While it is not my intention to enter into the facts of involvement Heidegger’s with Nazi Germany, it would be ethically remiss to propose Heidegger as a principal methodologist without some acknowledgement of the acutely troubling problem of his links to National Socialism. Heidegger is one of the key twentieth century’s philosophical thinkers (Biemal, 1977; Blattner, 2006; Collins, 2000; Farias, Margolis, and Rockmore,1991;Greaves, 2010; Large, 2008; Tugendhat, 1996; Pattison 2000; Harrison, 2010) and his concept of Dasein, offered a dramatically new way of thinking about human being (Collins, 2000, p.15). However, for many, especially from the French philosophical quarter, the complexities of working with Heideggerian phenomenology would be relatively more straightforward if his difficult writing were the only problem (Farias, Margolis and Rockmore,1991, p.xi). What has frequently been referred to as his was that Heidegger lent his public support to ‘error’ Hitler’s party in the 1930s (Collins, 2000, p.12). There may be a fleeting temptation (especially for those invested in philosophy) to want to brush over this, Heidegger’s perhaps through posing the question would I have (p.14). “how responded?” However it makes for distinctly troubling reading when investigating the details of his actual involvement particularly through Farías, Margolis, and account Rockmore’s (1991) and more account of anti-Semitism recently, Trawny’s evidential Heidegger’s (2016). Many scholars, as Bolt states, that complicity with Nazism “feel Heidegger’s cannot be overcome and refuse to engage with his 2012, p.2): an … work” (Bolt, understandable stance especially given his and repeated refusal to make “clear (Farias, Margolis, and Rockmore, 1991, p.7). involvement with amends” Heidegger’s National Socialism throws up an undoubtedly profoundly tough quandary. As Joshua Rothman articulates in his article for The New Yorker, to “It’s impossible disavow thinking: too useful and too however he Heidegger’s it’s influential”
While it is not my intention to enter into the facts of Heidegger’s involvement with Nazi Germany, it would be ethically remiss to propose Heidegger as a principal methodologist without some acknowledgement of the acutely troubling problem of his links to National Socialism. Heidegger is one of the twentieth century’s key philosophical thinkers (Biemal, 1977; Blattner, 2006; Collins, 2000; Farias, Margolis, and Rockmore,1991;Greaves, 2010; Large, 2008; Tugendhat, 1996; Pattison 2000; Harrison, 2010) and his concept of Dasein, offered a dramatically new way of thinking about human being (Collins, 2000, p.15). However, for many, especially from the French philosophical quarter, the complexities of working with Heideggerian phenomenology would be relatively more straightforward if his difficult writing were the only problem (Farias, Margolis and Rockmore,1991, p.xi). What has frequently been referred to as his ‘error’ was that Heidegger lent his public support to Hitler’s party in the 1930s (Collins, 2000, p.12). There may be a fleeting temptation (especially for those invested in Heidegger’s philosophy) to want to brush over this, perhaps through posing the question “how would I have responded?” (p.14). However it makes for distinctly troubling reading when investigating the details of his actual involvement particularly through Farías, Margolis, and Rockmore’s account (1991) and more recently, Trawny’s evidential account of Heidegger’s anti-Semitism (2016). Many scholars, as Bolt states, “feel that Heidegger’s complicity with Nazism cannot be overcome and … refuse to engage with his work” (Bolt, 2012, p.2): an understandable stance especially given his “clear and repeated refusal to make amends” (Farias, Margolis, and Rockmore, 1991, p.7). Heidegger’s involvement with National Socialism throws up an undoubtedly profoundly tough quandary. As Joshua Rothman articulates in his article for The New Yorker, “It’s impossible to disavow Heidegger’s thinking: it’s too useful and too influential” however he