|
German academia acquiesced to, indeed
seemed to embrace, National Socialism in
the 1930s. Martin Heidegger, the most famous
German philosopher of the period, became
a National Socialist in May of 1933. His
association with Nazism has been controversial
as a result of the significance of his thought,
particularly in France and Germany. The seriousness
of Heidegger's actual involvement is not
deemed of particular importance, rather the
fact that a philosopher of his magnitude
would be involved with Nazism at all causes
much consternation among his followers and
detractors. The very ambiguity of Heidegger's
Nazism, as well as his inadequate explanation
of it, fuels continued analysis. The question
remains: What kind of Nazi was Martin Heidegger?
Martin Heidegger was born September 26, 1889
in the city of Messkirch, province of Baden,
Germany. He was born into a conservative
Catholic family, his father having been an
active Catholic leader in Baden. Heidegger
wanted to become a priest, studying at the
archbishopric at Freiburg from 1909-1911.
Apparently for health reasons, he left the
seminary. Heidegger studied philosophy at
Freiburg under Edmund Husserl, the founder
of phenomenology. From 1915-1921, Heidegger
taught theology as an associate professor
at Freiburg, but he had begun to distance
himself from Catholicism by 1919. Heidegger
began focusing his energies on philosophy.
In 1923, Heidegger became a professor of
philosophy at Marburg University. He taught
there until 1928. In 1928, Heidegger replaced
his mentor Husserl as the chair of philosophy
at the University of Freiburg. Heidegger
taught at Freiburg until May of 1933, when
he was elected rector of the university.
Heidegger joined the National Socialist Party
on 1 May 1933. Heidegger resigned as rector
of Freiburg in the summer of 1934, after
the purge of the SA, apparently ending his
"active" involvement with, though
not his official ties to, the Nazi regime.
However, Heidegger remained a dues-paying
member of the National Socialist Party until
1945. Heidegger was well liked by the students
at Freiburg, who were heavily influenced
by the SA. While rector, Heidegger had advocated
student involvement with the SA as service
to the nation. He continued to lecture until
1944. At war's end, the occupying forces
would not allow him to lecture, but his involvement
with the Nazis was determined not to be of
the "serious, active kind."1
Heidegger's magnum opus, Sein und Zeit (Being
and Time), dedicated to Husserl, was published
in 1927. Heidegger exploded onto the philosophical
scene with this work. The book has been described
as "a work that, though almost unreadable,
was immediately felt to be of prime importance."2
Heidegger was influenced by the pre-Socratics,
Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Husserl. Heidegger
was considered to be following in the footsteps
of Husserl in the pursuit of phenomenology.
He has also been labeled an existentialist,
in the tradition of Kierkegaard. Heidegger
proclaimed his concern was ontology, the
study of Being.
Heidegger believed it was the purpose of
man to examine his experiences as we think
of them, not from a scientific perspective
(hence his phenomenological label), and to
investigate Being in the world. Man has a
separate being in relation to the world,
and his experiences have a being as well
(related to existentialism). Each must be
looked at distinctly to arrive at an "authentic"
existence. The inauthentic life springs from
man being thrown into the world and becoming
lost in it, thus he loses touch with Being.
The act of questioning things to arrive at
the meaning of Being constitutes an authentic
life. Man normally regards objects, nature,
and science as tools to utilize. Once these
tools show a separate life or nature of being,
such as a natural disaster or a broken saw
blade, man realizes things to have a distinct
being unto themselves.
Heidegger exhibited a deep regard for art
which recognizes its inability to properly
represent its subject. Art tries to understand,
which is admirable; but its true wisdom is
revealed when it acknowledges its incompetence.
The "Time" in Being and Time relates
to man's knowledge of his finite existence.
The angst which is produced by knowledge
of impending death leads to an examination
of Being. Angst is the catalyst for an authentic
life. It is important to ask the question
"What is Being?," but finding an
answer was not vital, nor very possible.
Most philosophers believe Being and Time
to be generally an apolitical work, but the
ideas may have lent themselves to Heidegger's
future Nazi involvement. Those who brand
Heidegger a Nazi find their proof more in
his speeches and writings in the early years
of the Third Reich than in his magnum opus.
Vincent Farias, in his book Heidegger and
Nazism, contradicts himself somewhat on this
issue, first stating "there is every
indication in [Being and Time] of his later
turn to National Socialism."3 Later,
he qualifies the previous statement:
In no sense can we read National Socialism
into Being and Time, but we can identify
philosophical beliefs that foreshadow Heidegger's
later convictions. 4 Being and Time is not
identified as a philosophy of Nazism by Farias,
nor by most scholars, but it contains an
attitude that could coincide with the aims
of the National Socialist movement. Hans
Ebeling was quoted by Farias as saying: There
is in Being and Time a kinship with ruthless
anarchy just as there is in Heidegger's Rector's
Address a kinship with the totalitarian state.
In both cases the power of acknowledging
the other as the other, as essentially equal,
is missing, and for that reason it only remains
to oppress the other without any leniency.
5 Heidegger himself could not remain apolitical.
Heidegger believed philosophy was the core
of all the disciplines: history, science,
politics, et al. Although Heidegger was a
philosopher and not a politician, he involved
himself in the political to achieve a new
reality in Germany. Some considered him an
opportunist, seizing upon National Socialism
to gain control of the universities and educate
the next generation of Germans. Others believed
Heidegger saw much of what he wanted in Nazism.
On 26 May 1933, Heidegger made a speech in
honor of Albert Leo Schlageter, who was killed
resisting French occupation of the Rhineland
in 1923. Heidegger stated that Schlageter
died at a time of "darkness, humiliation,
and treason."6 Heidegger also alluded
in his speech to a "future awakening
to honor and greatness."7 Heidegger's
remarks are reminiscent of the "stab
in the back" theory espoused by many
nationalists in Germany. Farias traces Heidegger's
road to Nazism from his earliest writings.
Farias argues that Heidegger's appreciation
of pan-Germanic and anti-Semitic figures
springs from his native region of Baden.
The area around Messkirch was rural, with
a tradition of ultranationalism. Heidegger
was a member of Gralbund, a youth group founded
by Richard von Kralik, a conservative nationalist
who called the English and Americans "German
rejects."8 Many of Heidegger's teachers
were anti-Semitic and extreme nationalists.
In 1910 Heidegger wrote a paper in honor
of Abraham a Santa Clara, a pan-Germanic
Austrian who was an anti-Semite.
Farias infers a pre-existing disposition
towards Nazism in Heidegger from the ideologies
of the journals which published Heidegger's
early writings and individuals who attended
the same institutions or were published in
the same journals. In other words, since
future Nazi enthusiasts were published in
the same journals or attended the same schools
as Heidegger, then Heidegger must have had
an inherent desire for National Socialism.
This is somewhat of a leap, in my mind. Simply
because one grows up in a particular environment
does not guarantee the transference of those
values. People who attend Catholic schools
do not necessarily become devout Catholics.
People who grew up in patriotic, conservative
American families may have protested against
the Vietnam War. Although upbringing is a
major factor in the formation of opinions,
one may adopt environmental attitudes or
rebel against them.
An examination of Heidegger's writings reveals
a man who desired a fundamental change in
Germany and, in fact, all of Western Civilization.
Heidegger's early writings exhibit a love
of Germany and strong interest in philosophy.
Heidegger was very proud of the German language
and its people. Heidegger believed Germany
was the heir to the Greek tradition of language
and thought. The Greek and German languages
were original and intelligent languages.
All other languages in Europe had been Latinized,
which to Heidegger meant corrupted. Heidegger
believed that when Frenchmen thought, they
spoke in German. The Greeks were the first
to attempt to get to the meaning of Being,
and the Germans were the only ones capable
of rising from the rubble of Western Civilization
to resurrect the tradition. Hitler shared
a similar view:
…a culture is fighting for its existence,
a culture that involves thousands of years
of development and that embraces Greece and
Germany together. 9 Heidegger opposed the
modernist trend in Catholicism, which caused
him to distance himself from his religion.
According to Heidegger, Christianity and
technology had steered science away from
the greatness of its Greek beginnings. Heidegger's
earlier writings also demonstrate a disdain
for modernity: [O]ur totally superficial
culture of today [shows a] rage for innovation
that collapses foundations…[T]his modern
concept of life as a rapid sequence of instant
pleasures [exhibits] so many signs of decadence.
10 Heidegger believed the salvation for Western
Civilization from technology and a hapless
existence was a determined Germany, who was
besieged on the east and west by Russia and
America. Those two nations were predominant,
both of them suffering from "the same
dreary technological frenzy, the same unrestricted
organization of the average man."11
Germany was at the center, caught between
the nihilism of Bolshevism and the gadgetry
and positivism of capitalism/democracy. Heidegger
believed the major force in the rejuvenation
of Germany and the West was the German university.
Becoming rector at Freiburg was the first
step for Heidegger in his effort to bring
the National Socialist revolution to the
universities. Heidegger made his rector's
address on 27 May 1933, entitled "The
Self-Determination of the German University."
Farias states "the speech clearly expressed
National Socialist opinions about the reformation
of the universities."12 Heidegger hoped
to reform the universities, but I do not
believe the Nazis cared about reform. The
NSDAP simply wanted the support of students,
faculty, and administration, which they received:
"Student organizations fell into the
hands of the Nazis long before the government
institutions did."13 As stated previously,
the SA was a popular organization for the
students. The rate of faculty and administrative
support differed depending on the region
and strength of NSDAP influence. Notably,
the province of Baden, and Freiburg University,
were at the vanguard of National Socialist
reforms. In his speech, Heidegger points
to the "historical spiritual mission
of the German people," stating that
the pursuits of science must be influenced
by that mission. 14 Heidegger promotes the
Nazi ideals of work service and military
duty, and announces that "[t]he spiritual
world of a people…is the force of the deepest
preservation of its powers of earth and blood."15
The speech was "a call for Germany to
move itself into the primordial realm of
the powers of Being, with the Nazi party
in the vanguard."16
As rector, Heidegger's actions certainly
implicate him as a Nazi. Heidegger renounced
his mentor, Husserl, because he was Jewish.
Some Jewish professors were expelled, but
Heidegger prevented the expulsion of two
Jewish professors. Examination of Heidegger's
actions suggests he valued competency before
religious affiliation, but some Jews were
expelled. In June of 1933, Heidegger spoke
at Heidelberg, saying the course for German
universities to follow was "a tough
struggle to the end in the spirit of National
Socialism, which will not be drowned by Christian
and humanist notions."17 Some scholars
believe Heidegger was taken in by the "Hitler
Myth," as an October 1933 speech may
indicate:
To be among those who follow [our Führer]
means in fact: to want untiringly and unshakeably
that the German people find again their native
unity, their simple dignity and their true
strength, and how as a worker's state Germany
can recover its life and grandeur. 18 An
article he wrote for the student newspaper
in November 1933 stated: "The Führer
himself, and he alone, is the German reality
of today, and of the future, and of its law."19
The Nazi salute was required at the beginning
and end of all classes at Freiburg while
Heidegger was rector. There is ample proof
of Heidegger's association with Nazism, it
is the nature and depth of his conviction
which is debated. It has never been doubted
that Heidegger was active, at least in 1933-1934,
in the National Socialist movement. The issue
continues to resurface because Heidegger
was the most prominent, though not the only,
philosopher to opt for National Socialism.
What adds to the debate is the inadequacy
of Heidegger's explanation of his association.
Some scholars want to discount his thought
because of his involvement while others say
it is necessary to separate the man from
his work. Some scholars believe those who
want to disregard his work want to do so
not because of his Nazism, but simply because
they disagree with Heidegger's philosophy.
Hans Sluga in particular believes most opinions
of Heidegger are based on defending or attacking
one's own philosophy rather than examining
the implications of Heidegger's thoughts
and actions.
Regarding Heidegger's philosophy, it was
not a Nazi philosophy. Much of Heidegger's
work is unintelligible. Even Heidegger's
peers at German universities noted that his
students flocked to his classes, but they
couldn't understand a bit of what he was
saying. 20 Basically, Heidegger feared the
collapse of Western Civilization as a result
of the human race losing touch with itself.
He began by looking at this from an individual
perspective (a person losing touch with his
Being), and by 1933 had seen it on a more
national and European level. "Heidegger
had turned from a philosophy of struggle
to a philosophy of danger."21 He had
started with a religious/philosophical approach
to the individual struggle and gone to a
philosophical/political approach to the cultural
danger. Heidegger believed in the groundedness
and the ability of the German spirit and
mind. Heidegger thought National Socialism,
with him eventually at the helm of the universities
(under the Führerprinzip), could lead the
world towards its salvation. When the SA
was purged in June 1934, Heidegger saw the
reality of the situation. He had wanted sweeping
reforms of all the universities and believed
student involvement in the SA was a strong
component of that reform. He encountered
opposition from his colleagues in Berlin
when the Education Ministry offered him the
chair of philosophy there. With the purge
of the SA, political reality, which had been
sneaking around him, smacked him right in
the face. Within a month after the purge,
Heidegger resigned as rector. He lectured
until 1944, and made some fervent speeches
about patriotism and continuing the fight
even as German forces faced the reality of
defeat. He still retained some hope that
if Germany won, there was a chance Western
Civilization could be saved, in spite of
the broken dream of the Third Reich. He still
believed there was "an inward truth
and greatness to the movement."22 It
would just have to be found again. Heidegger
lost his ardor for National Socialism as
it had become, but he believed that if the
Nazis won the war, at least Germany would
dominate Europe and the West. If he could
steer the course of German universities,
he could educate the coming generation of
the true path National Socialism should follow.
Heidegger had little interest in the methods
of the Nazis or the conduct of the Reich,
but he seemed to cling to the hope that with
a victory, the German people could bring
Western Civilization back to its true course.
That true course was charted by the Greeks
many centuries before-the path to the understanding
of Being. This road had been abandoned by
the West because of the intrusion of rationalism
and technology.
There are two crimes Heidegger has been charged
with by certain members of academia. First,
association with Nazism, of which it could
firmly be said he is guilty. Secondly, dereliction
of duty (as a thinker and a writer), so to
speak. Different scholars approach this crime
from varying perspectives. Some, like Hans
Sluga, would consider Heidegger wrong for
being involved in politics in the first place,
at least the manner in which he was involved,
because that is not the realm of the philosopher.
Sluga defends Heidegger somewhat by describing
the state of German philosophy at the time.
German philosophy was lacking direction,
much like Germany at the time, and Heidegger
was not the only philosopher to join the
NSDAP. German philosophy, like Germany itself
(and the world) was in a time of crisis.
The real problem with Heidegger and the other
philosophers was that they "forgot the
questions, forgot to ask about the assumed
rightness of their own positions."23
Ernest Gellner makes a different charge,
stating:
[Heidegger's] involvement with Nazism lacked
depth, and his withdrawal from it was so
muted as to be imperceptible. There was evasion
perhaps, followed by amnesia…we learn precious
little from his thought about the dilemmas
of his time. That is the real case against
him. 24 Perhaps the most interesting pursuit
of this crime of dereliction of duty is offered
by Jean-François Lyotard in his book "Heidegger
and 'the jews.'" Lyotard put "the
jews" in lower case because they represent
more than just the Jewish people, he used
the term "jews" because the Jews
are the most prominent or identifiable of
the group. "The jews" are the Jews,
the blacks, the homeless, the gypsies, the
Arabs and all those who are supranational.
These people never really assimilate into
the national character. They hold allegiance
to no particular country. By attempting to
eliminate "the jews" (particularly
the Jews and gypsies), the Nazis attempted
to eliminate the unrepresentable which "the
jews" represent, argues Lyotard. The
Jews and other non-conformists remind the
West that we are "obligated before being
free, other before being the same."25
Lyotard seems to be saying that the West
wants so badly to build on scientific, rational,
secular philosophical ground that it wants
to be rid of its failures and its competition.
Those peoples who cannot be brought into
the fold of a nation, those who have a way
of life predicated on an unseeable, untouchable
Other, are a reminder of the failure of the
West. Or worse, they are a threat. "'The
jews'…testify [to the] misery [and] servitude…which
remains unfinished."26 The Nazis wanted
no such reminder. Just as Yahweh had demanded
the Hebrews discard their idols for Him,
now the West wanted "the jews"
to discard their "Other" for the
Law of the West. The Nazis considered the
Jews the biggest threat because they witnessed
the first terror of the Occident (Yahweh's
domination). The Nazis were initiating the
second terror of the Occident (the Third
Reich) and had to rid the world of the witnesses
to the first. Lyotard's approach is an amazing
expansion of Sluga's charge of forgetting.
Lyotard believes "any deduction…of Heidegger's
Nazism from the text of Sein und Zeit is
impossible."27 He bases his condemnation
of Heidegger not on his degree of support
for Hitler or Nazism, but on his silence
on the Holocaust. Heidegger espoused the
thinker, the writer as "the guardian
of the memory of forgetting."28 But
Heidegger forgot the Holocaust. Heidegger
appreciated the artist or poet who attempted
to represent the unrepresentable, while at
the same time acknowledging his inability
to accomplish the task. The thinker and writer
has the same responsibility and the same
humility. The Holocaust is something which
is unrepresentable. Words cannot do the event
justice. But it is the thinker/writer's duty
to try, and acknowledge his inadequacy at
the same time. Survivors of the Holocaust
often shy away from discussing it because
they know the only ones who can do the event
justice are the ones who are not here to
discuss it. Thinkers/writers attempt to relate
what cannot be related because it is their
lot in life to ensure the forgotten is remembered.
Heidegger believed this, yet he was silent
on the Holocaust. This, Lyotard asserts,
was Heidegger's crime. Heidegger "lent
to extermination not his hand and not even
his thought but his silence and nonthought…he
'forgot' the extermination."29
What is amazing is that Heidegger's thought
seems to parallel the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In his philosophy, Heidegger speaks of a
"deep fall" (fall from grace) when
people turn away from the authentic life
(Garden of Eden). A life of inauthenticity
(sin) results, creating angst (guilt). Angst
results in thinking of Being (pursuing God's
wisdom/forgiveness), which creates the possibility
of an authentic life (redemption). Heidegger
believed the key to authenticity was asking
the question "What is Being?" Lyotard
related a story about Weisel as a child asking
the beadle of Sighet why he prays to God,
since he knows God's answers are incomprehensible.
Moshe replies he prays so that God will give
him the "strength to ask the right questions."30
Even Heidegger's denunciation of technology
and the search for the authentic life calls
to mind Jesus telling prospective disciples
that they must drop worldly concerns immediately
to follow Him on his authentic road.
Heidegger made only one statement, in 1949,
relating to the Holocaust. It seems he is
bemoaning technology, not the extermination
of people:
Agriculture is now a mechanized food industry;
in essence it is no different than the production
of corpses in the gas chambers and death
camps, the embargoes and food reductions
to starving countries, the making of hydrogen
bombs. 31 "The Nazi Volksgemeinschaft
promised…a society free of the contradictions
and irritations of everyday life in the industrial
age."32 This must have appealed to Heidegger.
Nazism offered something to his vision of
German supremacy and his vision of an authentic
life. Though he became disillusioned with
the NSDAP, he still longed for the simple
life and a volksgemeinschaft. Heidegger had
higher hopes for National Socialism than
they could live up to, but he never seemed
to completely let go. Great thinker or Nazi
or a some of each? Certainly some of each,
and scholars seem to want to know which part
of him was one and which the other. Not even
modern science can figure that out. It seems
that, although Heidegger was definitely a
Nazi, the fact that the NSDAP never became
exactly what he wanted keeps us from knowing
what kind of Nazi he was. The question could
only have been answered with authority if
the party had become what Heidegger wanted,
or if Heidegger had done his duty as a writer
and a thinker.
Copyright 1996, 1997
David Desmond
Endnotes
Sources Consulted The Social Science Journal
|
Evans Experientialism 
