What do you think?
Rate this book
Heidegger and Nazism
Examines to what extent Heidegger accepted the Nazi philosophy, assesses his anti-Semitism, and looks at the links between philosophy and politics.
349 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 1987
5 people are currently reading
125 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 21, 2020
Farias' book is a testament to an uneffacable problem. Heidegger's deplorable political past, as well as his unbroken silence concerning the Shoah, are unignorable marks which burden thought with a most profound ignominy.
As Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe most aptly phrased it, the case of Heidegger presents us with an ineluctable problem, for we must address this political past and the evil that it bears, but the answer cannot be the silencing or effacing of Heidegger's thought, for its influence in philosophy is essential and unavoidable. This thought has produced a radical shift which cannot but be addressed and responded to. As Blanchot remarks, this wound of thought needs be addressed - thought remains, here as it perhaps ever was, a response to a passion, the agony of a wounding...
Farias' book is far from perfect, however. This is nowhere clearer than his virulent desire to link every element of Heidegger's thought to Nazi ideology and racist fundamentalism. While it is evident that in the period of his rectorship Heidegger did link his thought to the aims and direction of National Socialism, Farias, who appears to have a vendetta out for the German, perhaps overextends the impact and import of these years and what they evince. His repeated insistence on linking Heidegger's thought to Abraham a Santa Clara betrays the weakness of some of Farias' sentences. As the English editors note, Farias wished for these sections to be excised from the translation, though his wish was not followed, perhaps for the same documentary openness and evidence that Farias' work itself demands, as a work of testimony. The closing lines of the book, following this critical assessment of Farias' extremism, evince a shallow understanding of (at least) the later thought of Heidegger, for the God of Abraham a Santa Clara could never equivocally be the coming or as-yet-absent god to which Heidegger alludes in the Spiegel interview. The former's God is the ontotheological god who has now gone, disappeared, and left the absence which Hölderlin noted, from which the coming gods, should they come, remain yet fugitive. In addition to this, the later sections on Heidegger's engagements with the Pre-Socratics in the 40's, and the reflections on language and beginnings, do not, perhaps, so evidently bear the relation to National Socialism as Farias flippantly insists.
On the whole, the problem is evident and cannot be avoided. But some of the particular sentences, and the wholistic sentencing of Heidegger's thought as in accord, essentially, with Nazism, remain questionable. The wound of thought remains open. I can certainly not claim to close such a matter, such a case, in the confines of so short and simple a review. I may only, perhaps, attest to the continued insistence that this book as well as others attest to, as testaments to the remainder of this wound. We must continue to think upon, to address, this wound. It remains exigent for thought, and its interminable (self-)questioning.
As Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe most aptly phrased it, the case of Heidegger presents us with an ineluctable problem, for we must address this political past and the evil that it bears, but the answer cannot be the silencing or effacing of Heidegger's thought, for its influence in philosophy is essential and unavoidable. This thought has produced a radical shift which cannot but be addressed and responded to. As Blanchot remarks, this wound of thought needs be addressed - thought remains, here as it perhaps ever was, a response to a passion, the agony of a wounding...
Farias' book is far from perfect, however. This is nowhere clearer than his virulent desire to link every element of Heidegger's thought to Nazi ideology and racist fundamentalism. While it is evident that in the period of his rectorship Heidegger did link his thought to the aims and direction of National Socialism, Farias, who appears to have a vendetta out for the German, perhaps overextends the impact and import of these years and what they evince. His repeated insistence on linking Heidegger's thought to Abraham a Santa Clara betrays the weakness of some of Farias' sentences. As the English editors note, Farias wished for these sections to be excised from the translation, though his wish was not followed, perhaps for the same documentary openness and evidence that Farias' work itself demands, as a work of testimony. The closing lines of the book, following this critical assessment of Farias' extremism, evince a shallow understanding of (at least) the later thought of Heidegger, for the God of Abraham a Santa Clara could never equivocally be the coming or as-yet-absent god to which Heidegger alludes in the Spiegel interview. The former's God is the ontotheological god who has now gone, disappeared, and left the absence which Hölderlin noted, from which the coming gods, should they come, remain yet fugitive. In addition to this, the later sections on Heidegger's engagements with the Pre-Socratics in the 40's, and the reflections on language and beginnings, do not, perhaps, so evidently bear the relation to National Socialism as Farias flippantly insists.
On the whole, the problem is evident and cannot be avoided. But some of the particular sentences, and the wholistic sentencing of Heidegger's thought as in accord, essentially, with Nazism, remain questionable. The wound of thought remains open. I can certainly not claim to close such a matter, such a case, in the confines of so short and simple a review. I may only, perhaps, attest to the continued insistence that this book as well as others attest to, as testaments to the remainder of this wound. We must continue to think upon, to address, this wound. It remains exigent for thought, and its interminable (self-)questioning.
Read
February 4, 2019Nergens is het boek onthullend, maar dat is dertig jaar na publicatie en vier jaar na de verschijning van de Schwarze Hefte niet verwonderlijk. Er loopt een rechte lijn van het zwarte katholicisme van zijn jeugd naar de bruine SA, ook wat betreft antisemitisme. (In de Schwarze Hefte schijnt H. zich te beroepen op de protocollen.)
Pas nu realiseerde ik me dat H. in het Spiegel interview al heeft gezegd dat het Nazisme, in ieder geval de meer revolutionaire vorm van de SA, een mogelijkheid bood om de opmars van de techniek in goede banen te leiden. In de twintig jaar daarna heeft zijn inbreng in de discussie over "technologie" zo'n belangrijke rol gespeeld. Sehr merkwürdig, achteraf.
Pas nu realiseerde ik me dat H. in het Spiegel interview al heeft gezegd dat het Nazisme, in ieder geval de meer revolutionaire vorm van de SA, een mogelijkheid bood om de opmars van de techniek in goede banen te leiden. In de twintig jaar daarna heeft zijn inbreng in de discussie over "technologie" zo'n belangrijke rol gespeeld. Sehr merkwürdig, achteraf.
November 18, 2024
A REVEALING ANALYSIS OF HEIDEGGER'S RELATION TO THE NAZIS
Victor Farias is a Chilean scholar who taught in the Latin American Institute at the Free University of Berlin, West Germany until 2006.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1987 book, "My central thesis is the following: When Heidegger decided to join the National Socialist party, he was following an already-prepared path whose beginnings we find in the Austrian movement of Christian Socialism, with its conservatism and anti-semitism, and the attitudes he had found in his native region... Heidegger's decision to join the NSDAP was in no way the result of unexpected opportunism or tactical considerations.
"The decision was clearly linked with his already having acted in a way consonant with National Socialism prior to becoming rector of the University of Freiburg and with his actual political practices as rector and member of the party... Heidegger was politically active within a faction of the party that during the years 1933-1934 was trying to take power and lead the movement... In Heidegger's eyes it was not the movement but the National Socialist leaders who had taken positions of authority who had abandoned the truly Nazi ideas... Martin Heidegger never broke the organic links tying him to the National Socialist Party... he remained an active member until the end of the war, continuing to pay his dues, and ... he was never subject to discipline nor internal political trials within the party." (Pg. 4-5)
He states that "Heidegger's sympathies for the rising National Socialist movement dated from before Hitler's taking power." (Pg. 79) He adds, "His election as rector and appointment as Führer of the university coincided with his publicly joining the Nazi Party... Heidegger became a member on May 1, 1933... [and] by paying dues regularly he kept his membership until 1945." (Pg. 84) He suggests that Heidegger's Rector's Address "clearly expressed National Socialist opinions about the reformation of the universities, and indeed it represented an effort to influence these opinions." (Pg. 96)
He notes that "All those studies that attempt to minimize Heidegger's compromise with National Socialism ... show signs of a systematic unawareness of the texts where Heidegger speaks to us of his Nazi faith, tied to the person of Adolf Hitler. The mystique under which so many millions of Germans lived was also the lot of Heidegger." (Pg. 117)
He observes, "Among the measures brought in during his rectorship were: the expulsion of all Jews on the teaching staff; a questionnaire for each teacher showing racial origin...; the obligatory oath for all teachers concerning the purity of their race; the obligation to use the Nazi salute at the beginning and ending of each class...; refusal of aid to Jewish and Marxist students; the obligation to attend classes on racial theory, military science, and German culture." (Pg. 119)
He points out, "Heidegger's attitude toward the persecution of his Jewish colleagues certainly had ambiguous nuances... He argues that absolute exclusion of Jews would bring a strong backlash from abroad and would hurt the renown of German science in powerful intellectual circles. He also emphasizes that the defense of particular cases ought in no way be considered as contrary to the general orders concerning Jews in teaching." (Pg. 121)
Of Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics" essay, Lang says, "The thesis that this text of Heidegger's marks the beginning of his break with National Socialism and that his break had been inevitable, insofar as Heidegger did not want to relinquish his line of thought, appears to be quite dubious." (Pg. 226) He continues, "By his own admission, Heidegger's `critical' attitude became public during the year of his lectures on Nietzsche. He supposedly came to grips with National Socialism in these lectures. But he also favored an ambiguous formulation, for he did not claim to have criticized National Socialism there; he merely stated that he came to terms with the historical role and function of National Socialism...
"Moreover, he remained a member in the NSDAP and began and ended his lectures with the Nazi salute. The salute, obligatory during his time as rector, was later deemed not binding by the new rector. That Heidegger continued with the ritual, that he was even eager to make its performance a matter of principle, is clear-cut proof of his political views and his entrenched totalitarianism... when repression was heightened and the German economy was transformed into a war economy..." (Pg. 251)
He also states, "In contrast to his later testimony, Heidegger defended Hitler's regime and its war activities between 1940 and 1944." (Pg. 277)
He quotes theologian/NT scholar Rudolf Bultmann's account of a post-war conversation with Heidegger: "after we said good-bye... [Bultmann said to him] `Now you must... like Augustine write retractions.... in the final analysis for the truth of your thought.' Heidegger's face became a stony mask. He left without saying anything further." (Pg. 282)
Obviously controversial, this book is an excellent statement of the case against Heidegger. (But for a contrary view, you might also read 'Martin Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers.')
Victor Farias is a Chilean scholar who taught in the Latin American Institute at the Free University of Berlin, West Germany until 2006.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1987 book, "My central thesis is the following: When Heidegger decided to join the National Socialist party, he was following an already-prepared path whose beginnings we find in the Austrian movement of Christian Socialism, with its conservatism and anti-semitism, and the attitudes he had found in his native region... Heidegger's decision to join the NSDAP was in no way the result of unexpected opportunism or tactical considerations.
"The decision was clearly linked with his already having acted in a way consonant with National Socialism prior to becoming rector of the University of Freiburg and with his actual political practices as rector and member of the party... Heidegger was politically active within a faction of the party that during the years 1933-1934 was trying to take power and lead the movement... In Heidegger's eyes it was not the movement but the National Socialist leaders who had taken positions of authority who had abandoned the truly Nazi ideas... Martin Heidegger never broke the organic links tying him to the National Socialist Party... he remained an active member until the end of the war, continuing to pay his dues, and ... he was never subject to discipline nor internal political trials within the party." (Pg. 4-5)
He states that "Heidegger's sympathies for the rising National Socialist movement dated from before Hitler's taking power." (Pg. 79) He adds, "His election as rector and appointment as Führer of the university coincided with his publicly joining the Nazi Party... Heidegger became a member on May 1, 1933... [and] by paying dues regularly he kept his membership until 1945." (Pg. 84) He suggests that Heidegger's Rector's Address "clearly expressed National Socialist opinions about the reformation of the universities, and indeed it represented an effort to influence these opinions." (Pg. 96)
He notes that "All those studies that attempt to minimize Heidegger's compromise with National Socialism ... show signs of a systematic unawareness of the texts where Heidegger speaks to us of his Nazi faith, tied to the person of Adolf Hitler. The mystique under which so many millions of Germans lived was also the lot of Heidegger." (Pg. 117)
He observes, "Among the measures brought in during his rectorship were: the expulsion of all Jews on the teaching staff; a questionnaire for each teacher showing racial origin...; the obligatory oath for all teachers concerning the purity of their race; the obligation to use the Nazi salute at the beginning and ending of each class...; refusal of aid to Jewish and Marxist students; the obligation to attend classes on racial theory, military science, and German culture." (Pg. 119)
He points out, "Heidegger's attitude toward the persecution of his Jewish colleagues certainly had ambiguous nuances... He argues that absolute exclusion of Jews would bring a strong backlash from abroad and would hurt the renown of German science in powerful intellectual circles. He also emphasizes that the defense of particular cases ought in no way be considered as contrary to the general orders concerning Jews in teaching." (Pg. 121)
Of Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics" essay, Lang says, "The thesis that this text of Heidegger's marks the beginning of his break with National Socialism and that his break had been inevitable, insofar as Heidegger did not want to relinquish his line of thought, appears to be quite dubious." (Pg. 226) He continues, "By his own admission, Heidegger's `critical' attitude became public during the year of his lectures on Nietzsche. He supposedly came to grips with National Socialism in these lectures. But he also favored an ambiguous formulation, for he did not claim to have criticized National Socialism there; he merely stated that he came to terms with the historical role and function of National Socialism...
"Moreover, he remained a member in the NSDAP and began and ended his lectures with the Nazi salute. The salute, obligatory during his time as rector, was later deemed not binding by the new rector. That Heidegger continued with the ritual, that he was even eager to make its performance a matter of principle, is clear-cut proof of his political views and his entrenched totalitarianism... when repression was heightened and the German economy was transformed into a war economy..." (Pg. 251)
He also states, "In contrast to his later testimony, Heidegger defended Hitler's regime and its war activities between 1940 and 1944." (Pg. 277)
He quotes theologian/NT scholar Rudolf Bultmann's account of a post-war conversation with Heidegger: "after we said good-bye... [Bultmann said to him] `Now you must... like Augustine write retractions.... in the final analysis for the truth of your thought.' Heidegger's face became a stony mask. He left without saying anything further." (Pg. 282)
Obviously controversial, this book is an excellent statement of the case against Heidegger. (But for a contrary view, you might also read 'Martin Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers.')
to-keep-reference
August 14, 2017Entiendo que es uno de los primeros libros en vincular directamente a Heidegger con el nazismo. Muy discutido en La Filosofía y el barro de la historia y comentado en La Ética.
November 21, 2024
این کتاب جنجال بزرگی آفرید و قاعلهای با نام ماجرای هایدگر در زمانِ انتشار ایجاد کرد. ریچارد رورتی آنرا ستود و ژان فرانسوا لیوتار با انتشارِ کتابی تحتِ عنوانِ هایدگر و یهودیان، در این بلوا شرکت کرد. کتاب حاویِ اسنادی است که آنرا هیچجا نمیتوان یافت
December 9, 2025
Heidegger und der Nationalsozialismus
Ich erwarb dieses intellektuelle Schwergewicht am 4.3.1996 für 39,80 DM – ein Preis, der angesichts des intellektuellen Erdbebens, das das Buch auslöste, mehr als gerechtfertigt war.
Víctor Farías’ Studie, 1987 erschienen (dt. 1989), gilt als intellektuelle Bombe, die eine der größten philosophischen Kontroversen des späten 20. Jahrhunderts auslöste und die jahrzehntelange Verdrängung von Heideggers NS-Verstrickung abrupt beendete. Die Brisanz des Inhalts wird durch das gewichtige Vorwort von Jürgen Habermas unterstrichen, der die zentrale Frage stellte, ob Heideggers Werk durch sein aktives Engagement für die NS-Ideologie von 1933 bis 1945 kompromittiert sei.
Farías untermauert seine These – Heidegger sei bis zum Ende überzeugter Nationalsozialist gewesen, und seine Philosophie stehe in einer antisemitischen Tradition – durch akribische Auswertung von Archivmaterial. Belegt wird unter anderem Heideggers Rolle bei der Gleichschaltung der Universität Freiburg während seines Rektorats 1933/34 sowie seine Denunziationen von Kollegen und Kolleginnen.
Die Studie machte deutlich, dass Heideggers Verstrickung kein singulärer „Fehltritt“ war, sondern auf eine längere Tradition klerikal-faschistischer Denkweisen zurückging. Damit zwang sie die Philosophie, sich kritisch mit dem Verhältnis von Denken und politischem Handeln auseinanderzusetzen. Die Debatte spaltete die philosophische Welt in Deutschland und Frankreich und entzündete sich an der Frage, ob eine Trennung zwischen dem großen, revolutionären Denken und der mangelnden moralischen Größe des Philosophen überhaupt möglich ist.
Weitere vertiefende historische und biografische Perspektive entnehme man hier:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Ich erwarb dieses intellektuelle Schwergewicht am 4.3.1996 für 39,80 DM – ein Preis, der angesichts des intellektuellen Erdbebens, das das Buch auslöste, mehr als gerechtfertigt war.
Víctor Farías’ Studie, 1987 erschienen (dt. 1989), gilt als intellektuelle Bombe, die eine der größten philosophischen Kontroversen des späten 20. Jahrhunderts auslöste und die jahrzehntelange Verdrängung von Heideggers NS-Verstrickung abrupt beendete. Die Brisanz des Inhalts wird durch das gewichtige Vorwort von Jürgen Habermas unterstrichen, der die zentrale Frage stellte, ob Heideggers Werk durch sein aktives Engagement für die NS-Ideologie von 1933 bis 1945 kompromittiert sei.
Farías untermauert seine These – Heidegger sei bis zum Ende überzeugter Nationalsozialist gewesen, und seine Philosophie stehe in einer antisemitischen Tradition – durch akribische Auswertung von Archivmaterial. Belegt wird unter anderem Heideggers Rolle bei der Gleichschaltung der Universität Freiburg während seines Rektorats 1933/34 sowie seine Denunziationen von Kollegen und Kolleginnen.
Die Studie machte deutlich, dass Heideggers Verstrickung kein singulärer „Fehltritt“ war, sondern auf eine längere Tradition klerikal-faschistischer Denkweisen zurückging. Damit zwang sie die Philosophie, sich kritisch mit dem Verhältnis von Denken und politischem Handeln auseinanderzusetzen. Die Debatte spaltete die philosophische Welt in Deutschland und Frankreich und entzündete sich an der Frage, ob eine Trennung zwischen dem großen, revolutionären Denken und der mangelnden moralischen Größe des Philosophen überhaupt möglich ist.
Weitere vertiefende historische und biografische Perspektive entnehme man hier:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
January 27, 2020
This exciting title delivers as promised -- it's a documentation of the philosopher Martin Heidegger's lifelong sympathies and connections to the Nazi movement.
I expected to read more than the author gives us about the way in which Heidegger adapted his brand of existentialism to support fascist ideology. Farias instead puts heavy emphasis on academia and university politics, which, I suppose, are a necessary part of the story. We get prodigious accounts of such things as which rectors and deans of which universities attended what particular meeting, function, or seminar. It all goes to make the author's point quite convincingly, but much of the detail could have been shunted off to the appendix with no loss of integrity to the book's thesis.
I expected to read more than the author gives us about the way in which Heidegger adapted his brand of existentialism to support fascist ideology. Farias instead puts heavy emphasis on academia and university politics, which, I suppose, are a necessary part of the story. We get prodigious accounts of such things as which rectors and deans of which universities attended what particular meeting, function, or seminar. It all goes to make the author's point quite convincingly, but much of the detail could have been shunted off to the appendix with no loss of integrity to the book's thesis.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews