heretic. The fact that you believe a man's philosophy can be separated from the man himself or woman from her philosophy is itself anti-intellectual and a rather mediocre conclusion. If anyone is an apologist, then the upholder of the previous view would be it.

"he supported the liquidation of academic freedom"

This essentially shows that you have no comprehension of neither Heidegger's philosophical/historical situation--Europe's historical situation--the grim future of philosophy and its ramifications upon society at that time--nor the philosophical atmosphere of today. When cultural Marxists begin bitching about "lonely crowds" "alienation" "over-stimulation" "the death of spirituality"--all Heidegger has to say is "I told you so".

"without apologising for the actions and personality of the man"

The naive idea of hanging onto some fettered morality in an age which has annihilated all world-views is a hilarity. No one wanted six million people to die; but that is exactly where our comprehension stops--at digits. Also, your claims about him being an anti-semite is a fraud. The man was surrounded with Jewish colleagues and lovers his entire life; his wife was half Jewish.

"le désert croît"

Tradesman thinks

do you maintain your statement ?

I just wanted to express support for Krelianx.

To say that one of the most important philosophers of modern times can only be correctly interpreted via ONE other political philosopher's opinions is conspicuously narrow-minded.

But when the person making this claim is also returning to the same videos to repost it again and again and doing so on every video, then it throws considerable suspicion upon their motives. It has all the hallmarks of political zealotry not open-minded inquiry.

No, it simply means a lot of people followed your advise and actually downloaded the essays; it does not mean they agree with you in that they are fundamental. And, contrary to what you think, I have read Strauss (I wrote my thesis on Being and Time). Do not appeal to my ignorance about the subject matter to substantiate your argument. I pointed out Strauss' reading is controversial and often UNRELATED to the videos at hand. You blatantly interject all videos of Heidegger with your plea...

Even worse, you claim I am rejecting Strauss on the basis of prejudice. That's a fine way of saying no one can disagree with Strauss' necessity without falling into prejudice. I asked you why didn't you direct viewers to other, more contemporary and less controversial, introductions about Heidegger and you haven't responded. It seems clear to me this is about your affinity with Strauss more than inciting an understanding of Heidegger. And you obviate the necessity which you attribute to Strauss.