My summer reading project has been to work through the books that I own written by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. The title above is an allusion to the book by Allen Scult called “Being Jewish/Reading Heidegger” – a book which I haven’t read because of its price tag. The juxtaposition present in Scult’s title and my own is important given Heidegger’s connection with National Socialism, a political ‘mistake’ which has marred his public image considerably.
Two biographies that I am aware of offer separate perspectives on Heidegger. The first is the more balanced one, Safranksi’s “Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil,” and the second is by Emmanuel Faye, who certainly has an axe to grind in “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy in Light of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935.”
I draw attention to these works and this issue because I believe that we encounter a truly ethical problem when we read the works of not only Heidegger but also Frege, and Yoder, and even Barth. I do not mean to equivocate these figures, but I do mean to draw attention to the fact that each of these figures has a skeleton in their closet.
Heidegger is one of the most prominent figures in Continental philosophy, and yet his support of Hitler remains a stumbling block when reading his works.
http://www.amazon.ca/Heidegger-Introduction-Philosophy-Unpublished-1933-...
Frege, the founder of contemporary formal logic, was given a similar black mark when his anti-Semitic journal entries were uncovered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege#1924_diary
Yoder, the most notable Mennonite theologian, was disciplined for his sexual experimentation out of wedlock and yet remains an incredibly important figure for Anabaptists.
http://peacetheology.net/john-h-yoder/john-howard-yoder’s-sexual-misconduct—part-five-2/
Lastly, perhaps the most ambiguous case, is Karl Barth whose questionable relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum is not often discussed in theological circles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth#Relationship_with_Charlotte_von_...
My question, as I read Heidegger with a Mennonite hermeneutic, is what should I make of this? I am not a fan of the line of thinking that would say that the writing of these thinkers is contaminated by their personal mistakes. This only leads to the reading of perfect people – and flawless people don’t exist. On the other hand, I am not in agreement with those who ignore these problematic biographical facts about thinkers favored in the various discourses mentioned above. So I am left to read Heidegger’s “Introduction to Metaphysics” and soon his “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics,” wondering whether the search for the contamination of fascism in these writings doesn’t reflect a purist impulse in the first instance…
I welcome any reflections from the reader below-
The trouble with human
I understand the dilemma but think we need to take the best people can offer and view it with compassion. It is easiest when the people are dead and we can make our selections and judgements without a negative impact on the person. Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., people have flaws. We need not ignore them but we need to still be able to take heed to the best they had to offer humanity. Perhaps my view is simplistic but I do not imagine a world where perfection is attainable. I recognize some of these downfalls are pretty dreadful and I don't want to seem to excuse or ignore these sins, that is not what I am advocating. I would see it this way, imagine that each of us is a pane of glass and our faults cause the glass to crack. The people who follow us could just sweep the glass away but they could choose the from the pieces the most beautiful and use them to create a new work, a new window.
Hey Max, There have been a
Hey Max,
There have been a few recent posts around the blogs addressing Yoder on this issue. I would say that for myself the process is ongoing and reflexive. I sense that people want to have these difficulties 'resolved' but in that sense a reader's posture might become incapable of addressing any 'new light' that is shed on writers and then one will face another crisis of decision or perspective. When the issue is personal (related to the actual events) or professional (being a Barth/Heidegger/Yoder scholar) then one may need to work through an articulated position more clearly but even then one may need to have the process be open and ongoing (though in the case of it being personal there may also be a need for closure and moving on).
The question for me is to continue to examine and explore the relationship between logic and existence. Perhaps we are unaware of how an accepted logic actually lends itself to destructive practices BUT we should also not assume that someone's logic is defective or destructive just because they had destructive personal practices. So as we readers we continue to read influential writers and hold them accountable to the patterns of how their thoughts get extended into life.
In the case of Heidegger I think the Jewish philosopher (and Heidegger's student) Emmanuel Levinas is a good example. Heidegger's politics is always a black spot in his recollection though he also cannot deny the influence and insight that came from working with Heidegger.
Post new comment