Heidegger as Nazi: A Postmodern Scandal

Abstract

In all possible senses Martin Heidegger is a figure to be reckoned with. Many regard him as the most important philosopher since Hegel and certainly the of modern times. His work has set the terms of debate in literary theory, biblical hermeneutics, theological discourse, cultural philosophy, and philosophic method. For better or worse, the present age is hugely indebted to his seminal thinking on the question of the meaning of Being. Most importantly, the contemporary angle of vision known as postmodernism derives its rationale and motivation directly from his work. Likewise, deconstruction, the ultimate postmodern methodology, is a direct descendant of his theory of the history of Being and the end of traditional philosophy as a worthwhile human activity. What, then, are we to say when this greatest thinker is shown to have been an active, ardent, and loyal supporter of the age's greatest evil-Nazism? That is the central question raised by Victor Farias' explosive work, Heidegger and Nazism. When I was a young graduate student in the '60s encountering his work for the very first time, I was told that Heidegger's involvement with the Nazis was an unfortunate, short-lived dalliance. It was to be understood as the outcome of political naivete, a momentary lapse not to be held against this great thinker. Such was the official party line. Heidegger's assumption of the Rectorship at the University of Freiburg (1933-1934) was a brief, fleeting moment in which he acted courageously to defend academic freedom and opposed antisemitic activities. His resignation was proof positive of his disapproval of the policies of National Socialism. Seen from this point of view, his infamous Rector's Address with its disturbing racist implications was merely a mistake in judgment, a minor error made in a gallant attempt to defend the German university. So I was taught. Victor Farias' book makes it impossible to hold such a view. The fact is that Heidegger was up to his ears in Nazi activities. And not for the space of a few unfortunate months in 1933-1934. Rather his allegiance Professor