January 7, 2010 at 7:01 P.M. An advertisement was imposed on this site: "Learn Fluent Hebrew, Hebrew Courses From $39.95. Instant Download or Compact Disc. www.Langocity.com/Hebrew "
It is an insult for the person attaching this advertisement to my blogs to "accuse" a person of being Jewish. Well, I am not a religious person, nor am I Jewish. However, ANYONE with the name "Menendez" probably has Jewish ancestry. I happen to find Hebrew literature and philosophy highly interesting. I took a course in the subject as a college student. I may someday decide to learn Hebrew. Perhaps this advertisement came from "Patricia Cohen" of the Times? Some people are under the impression that anyone who reads many books must be a Jewish person. This is not necessarily the case. ("Is Humanism Still Possible?")
December 2, 2009 at 8:52 A.M. Spacing of my final paragraphs was affected, again, and I have restored the correct spacing, also "again and again."
November 25, 2009 at 10:05 A.M. New "errors" inserted and corrected. (A single letter was deleted from a word since my previous review of this work.)
November 24, 2009 at 10:30 A.M. "Error" inserted and corrected. I thought that they had left this essay alone. Too bad. Nydia Hernandez and Anne Milgram are an item?
November 16, 2009 at 1:55 P.M. I was unable to back-up files earlier, new "errors" were inserted in this essay since this morning. Tell your friends about this spectacle. Oh, yes ... spacing was affected, once again, since this morning.
November 16, 2009 at 9:13 A.M. One "error" was inserted in the text and spacing was affected, at the identical paragraph, as has been the case seven times before. ("What is it like to be tortured?")
November 15, 2009 at 9:15 A.M. My computer's security system was frozen yesterday. I was able to restart my computer this morning, but the lower portion of my screen, the controls, are gone. I will keep writing. Spacing was affected, again, this morning. This evening at 8:00 P.M. "The Prisoner" will be "paroled" on AMC. I was a big fan of the sixties' series in reruns. Let's see how they do in this remake. Similar themes are explored in the new "Alice," based on Lewis Carroll's classic.
November 14, 2009 at 5:25 P.M. A letter was altered in one word. I have restored the correct letter. I will continue to struggle. ("Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.") At 7:35 P.M., spacing had been affected again. I have made the necessary correction.
November 14, 2009 at 9:19 A.M. Spacing was affected, again, overnight. I have corrected the "error." (Apparently, someone thought it would be fun to alter the foregoing sentence. Please see "Debbie Poritz Likes the Ladies!" which is forthcoming.)
November 13, 2009 at 10:10 P.M. "Errors" inserted and corrected. Spacing was altered in identical fashion, once more. This level of harassment making use of government resources is not unusual. There are many essays that have been subjected to much worse. Each alteration is a publicly committed cybercrime intended to cause additional psychological harm after twenty-one years of this sort of thing and much worse. I will continue to make necessary corrections. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
November 13, 2009 at 11:08 A.M. Spacing was affected, again, since earlier this morning. ("'Che': A Movie Review.")
November 13, 2009 at 8:25 A.M. One word was deleted overnight. Spacing was also affected, again. I have now corrected this inserted "error." ("Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")
November 12, 2009 at 2:26 P.M. Spacing was affected again since this morning by New Jersey's hackers. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
The goal of these cybercrimes is to maximize frustrations so as to induce collapse and abandonment of my writing efforts or to generate a violent response from the victim. These methods have the opposite of the desired effects on me. ("What is it like to be tortured?")
Are you a guilty bystander to these crimes? ("Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?") The "Lesbian love-fest" is on in New Jersey. Right, Sybil?
November 11, 2009 at 6:45 P.M. Spacing was affected once more since my review hours ago. For a discussion of these "frustration techniques" and censorship, see "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory" and "How Censorship Works in America."
November 11, 2009 at 3:55 P.M. Numerous "errors" were inserted in this text since this morning. I will make corrections yet again. I ask readers to experience this process with me in order to understand the reality of fascism in parts of America as against the rhetoric of freedom. I cannot say how many other writings have been vandalized. I will try to correct additional inserted "errors" in the days and weeks ahead. Perhaps China will call on the United States to live up to the true meaning of our creed and abide by the First Amendment of the Constitution. ("How Censorship Works in America.")
I cannot believe that this level of censorship and suppression of intellectual work takes place, publicly, without government cooperation -- on Veteran's Day. This sanctioned censorship and torture dishonors the memory of the men and women who have given their lives for the freedoms that are now denied to citizens through corruption. An "error" was inserted in the foregoing sentence since this morning. I am saddened and ashamed that such public crimes are possible in America. ("Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")
November 11, 2009 at 11:36 A.M. Spacing, again, was affected since my previous review. I have now corrected the problem, also again. ("New Jersey's Mafia Culture in Politics and Law" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest AGAINST Peace!")
November 11, 2009 at 9:11 A.M. Spacing was affected overnight. I have now corrected that problem, until next time. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Driving While Black [DWB] in New Jersey.")
November 10, 2009 at 9:30 P.M. "Errors" were already inserted in this essay posted earlier today. New Jersey's "lesbian love-fest" must be heating up with some Cuabanaza action. This process of vandalizing the text will continue, indefinitely, with the blessings of the authorities in one very corrupt American jurisdiction. This is to make a lie of the Constitution of the United States of America that guarantees freedom of speech to everyone. Let us see what they try next. ("Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution.")
"Meow Mix," Nydia Hernandez? Tickets for the Ellen Show? Have you met Lourdes Santiago, Nydia? I am told that New Jersey's lesbians are protected by prominent members of the Obama administration, like Elizabeth Warren. Ms. Napolitano? I refuse to believe such a scurrilous charge in the absence of corroborating evidence. I am sure that Ms. Warren is against censorship, even if she is a lesbian. ("Is there a gay marriage right?")
November 10, 2009 at 5:24 P.M. Attacks on this essay must be expected. Spacing has already been affected, "errors" will be inserted in the work, continually, as part of the protected cybercrime campaign from New Jersey. ("What is it like to be tortured?")
I don't care if you are a lesbian, Nydia, but I do object to censorship and alterations of my writings. Give my regards to Martha. ("Another Mafia Sweep in New Jersey and Anne Milgram is Clueless.")
Patricia Cohen, "An Ethical Question: Does a Nazi Deserve a Place Among Philosophers?," in The New York Times, November 9, 2009, at p. C1.
Richard Wolin, Heidegger's Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001). (Much better than Professor Faye's book.)
Marjorie Grene, A Philosophical Testament (Illinois: Open Court, 1995), pp. 81-83, et passim. (Great American philosopher in the phenomenological tradition, who happened to be Jewish, comments on Heidegger with whom she studied in the thirties.)
Richard Kearney, "Martin Heidegger," in Modern Movements in European Philosophy: Phenomenology, Critical Theory, Structuralism (New York & Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), pp. 28-50. (Great at showing the continuities in theoretical developments.)
I.
It is always gratifying when philosophy receives the serious attention of American journalists. The decades-old controversy concerning Martin Heidegger's place and importance in the canon of major philosophers of the twentieth century seems to have drawn some new energy from the translation and publication in America of French philosopher Emmanuel Faye's controversial challenge to Heidegger's importance. I recall reading French reviews and debates concerning this work when it first appeared.
Regrettably, the article by Ms. Cohen is marred by serious failures in comprehending Heidegger's work -- for which the person, or persons, who wrote this essay are not to blame, especially if (as I suspect) English is not the first language of this author(s) -- also revealing lapses are evident in "her" text suggesting a lack of philosophical training among the persons responsible for this newspaper article.
Perhaps Mr. Ginarte was involved in the "drafting" of this essay or has knowledge of the real name of its author? I suspect the real author of this essay is "Jean-Paul Rathbone." ("Is the universe only a numbers game?")
Let us read through the essay and examine the difficulties raised in this discussion. It may then be easier to identify the issues to be analyzed and, possibly, resolved.
Heidegger's critique of Western thought and technology, we are told, has "penetrated deeply into architecture, [example, please?] psychology and literary theory and inspired some of the most influential intellectual movements of the 20th century. Yet he [Heidegger] was also a fervent Nazi."
Ms. Cohen is seemingly equating or confusing Heidegger's phenomenology and explorations into hermeneutics with postmodernism. These intellectual currents or movements are not at all the same thing. Curiously, in an article examining Heidegger's claim to a spot on the canonical list of great philosophers of the twentieth century, Heidegger's philosophical work is linked to postmodernism (how?) and, very strangely, HERMENEUTICS is not mentioned at all.
"Heidegger has exerted an enormous influence on contemporary thinking" -- except for architecture -- "extending beyond the realm of philosophy proper to embrace such diverse fields as psychology, theology, linguistics and modern theories of the text -- most notably the hermeneutic theory of Gadamer and Ricoeur and the deconstructive theory of Derrida."
Richard Kearney, "Martin Heidegger," in Modern Movements, at p. 28.
Derrida is a postmodernist; Heidegger is a Modern phenomenological thinker. Heidegger was not a structuralist, much less a post-structuralist. In what sense does Ms. Cohen describe Heidegger as a "postmodernist"? Claude Levi-Strauss and Martin Heidegger would have little to discuss, philosophically or otherwise. None of these terms -- including "postmodernism" -- are defined by Ms. Cohen in her article. This is probably fortunate for readers of her regrettable essay. ("Umberto Eco and the Semiotics of Power.")
Not once do I see the word "hermeneutics" in this article by Ms. Cohen. I find not a single reference to Hans-Georg Gadamer, perhaps Heidegger's most important student, and the man who (in my judgment) will be regarded as the greatest philosopher in the German tradition in the century that he shared with Heidegger. This is an unforgivable lapse by Ms. Cohen. Did no editor at The New York Times notice this problem? I guess not. ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
It would surprise readers to discover an article about Jean-Paul Sartre that does not mention existentialism. It is equally bizarre to find the word "hermeneutics" removed from evaluations of Heidegger's corpus.
This is a fairly typical sample of recent writings in the Times suggesting philosophical illiteracy -- and occasional literal illiteracy -- on the part of reviewers and so-called "critics" for that once great newspaper. I can only hope that no journalist would be a part of cybercrime against me or would accept cash payments from political (or other prominent "figures") to insert items in his or her texts. When journalists cooperate with censorship and suppressions of speech something is seriously wrong in America's political culture. Mathew Alper? ("Incoherence in 'The New York Times'" and "Incoherence in 'The New Yorker.'")
Incidentally, when reading my paragraphs in The New York Review of Books, I would prefer that they actually appear under my own name. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
An assumption made by this author is that ideas may be "as dangerous to modern thought" as the "Nazi movement was to the physical existence of the exterminated peoples." This seems to be Ms. Cohen's form of "Absolute Idealism," which leads the author to a fear of the power of ideas in human societies. The philosophical term for this reaction is "anti-intellectualism." ("David Stove's Critique of Idealism.")
Ms. Cohen's philosophical ignorance is surpassed in a recent issue of The New Yorker, December 7, 2009, at p. 92. John Locke and Immanuel Kant are equated as "transcendental" theorists inspiring the, allegedly, "naive" theory of justice of John Rawls. All of these thinkers and/or Professor Rawls, allegedly, "overlook the fact that individuals and cultures disagree."
Is it accurate to say, I wonder, that Rawls would never have considered that possibility of disagreement? Did Rawls not seek an objective stance ("veil of ignorance") that allows for overcoming particular interests and disagreements among philosophers? John Locke was "not" an empiricist? In what sense is Locke a "transcendentalist"? Or a "rationalist"?
An "anti-intellectual" attitude may itself be a form of fascism or Nazism. "Ms. Cohen" displays a dread of ideas and the desire to destroy ideas along with those who create or discover them. Philosophy is the opposite of this attitude. Philosophy regards ideas as entities to be examined and criticized, rationally, accepted or rejected on their merits, regardless of the personal qualities of their proponents. ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")
To focus on the person of the philosopher when attacking his or her ideas is to indulge in the ad hominem fallacy. This is a well-known logical error which may or may not be attributed to Professor Faye. However, it is an error that certainly is evident in this "fey" review or commentary by Ms. Cohen. I suspect that "Ms. Cohen" is a Cubanaza. Estela De La Cruz? Perhaps "Patricia Cohen" is a former lover of Ms. Poritz?
Furthermore, it is likely that this "spicy tamale" -- as The New York Times sometimes describes Latina women -- is a participant in the cyberwars directed against my blogs. I hope to discover the truth concerning such matters soon. I fail to see why men may not be described as "spicy tamales." I must warn the reader that merely for suggesting such an outrageous thing I will experience more intense censorship and vandalism of my writings together with accusations of homosexuality. You may refer to me at any time as a "spicy tamale." Just how "spicy" I am must be reserved for a fortunate few to discover. ("William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft.")
There are several distinct questions lumped together and confused by this journalist: 1) Was Martin Heidegger a great thinker? 2) If so, then were Heidegger's ideas necessarily Nazi ideas? 3) Even if Heidegger's ideas were not Nazi ideas, were they contaminated by Heidegger's Nazism? 4) If either 2 or 3 is true, then is it permissible to ignore Heidegger and the influence of his work in the twentieth century?
I will reserve my answers to these questions for my conclusion of this essay. Any philosophical or other ideas may be misinterpreted or they may be suggestive of unintended consequences for students or admirers of particular philosophers. This danger of misreading is not attributable to philosophers, usually, nor to writers who cannot be faulted for the misuse of their work.
Incidentally, it is never a valid criticism of a philosopher to deface his or her work, to destroy writings, or to burn books is a confession of barbarism. I have experienced daily alterations of my writings for the past ten years on this computer. Nazis burned books. Jews do not burn books. Jews tend to be the people who write and read books. Is there antisemitism -- whether conscious or unconscious antisemitism -- in the adoption of the name "Patricia Cohen" by a Republicana-Cubanaza even if the name is held by a real person? I think so. ("Is Humanism Still Possible?")
Ms. Cohen summarizes Faye's critique, then contends that among the ideas to be feared -- for which a "warning label" may be necessary -- are "the exaltation of the state over the individual, [Where does Heidegger, who is usually regarded as a strong individualist as distinct from a humanist, suggest such a thing?] the impossibility of morality, [In this same article, Ms. Cohen attributes the opposite view to Heidegger, without realizing it, while also claiming the sanction of Professor Faye!] anti-humanism and racial purity, [Again: Ms. Cohen, unknowingly, attributes opposed views to Heidegger later in this brief essay.]
II.
Ms. Cohen is concerned that "scholars in disciplines as far flung [her term] as poetry and psychoanalysis would be obliged to consider their use of Heidegger's ideas."
Please notice very carefully what Ms. Cohen says next in light of what she has already told us, perhaps while "opening her legs" like "Manohla Dargis":
"Although Mr. Faye talks about [writes of?] the close connection between Heidegger and current right-wing extremist politics, left-wing intellectuals have more frequently been inspired by his ideas. Existentialism and postmodernism [?] as well as attendant attacks on colonialism, atomic weapons, ecological ruin and UNIVERSAL NOTIONS OF MORALITY are all based on his critique of the Western cultural tradition and reason." ("'The Reader': A Movie Review.")
I suggest that Ms. Cohen's writings should be "far flung" by us. Mary Anne Kriko "talks about" these issues in amazingly similar ways.
Well, Ms. Cohen, if attacks on and opposition to universalist ethics or universal notions of morality are based on Heidegger's ideas, how is it possible that "he" is a source for absolutist ethics? Nazism is a form of absolutism. Nazism is a universal notion of "morality." If there is any ideology that seeks, aggressively, to be exclusive, universal and totalitarian, then it must be Nazism.
Opposition to Nazism may also be absolutist, ethical cognitivist, and universalist. Nihilism or "opposition to all morality" makes Nazism as well as the opposite of Nazism (as a form of nihilism) equally amoral and universalist options. Is "Patricia Cohen" also "Manohla Dargis"? Mary Anne, you can do better than this. Let us ask "Ginger Thompson" this question. Larissa Macfarquhar? James Wood? Who did you have to grease to get your so-called "prose" in the Times?
These issues are more technical and complex than someone with a minimal knowledge of Continental thought may imagine. This essay embarrasses the newspaper in which it appeared, just as the article attributed to Martha Nussbaum hurt that great scholar and The New Republic. Shame on you, ladies. ("Martha Nussbaum on the Vindication of Love.")
The continuing insertions of errors in my essay will not change this truth, but it will further embarrass New Jersey, The New York Times, and the author of this unfortunate article and her newspaper (or home planet) since all of the above will be associated with these tactics by readers. These tactics are criminal violations of my rights and those of the readers of these essays. No images can be posted at these blogs. The true number of hits at this site are not known by me. Perhaps 50,000 or more hits have been received already. My second book is suppressed in America. I believe that this is because of a single neutral reference to Fidel Castro. ("How Censorship Works in America.")
Worse, "people may not realize that [Heidegger's] ideas can grow in troubling directions [all ideas can grow in troubling directions!] Heidegger's dictum to be authentic and free oneself from conventional restraints, for example, can lead to a rejection of morality."
Is Heidegger an absolutist on ethical matters? Does he reject all morality? These are contradictory accusations to make against Heidegger. Heidegger does reject humanism; whereas Sartre's existentialist-phenomenology embraces humanism. There are contradictory claims by Ms. Cohen in this essay. Footnotes please. Authenticity is a value. There are several "ethics of authenticity" in the existentialist tradition, like Heidegger's theory. Furthermore, these are usually ethics of freedom or anti-totalitarian ethical theories, even if they are objectivist in their contents.
Ms. Cohen tells us that Heidegger's work is an attack on morality then she describes Heidegger's "morality of authenticity." This is what is known as a contradiction leading to absurdity. This may be a good time for New Jersey's "walking turds" (OAE) to insert more "errors" in this essay. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
Why use the name "Patricia Cohen"? Is it likely that a Jewish woman would be named for a Catholic saint? "St. Patrick?" It is possible, but rare. Must be a reform congregation. Are you people from Union City and North Bergen really this stupid? Senator Bob? How are you reading Heidegger, "Ms. Cohen," if you are? Why have such different thinkers found Heidegger's philosophical work and not his politics inspiring? Hitler developed a great automobile. Is the car's greatness diminished because Hitler was responsible for developing it? Keep the car and get rid of Hitler, in every sense, along with "Manohla Dargis." Perhaps "Manny Fernandez" at The New York Times can shed some light on these mysteries. Mr. Ginarte? "El Bobo" Menendez? "Alessandra Stanley?" The reviews of the forthcoming revival of "The Prisoner" were laughably bad. What is going on at The New York Times? ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
I wonder whether Patricia Cohen "knows" -- in a non-Biblical sense -- Manohla Dargis or Ginger Thompson and whether these ladies (women) can say who put them up to their "tricks." Any ideas Lourdes Santiago, Esq.? Perhaps it was "Claudia Dreifus"? Would it be appropriate for a politician to write articles for the Times using a front-person? Should a journalist or newspaper accept cash to allow a politician to insert language in articles for publication? Should the press be independent of courts and politics, also law enforcement agencies and political factions? I think so. Is it a good idea for journalists to cooperate with the censorship and alterations or defacements of any writer's copyright-protected works? I doubt it.
How long has the American media been this corrupt or incompetent? Years? Decades? The following paragraph appears signed "by the Editors" in introducing The New York Times, Book Review, Sunday, January 31, 2010, at p. 4:
"Mary Gordon once said that writing fiction is 'disgusting work,' he explained in a recent e-mail message, 'by which I think she [?] meant that it's hard to peer [aim well] very closely at the human interior without feeling a little sick. [Colonoscopy?] It's that queasiness and not any grand Melvillian impulse that tends to lead my fiction outdoors. After a page or two in my characters' troubled heads [no comma?] I usually need a break, so I describe some bushes, [G.W.?] or I force a fish or a moose or a pigeon to amuse me for a while." [Kinky.]
These are words that sparkle on the page. What exactly do you do to those poor animals and birds or fish? ASPCA?
November 10, 2009 at 9:28 P.M. "Errors" were inserted by "Ms. Cohen," perhaps. Anne Milgram, is this one of your friends from the "lesbian love-fest"? Nydia and Martha, maybe? Mary Anne, can you shed any light on this mystery? Time to insert another "error" in this text? ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
Rape, theft, assault, criminal violations of civil rights deprive officials and an entire jurisdiction of standing to judge anyone's ethics or conduct. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
Have you no shame, Ms. Milgram? Perhaps Anne Milgram will arrange for "Katie Kouric" to serve as her spokesperson. Anne Milgram should be disbarred, immediately, if she has condoned these crimes or been so incompetent as to fail to prevent them. ("Another Mafia Arrest in New Jersey and Anne Milgram is Clueless.")
Was Hannah Arendt's formulation concerning "the banality of evil" contaminated by Heidegger's alleged "Nazism," even though it was a response to the Eichman trial in Jerusalem? I doubt it. What arguments are offered for this conclusion? Ms. Cohen writes with great clarity:
"While he doesn't dispute Heidegger's place in the intellectual pantheon, Mr. Faye reviews his" -- whose? -- "unpublished lectures and concludes his" -- whose? -- "philosophy was based on the same ideas as National Socialism."
This is The New York Times? What happened to this newspaper? Are they all on drugs at the editorial center? (Again: "Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
Heidegger hoped to return to the pre-Socratics in understanding Being, then to move forward to examine only "that being in whom the question of Being is foremost," Dasein. This project opens on to a problematic relation with language, the world, death and the estrangement of Being in "mechanism" -- that is, our "fallen condition" to the power of the "They," Das Man. This is not "gibberish." Perhaps Heidegger was "overintellectualizing"? ("'The Stepford Wives': A Movie Review.")
This "falleness" is a structural feature of our societies and not the fault of "lesser persons" or some such thing. We are all inauthentic to some extent, including Nazis, because of the effects on culture of "high industrialization" and the pervasiveness of technology as well as instrumental reason. Adorno's and Horkheimer's critique of Enlightenment thinking should be plugged-in right here. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, "Elements of Anti-Semitism: Limits of Enlightenment," in Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York: Continuum, 1993), pp. 168-209. (Adorno's attack on Heidegger should be consulted next: "The Jargon of Authenticity.")
Heidegger's Nazism was not "the result of political ignorance by an otherworldly scholar," as Hannah Arendt, hoped to believe and tried to convince herself was the case. Heidegger was a Nazi because it was convenient to be a Nazi in 1930's Germany in order to become Rector of the University at Freiburg. Furtwangler was a Nazi because he hoped to conduct the Berlin Symphony Orchestra. Few of us will be Dietrich Bonhoeffer. However, Bonhoeffer is what we should be. Heidegger and Furtwangler would have been enthusiastic Communists in Stalin's Soviet Union. In America, they would have been Republicans in a state dominated by Republicans, like Florida; or they would just as easily have been Democrats in New Jersey. Most people will try to "get over on you somehow," as a friend used to say. Heidegger would try to get over on you "anyhow."
This is an example of an objective ethical conclusion from me. Here is another one: Nazism was and is evil. Anybody who is a Nazi, racist or anti-semitic -- even when he or she calls himself something else, like a "Randian Objectivist" in Miami -- is despicable or idiotic at best. Right, John? How are things in Trenton? How is the "Jewish Mengele," Terry Tuchin? Cubanaza-Republicanas? This includes politicians who hold such racist views or are corrupt, like Bob Menendez. To the extent that Heidegger was a Nazi, he was an opportunist and morally despicable, like the "walking turds" in sunny downtown Trenton. Furthermore, I am sure that this opinion is accurate and that my statement is true. However, Heidegger may have been both a really smart and morally despicable person. The criteria for being a great philosopher has to do with being very smart, and not so much with being a really nice guy or gal. Time for more "error" insertions? ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")
You are more than welcome to draw the same conclusion about me. You may decide that I am not very nice nor particularly smart for that matter. However, I will appreciate it if people do not delete letters and words from my Constitutionally- and copyright-protected writings. Also, do not delete essays that I have posted at these blogs. I think it is best not to insert "errors" in other people's writings. Maybe that's just me. I think it is illegal and unethical to do such a thing, right John? Interference with my t.v. signal is just not very "kosher." ("Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
What is more, I suspect that Heidegger would point to this article by Ms. Cohen as exemplifying exactly the sort of collapse into mediocrity and non-comprehension that he anticipated. I agree with that assessment. "Ms. Cohen" is not competent to discuss these issues. I say this knowing that Heidegger would also reject my views, as he disagreed with Professors Gadamer and Ricoeur, whom he saw as "naive and sentimental humanists." Fine by me. (One more time: "Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
I would never, however, alter or destroy this person's (Ms. Cohen's) writings nor would I seek to prevent people from reading them. There are MANY more errors in this essay by Ms. Cohen. I suspect that "Ms. Cohen" was a business major and is (or was) a lawyer in New Jersey. There is no need to belabor the obvious flaws in what I hesitate to call Ms. Cohen's "reasoning." Aren't you embarrassed, "Ms. Cohen"? Let us return to the questions with which I began this essay in my final section. I am beginning to miss the "error insertions." No more psychological torture today, boys and girls? (Ms. Cohen's illiterate ramblings remind me of the golden prose of Nydia Hernandez. Mary Anne Kriko? I wonder whether these persons were at "The Philosophy Cafe"?)
III.
Is Heidegger a great thinker? Yes. Does his work necessarily lead to Nazism? No. Is there a danger that Heidegger will be misread by stupid people ("Ms. Cohen") as a Nazi apologist. Yes. Was Heidegger a Nazi sympathizer, opportunist, not a very nice man. Certainly.
Heidegger's abstruse speculations concerning metaphysics and epistemology as well as his fears concerning the dangers of technology and the scientific worldview are important and more urgent today than ever. Global warming is Heidegger's "issue." More than ever it is accurate to say, as Heidegger did, "the world is darkening."
The identification of the space or "clearing" in which meaning appears is a powerful idea that becomes crucial in hermeneutics. Both modernist and postmodernist thinkers may find Heidegger's ideas useful for their very different projects. Heidegger was not a postmodernist. Nevertheless, Heidegger's influence on Gadamer and Derrida is sufficient to make him a legitimate part of the syllabus today.
The idea of a "fusion of horizons" in Gadamer's writings is fruitful for students of ethics, theology, aesthetics and (possibly) quantum mechanics. This idea of a "clearing" leading to the "fusion of horizons" is directly derived from Heidegger's lectures published under the title: "What is called thinking?"
My view is that Heidegger's greatest contribution is to hermeneutics and, thereby, to the development of Gadamer's aesthetic and ethical theory. To suggest that Heidegger's writings had an influence on architecture is not only mistaken, it is absurd. This is when you should insert another "error," Ms. Cohen. Perhaps the spacing between my paragraphs will be affected.
Those looking for an accessible application of Gadamer's ideas should interpret "Wings of Desire" in terms the "hermeneutics" of Gadamer's essays in aesthetics. See Robert Bernasconi's editing of Hans Georg Gadamer, The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), especially pp. 105-115.
When you add Heidegger's impact on Sartre, Weil, De Beauvoir and the entire phenomenological tradition, "ignoring" Heidegger's work or dismissing "the Black Forest babbler" (Ms. Cohen's quoted term!) becomes unwise or irresponsible for professors of philosophy. Americans interested in what this German philosopher, Heidegger, had to say may look to George Steiner's Heideggerian hermeneutics or William Barrett's accessible musings on existentialism:
"Statement and thing can correspond because there is an open realm in which they can meet. If I am to match statement with thing, there must be this open space where the two can be put together. It is in this realm, or field, of the open that things show themselves, and truth comes to be."
Heidegger speaks of the "resonance of the word." ("Is it rational to believe in God?") Philosophy can be this place of "meeting." Art (usually) is described as such a common territory.
"There is nothing esoteric or mystical about this field of the open. On the contrary, we live and move through and within it all the time, so much so in fact that we hardly note that it is there. [Lebenswelt] And yet it is the condition for anything like truth coming about. And therefore, with it, says Heidegger, we must take up our search for being. We do not begin our study of being with things or substances, in the ordinary and traditional way, but with something less substantial yet more pervasive: the open field or region in which such entities manifest themselves." ("Why Philosophy is for Everybody.")
This is to move beyond subject/object, fact/value to a field-approach in epistemology and ontology:
"This is a radical proposal indeed, and there is no doubt of the originality of Heidegger's basic insight."
William Barrett, The Death of the Soul: From Descartes to the Computer (New York: Doubleday, 1986), pp. 138-139 (emphasis added). William Barrett, What is Existentialism? (New York: Grove Press, 1964), pp. 111-218. (This is a complete summary of Heidegger in a very readable text.)
Is Ms. Cohen a Hudson County "babbler"? Lillian Munoz, maybe, Bobby's ex-"assistant"? How about Kay LiCausi? Finally, one of Heidegger's Jewish admirers -- like a Conservative Jacques Derrida -- makes it clear:
"I am not convinced that Martin Heidegger wanted to be 'understood' in the customary sense of that word; that he wanted an understanding which would entail the possibility of restating his views by means of a more or less close paraphrase. An ancient epigram on Heraclitus, in so many respects Heidegger's model, admonishes the reader: 'Do not be in too great a hurry to get to the end of Heraclitus the Ephesean's book; the path is hard to travel. Gloom is there and darkness devoid of light. But if an initiate be your guide, the path shines brighter than sunlight.' Initiation is not understanding in the ordinary sense. Heidegger conceives of his ontology, of his poetics of thought, to be such that they cannot finally, be reconciled to the manner of ratiocination and linear argument that has governed Western official consciousness after Plato."
George Steiner, Martin Heidegger (New York & London: Penguin, 1978), p. 11; then Richard Wolin, The Heidegger Controversy: A Critical Reader (Cambridge: MIT, 1993), entirety. Also, Richard Wolin, "Afterword: Derrida on Marx, or the Perils of Left Heideggerianism," and "Deconstruction at Auschwitz: Heidegger, de Man, and the New Revisionism," (preferably in this order) in Labyrinths: Explorations in the Critical History of Ideas (Amherst: University of Mass., 1995), pp. 210-241.
I will take my leave of the reader on this "Heidegger Controversy" by alluding to Hannah Arendt's greatest work, as a professional philosopher, The Life of the Mind (New York: Harcourt & Brace, 1978). This work was published with the assistance of Mary McCarthy, shortly after the author's death in 1971, then reissued in a one volume edition. This may be both Arendt's tribute and rebuke of her former teacher, arriving after her admonition in late letters to her "always professor" that the "Nazi episode" would not be ignored by history, despite Heidegger's admitted greatness as a thinker.
Arendt's The Life of the Mind opens with a quotation from Heidegger that, if understood by the reader, will illuminate Heidegger's philosophical greatness, even as his betrayal of Husserl and loss of Arendt's love indicate his human flaws. The purpose of thought is identical to the reason for which we breathe or struggle to lead moral lives. We think in order to be, and because we are, PERSONS with fundamental rights to our opinions, expressions as well as self-determination, who will never accept or fail to struggle against slavery:
"Thinking does not bring knowledge as do the sciences. Thinking does not produce usable practical wisdom. Thinking does not solve the riddles of the universe. Thinking does not endow us directly with the power to act." -- Martin Heidegger.
