Absence of Soil, Historicity, and Goethe in Heidegger's Being and Time

Abstract

In summer issue of 2015, Philosophy Today published a paper by Thomas Sheehan entitled Emmanuel Faye: The Introduction of Fraud into Philosophy? (EF), in which Sheehan rebukes, in extraordinarily strong terms, Faye's book on Heidegger's introduction of Nazism into philosophy, Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy in Light of Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935 (HI).1 In this paper, I shall address longest part of Sheehan's paper, namely his critique of Faye's interpretation of and Time, is, Sheehan's claims regarding issue of historicity in §74 and Heidegger's usage of word Bodenlosigkeit (absence of soil, groundlessness) throughout book. In first section, I argue Sheehan misquotes Heidegger; his critique of Faye rests on usual American interpretation of §74; he realizes this interpretation has a crucial weak spot; his remedy to save it is wrong; and from viewpoint of a different and much more plausible interpretation of §74 Faye is right. In addition, I show Sheehan's reference to Goethe boomerangs. In second section, I show Sheehan is wrong-in fact, terribly wrong-regarding Heidegger's usage of Bodenlosigkeit. Heidegger does not refer, as Sheehan claims, to unfoundedness of philosophical positions but to what he regards to be uprootedness of modern societies. In last section, I defend Faye's translation of Bodenlosigkeit as absence de sol (absence of soil). In sum, Sheehan's critique of Faye's interpretation of and lacks any foundation. All aspects of and he addresses speak not only not against Faye but rather even for Faye. In addition, for this reason, much, if not all, of Sheehan's critique of Faye's book as a whole is, according to Sheehan's own criteria, void.2SHEEHAN ON §74 OF BEING AND TIMEAs to political dimension of Heidegger's concept of historicity in §74, there are, basically, two groups of interpretations. For first, individual remains center of historical happening. For second, however, it does not do so; rather, National Socialist community of emerges as main player. Sheehan belongs to first group, and claims notion of historicity is politically neutral except it excludes a vote for Hitler (EF 381n45). Rockmore, in a chapter in a book from 1993, belongs to second group, and so does my book from 1999 (HD), with its very detailed interpretation of §74 and an extensive comparison of Heidegger with Hitler, Scheler, Lukacs, and Tillich. Sheehan mentions only Rockmore (EF 380n44).Sheehan's first point concerns issue of community. He quotes Faye saying in §74 'the ideas are at foundation of National Socialist doctrine are already present-the Gemeinschaft [community] understood as Schicksalsgemeinschaft [a community of destiny] and [a community of Volk]' (EF 379; see HI 16).3 Sheehan claims that two Nazi terms [Faye] cites above-Schicksalsgemeinschaft and Volksgemeinschaft-appear nowhere in §74 or anywhere else in and Time (EF 379), adding Being and never speaks of a Volksgemeinschaft, only of Geschehen des Volkes, historical life of a people, any people (EF 379n40). However, Sheehan is wrong. Heidegger does not say das Geschehen des Volkes. Sheehan has left out two words and one comma. For, Heidegger designates with term Geschick (destiny) the occurrence of community, of [das Geschehen Gemeinschaft, des Volkes] (BT 352.4-5 = SZ 384.31-32).4 After Hitler's seizure of power, at latest, Heidegger will, as for instance in his rectoral address in May 1933, say Volksgemeinschaft (RZ 113). There is no significant difference between Volksgemeinschaft and der Gemeinschaft, des Volkes. At time of and Time, Heidegger might have thought word sounded too blunt. …