Heidegger life and Philosophy 4 of 6

Continuation

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Heidegger
• Philosophy
• Existencialism
• Phenomenologie

[jsscm02]

It is convenient to call Heidegger a Nazi and have a good excuse to avoid reading his work. Yes, Heidegger was fascinated by National Socialism; yes, he saw in it an opportunity for Germany and yes, he was deluded. Let's not forget however that as early as Besinnung (Mindfulness) Heidegger criticizes the Hitler's youth and orients himself resolutely toward a thinking of man's dwelling on earth that is incompatible with National Socialism (and capitalistic societies for that matter).

[zarakhast]

Philosophy is, as Heidegger said, a "running forward in thought" towards death. That's all it is.

[zarakhast]

There is inherently nothing "political" about Heidegger's analysis of Da-sein in Being & Time. It focuses on death - which is very much "not of this world" - and tries to prepare us for it. There isn't even the faintest hint of a political message in B&T, although I'm sure you could invent one if it suited your purposes to do so.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger is truly the "secret king of thought". Anyone who equates his thought with Nazism - despite his "involvement" with the Nazis - and judges him solely on the basis of that assumption is miles off the mark. That doesn't mean that Heidegger didn't have some sympathy with the Nazis but there is no way that his philosophy is the same as theirs. Ultimately though it shouldn't matter to you if what you are looking for is knowledge of the Absolute without any "political" implications.

[zarakhast]

And once again (this became boring a long time ago but seemingly it needs repeating over and over again) : philosophy, fundamentally, has nothing whatsoever to do with "politics". Politics feeds off and exploits philosophy, not the other way around. Philosophy, as Plato averred, has to do with preparation for death. It is a search for absolute knowledge. It has nothing directly to do with the "affairs of men" (i.e. politics at any given moment).

[zarakhast]

Is the question whether the material or the mental is more fundamental really fundamental ? These concepts - "material" and "mental" are already vague and ill-defined anyway. But disregarding the "correct" conceptions of these concepts, the more fundamental question is why there should be anything at all, whether mental or material. This is what philosophy consists in : going beyond ALL things - not merely the "mental" or the "material".

[zarakhast]

Does history (the subject) predate both philosophy and politics then ? Is "history" the yardstick for judging the relationship between philosophy and politics ? What is history ? Is this a question which can be decided by history ?

[zarakhast]

"Philosophy and politics are historically interdependent" ? Hmm. Please expand.

[zarakhast]

@blackmichael75 Well you argue that then. Well argued !

[blackmichael75]

@zarakhast I would argue that the material is fundamental, in that it precedes the mental, and is it's base, which includes ontological speculation of any kind.