This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Social and political / Continental / Contemporary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Continental philosophy Contemporary philosophy

Paul, I see that you were none too pleased about my revisions made to this article. I expected someone to do something like that. Do you understand Heidegger's work? The neat thing about revisions is that the evidence is, then, right there for doing hermeneutical work on the variance of readings, vis-à-vis available scholarship on the matter. So, I've copied your pages, and I shall have a good time with your preferences, via another venue. As someone who has a lot of background on this issue, I'm confident about the January 6, 2008, version of this article. In time, the truth of the matter, re: divergent readings, will win out.

Paul responds (as first item on my "Talk" page): "Your revisions were pure special pleading. They were not NPOV, but turned the article into an apologia. I am not sure that most of your comments on my talk page are designed to serve any discernable purpose other than to gratify yourself." Those "comments" that Paul refers to are what I've noted above (more or less).

"...special pleading....apologia...to gratify yourself..."? What could address his uncertainty about this ("I am not sure") but to dwell with the text, relative to Heidegger's work and discerning attention to context? This would be tedious, but that's what would have to be done. Gedavis ( talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This isn't a reply, but more self-satisfied solipsism. What you describe as " dwell[ING] with the text, relative to Heidegger's work and discerning attention to context?" is usually called WP:OR in these parts. Paul B ( talk) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

(completed discussion as some text was left out for unknown reasons) Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Today, I've made some revisions to this article that retains full fidelity with all quoted material, while extracting incriminatory asides that are not commentary on quoted material. My intent, as student of Heidegger's thinking for many years, is to venture a Heideggerian balance to the incriminatory slant of the article, as it existed prior to today. To my mind, I don't pretend to make the issue uncontroversial, but only to imply new kinds of questions (tacit in my revisions). One question: How is critically constructive engagement possible within domination? One may reject Heidegger's brief hope for a sense of national renewal that lacked clairvoyance or a post-1945 perspective on 1933. But one should appreciate that Heidegger never endorsed Hitlerism. (No part of Habermas' essay on the Heidegger controversy, in The New Conservatism, 1989, shows that Heidegger endorsed Hitlerism, though Habermas surely believes otherwise, in his extended caricature.) However, a complete sense of the issue takes monographic proportions, and there are those monographs other than Victor Farias, such as Fred Dallmayr's The Other Heidegger; Julian Young's book on the matter; Hans Sluga, of course; Otto Pöggler, Heidegger's Path of Thinking; Theodore Kisiel's definitive work on the development of Heidegger's thinking; and more. No one, as far as I know, has responded to Habermas' caricature from an avowedly Heideggerian point of view (a rubric which has only heuristic value anyway). In my view, Heidegger's thinking remains largely missed by most readers, which of course just reads as a self-serving comment by nobody you know, and that's OK with me. What's most important is that we, planet wide, work to make our localities contribute to solving global issues, such as global warming, reification of The Other (that still reaches genocidal proportions), predatory capital, etc. in light of some truly practicable sense of humanistic union that advances human potential, efficacy of the United Nations, global public health, and the like. Gedavis ( talk) 08:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I have read some books by Heidegger and this is my impression, corroborated with other sources I have read about Heidegger and my own experience of living in a communist country:

1. Heidegger did not advocate racism or antisemitism in his philosophical works. He did show therein that he was proud to be a German, proud of the German history and of German culture. But isn't Angela Merkel proud of being a German? There was a book by a French author trying to show that he offered Nazism an entry into the world of respectable philosophy, but not every conservative proud German is a Nazi, and the argument relies upon a rather weird and subjective interpretation of Heidegger's work, actually trying to make him say things which he did not write in his philosophical works.

2. To the extent he wrote or said anything racist or antisemitic, these were his private beliefs and they have little relevance for his philosophy. Every man could hold some false beliefs at a certain moment and he is not obligated to holding forever such views as true. Or perhaps he was just paying lip service to the official ideology, in the case that one's letters are intercepted (as it is often the case in totalitarian regimes).

3. He was a member of NSDAP, so formally he was a Nazi. He showed support for the regime, but this is not the same as showing support for its racism. He was expected to reaffirm the official propaganda. In fact, doing philosophy in a totalitarian regime without affirming its official ideology is like a communist professor of philosophy who does not pay the required lip service to Marx, Engels, Lenin and the General Secretary of the Party. It is a whole performance, and very few could have such a record; this is entirely admirable. Namely, in totalitarian regimes one is not free to discuss everything and one is required to pay at least lip service to the official ideology. See also (2).

4. As a rector, he had no other option than apply the law. Perhaps it would have been heroic to oppose the law, but as himself he saw it, he was trying to improve German universities by adopting compromise solutions, so he also had to do something for the regime. Showing commitment to the regime is not a free choice in totalitarian regimes.

5. His university Fuhrer principle is not necessarily National-Socialist, but could be a genuine choice resulting from his own philosophy. At least, his critique of the loss of unitary perspective on knowledge is to the point, and universities are indeed held together administratively, while students from a faculty largely ignore the disciplines from other faculties, sometimes to the point of giving different meanings to the same terms (e.g. bureaucracy as too much split between thinking and doing, as seen by sociologists and as the normative, self-understood and necessary form for applying policy, as seen by political scientists).

6. His denounces cannot be constructed as antisemitic, seen that he has helped other Jews. A hypothesis of personal or philosophical reasons is more adequate, seen that he had treated different Jews differently and different liberals differently. In totalitarian regimes, denouncing others is not always a free choice.

7. His polemic with the official interpretation of Nietzsche: as Leo Strauss showed in Persecution and the Art of Writing, in tyrannies and totalitarian regimes, one's writing has to avoid being persecuted. This is, the critique of the regime has to be expressed in cryptic, figurative terms in order to avoid censorship and persecution, or more conveniently by attributing one's own opinions to past authors. This also confirms his idea from the Spiegel interview, when explaining the double meaning of his quote.

8. Heidegger was not always the favorite of the regime, e.g. being put under Gestapo surveillance and being denied the status of being among the 500 top intellectuals of the country.

9. His ambition of being Hitler's personal philosopher is not necessarily bad, e.g. if he intended to reshape Nazism as a cultural-literary society instead of a war machine. Perhaps he saw destruction as inevitable but this is not the same as advocating it. E.g. one can be a pacifist yet think that wars are inevitable.

10. In his concentration camps quote, he was referring to Chinese concentration camps. This cannot prove that he knew of Jews being exterminated in Nazi concentration camps.

11. Phrases like "the motorization of Wermacht is a metaphysical act" have a double meaning. Heidegger's readers know that for him metaphysics often meant something nefarious, as the forgetting of Being and pursuing the path opened by the forgetting of Being. In his own view, the whole totalitarianism was a consequence of the metaphysics of subjectivity, as championed by Descartes and Kant.

12. In the end, the above is just original research, so it is not authoritative, but it gives an idea of what to look for or at least what the problems are in respect to this article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Most of the points made here are irrelevant or illogical. On anti-semitism, see Berel Lang's Heidegger's Silence. On whether a philosopher's "private" beliefs conflict with his public positions, and how one should read them, there are numerous books one could consult, but again, Lang's book has a brief but pointed discussion. On whether he was in his essence a Nazi, Farias has an excellent, though to my mind too short, discussion, for which see Farias, passim. The Fuhrer-prinzip was not Heidegger's to modify or change, but a basic principle of organization in Nazi political culture. On Heidegger's assisting individual Jews, see the transcript of the Wansee Conference which addresses the issue and how it was seen by top-level Nazi bureaucrats. You might begin with Mark Roseman's The Villa, The Lake, The Meeting, which is excellent on that conference. On Heidegger's criticism of Nazism, which became sharper as the war went on, it was not related to its fundamental beliefs or policies, but rather criticized it from the point of view of a conservative nationalist revolution. As Heidegger is forced further away from actual power within the German university system, his valorization of Germany qua heimat, its language, its culture, becomes greater and greater; and Heidegger was never under Gestapo surveillance as such. The Gestapo asked students and colleagues around him to keep them informed, but they did that with virtually everyone who had been associated, as Heidegger had, with the Roehm faction. If Heidegger could criticize Nazism, as the above alleges, then why would he want to be Hitler's philosopher? And not that this point conflicts with point 7, the philosopher as critic and Socratic gadfly. Point 11 I admit I don't understand, but it sounds awfully like the kind of arguments Bloch uses, that is, terms created for arguments in such a way that the outcome is guaranteed, that is, a philosophy that proceeds by coining definitions and stringing them together rather than by actually arguing anything. In commonsense terms, admittedly, not Heidegger's strong point or one he would recognize, the motorization of the Wermacht isn't a metaphysical act, and to even link it to metaphysics seems a sort of special pleading, both for the metaphysics, and for the soldiers. As to the concentration camps, no he is not talking about Chinese labour camps, but rather about published accounts in the West about the disastrous famine that accompanied Mao's "Great Leap Forward." More could be said, but this should be a start. This entire article seems to have been edited/vandalized by Heidegger partisans. Theonemacduff ( talk) 07:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC) reply

For Heidegger, "metaphysics" was his way of saying "the Devil". So, by that metaphysical acts he meant the Devil endowed the army with planes and tanks. And, if Hannah Arendt remained pregnant, he would have been sent to concentration camp for defiling the race. One could make an argument that he hated Jews (meaning the men), but he certainly loved some Jewish women. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Santa Sangre, if you're going to split this off from the main Heidegger entry, could you shorten the section you copied? Currently this is just a copy of the Heidegger and Nazi Germany section. Deleuze 16:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'll do it in a close future. Actually I created the page in order to translate fr:Heidegger et le nazisme, but in the meanwhile I just moved the English text from the Heidegger page. Santa Sangre 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Cool. I figured you would, just wanted to make sure. Deleuze 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is still not really a lot more than in the original article and not an article in its own right. I think it should just be reintegrated. -- Kricket 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it should remain a complement to the main Heidegger article, which addresses this topic in its more-proper context of Heidegger's work. Whether or not you agree with Heidegger's undersanding of his Freiburg work, it's factual that his understanding is in terms of his philosophical work prior to that period, and the main Heidegger article addresses that. By the way, Heidegger did not eliminate the faculty electoral process; the Führerprinzip was required by the Nazi Minister of Education, and that Ministry also required Nazi Ministry policies on financial aid. Heidegger was against this (according to Hugo Ott's detailed examination of these years, in Martin Heidegger: a political life, 1993), and Heidegger was against so much of what the Minister of Education required that Heidegger resigned 11 months later. One should want to know what else Heidegger did during his short rectorship (including what other hirings and firings) other than what serves one's proper animus toward Nazism. One should also want to appreciate the Aristotelian sense of leadership that Heidegger endorsed in the 1920s, as indicated in his lectures on Aristotle. And one should want to understand what Heidegger meant by "National Socialist spirit" that he distinguished from the state. Gedavis ( talk) 04:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This page claims that he did not dismiss Husserl. The main page claims he did. Which is it?

The main page is correct, according to Heidegger scholar Hans Sluga, who is sourced at the main Heidegger page. Gedavis ( talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

This article does not follow NPOV and is not written like an encyclopedia article.

I agree. I believe it should be either completely rewritten or deleted. The Heidegger and Nazism section in the main Heidegger article is by far better and more neutral. And I think it's comprehensive enough, as well. 212.54.14.3 ( talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

This quote from Derrida, which I am not doubting the veracity of, is utilized in a reductive and misrepresentative fashion. It can be easily argued that Derrida's most important influence was Heidegger, and while Derrida may never have denied Heidegger's Nazi past, he certainly would not have implicated Heidegger's philosophy as being fascistic having borrowed many of his important ideas from Heidegger. In fact, even the Wikipedia article on Heidegger contradicts this errantly deployed quote.

As a result, I took the quote out until someone properly contextualizes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieziege ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I find this section unclear. It claims that critics cite this relationship. Critics of what or whom? Furthermore, it is not clear what citation of this relationship implies. Can anyone clarify this? Brackfalker ( talk) 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think anybody knows what this affair implies (for Arendt and her Eichman book for instance). One funny idea is that Heidegger's wife who was a nazi much earlier than him, was strengthened in this because of the affair.-- Radh ( talk) 09:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If they made a baby, it would have been called race-defilement. It was a crime punishable with concentration camp (yes, this would have included him). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

His work Mindfulness (Besinnung) was not available until very recently, and when Heidegger wrote it he intended its publication to be very delayed. In it, he clearly denounces Nazism. The translators, in their introduction, point out that this is evidence of his position against Nazism: unequivocally in his actual beliefs, and equivocal in his actions during that period probably for self-interested reasons. Anyone curious about his writings against Nazism in Mindfulness should read the section #47, 'Truth and Usefulness,' on page 102 of the English Continuum edition, and the translators' introduction for reference to other passages. Heidegger associates Nazism with machination, which he contrasts with that in which he places stock in this work, namely leap into be-ing enownment (or whatever).

Ark2120 ( talk) 03:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't it be spelled "Naziism"? Lestrade ( talk) 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade reply

Yes, probably. It has also been argued that "fish" should be spelled "ghoti." KD Tries Again ( talk) 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again reply

You might want to note this book review "Heil Heidegger!" of the publication of the English-language translation of Heidegger: the Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy" by Emmanual Faye published by Yale University Press. http://chronicle.com/article/Heil-Heidegger-/48806/ Regards, Rumjal --rumjal 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal ( talk • contribs)

I don't think this article can be considered a reliable source, as its tone is racist and offensive. (Sample quote: "Would we not think about things that exist without this ponderous, existentialist Teuton?") Wwallacee ( talk) 10:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

An observation upon a quote presented by Romano: Hitler was Germany's reality and law and its future, this is a statement of fact: he really was its leader and he did produce or at least inspire its laws. He was in power for 12 years, therefore he was still to be Germany's future when Heidegger was speaking. Otherwise, I think that Romano's article is a reliable source about Faye's opinions, but not about making statements of fact. In fact, Faye could hardly make statements of fact, because his value judgments are all based upon lots of interpretation, they are not like providing unambiguous proof for his case. In so far as it is one academic and kind of popular thesis, Faye's thesis could be mentioned, but merely as his own opinion. I would suggest that statements about the lack of political philosophy in Heidegger's works are closer to being statements of facts, since such information is verifiable (or falsifiable) without relying too much upon subjective interpretation. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I made several changes to this section based on a review of one of the principal sources, Thomas Sheehan's New York Review of Books article. [1] In general, the source was quoted in a biased way with the intention of slamming Heidegger and exaggerating the extent of his Anti-semitism. A more balanced use of the source does not diminish Heidegger's evident collaboration with the Nazi authorities, but it makes it clear that Heidegger's involvement was political rather than racist. Wwallacee ( talk) 10:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I must apologize for making a thorough edit to this article in the form of numerous small edits rather than one big edit. I had initially intended to make only a small edit, but I began to learn so much while doing so, that I felt compelled to continue editing as I checked on additional references and found new material.

In my last several edits, I forgot to log in, so I was identified only by my I.P. address. Among others I worked on the following issues:

• Removed last section and repositioned some of it into Intro
• Moved material on Hans Jonas from "post-rectorate" section into "Fuhrer principle" section
• Removed negative comment about Werner Brock, which I was unable to source, and replaced it with a positive comment which I found evidence for.

In some cases, I added significantly to the length of block quotes. I feel this is warranted because of the controversial nature of the material - by giving more context, the reader is enabled to come to his own conclusions, rather than being spoon-fed smaller excerpts which support a particular interpretation.

Wwallacee ( talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Here is another scathing review of Faye's book. 86.44.89.116 ( talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This piece in the New York Times also casts doubts on the integrity of Faye's scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.89.116 ( talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Could other editors please contribute their thoughts? My own impression is that the book is unreliable, and based on this, that the section on Heidegger's antisemitism should be removed altogether, being composed largely of hearsay filtered through Faye's prosecutorial logic.

I have to admit though that I am pro-Heidegger in the sense that I have read and appreciated many of his writings and that I regard him as a positive influence on my life. As a result, I think that Victor Farias's book is already somewhat extreme, even though it seems tame by comparison with Faye's book. Francois Fedier, a French interpreter of Heidegger, wrote a detailed refutation of Faye's book which I find persuasive.

Wwallacee ( talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Fedier's article is called "Méchanique de la diffamation". Wwallacee ( talk) 21:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The answer to the question is that yes, the book is a WP:RS, and regardless of who is trying to discredit the text it doesn't matter to wikipedia. In the case of this article we are documenting the debate, not reporting the truth (that isn't always the case for every article, but it is true in this one). So in this case Faye's book has already been highly influential and contributed a lot of scholarship to the debate. Coffeepusher ( talk) 03:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply

quote" Emmanuel Faye claims Heidegger criticized the "Judaization" ("Verjudung") of German universities in 1916, and favored instead the promotion of the "German race" ("die deutsche Rasse").[2] However, this claim is based on indirect evidence: a non-extant letter of Heidegger's quoted by Husserl twenty years later.[3] "

The letter using the term Verjudung is in print. Heidegger was a far-right supporter of the dominance of the German VOLK - this is not biological racism - it is rather a language-based but extreme ethno-extremism - and as dangerous and vile.

The letter was referenced by Jaspers - as having read it - in the famous Jaspers letter to Heidegger - also now in print.

The term Verjudung is in the Eduard Baumgarten advocacy letter - advocating for preference to be given to a non-Jew for financial aid.

The passage is also quoted in its entirety in the Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, pg 87.

Heidegger's wife was the straight-forward anti-Semite: see the letter to her by Hannah Arendt ... and Elfride's letter to Malvine Husserl - also in print. G. Robert Shiplett 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a trendy sociologist from the Netherlands, Willem Schinkel. He coined the term culture-ism. It can be argued that Heidegger wasn't a racist, he was a culture-ist, of the literary-philosophical sort, not of the real-life bully sort. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

So, Heidegger did not stand for Blood and Soil, he stood for Culture and Metaphysics. Or: for Culture and against Western Metaphysics. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

For Heidegger, the keyword wasn't race, but culture. Race was subordinated to culture. That's why he could get along so well with Jewish women: for him they were culturally German, race was of secondary importance. Perhaps in his private musings (read: black books) he thought in racial terms, but culture was primordial for him. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Heidegger did not enter the history of philosophy as a Nazi propagandist, he entered it as the father of Postmodernism, considered a guru by ecological leftists. A simpler argument is: in philosophy there is no consensus. Everything one philosopher states is likely to be challenged by another philosopher. So, there can be no consensus that Heidegger's philosophy amounts to Nazism. Imho, it isn't Nazism, but some smart aleck will say it is. "Dismiss him because he was a Nazi" is an ad hominem. Philosophers have knee-jerk distrust for people who use ad hominems. For us such people score even lower than those who speak gibberish. Because when one is heard speaking gibberish, the problem could be with the listener. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised that the chief exploration of Heidegger's anti-Semitism is nowhere cited in this article. Berel Lang argues, in his book, Heidegger's Silence, that Heidegger was an anti-semite all his life, that he held the view from an early age, and never once changed it. The argument is subtle, and is constructed mostly around specific absences in Heidegger, both in his philosophical writings and in his personal writings. Yes, I know this sounds a little specious (how do you prove a negative?) but read the book and I have no doubt Lang will convince. I will try to extract the key features of the argument and amend the Anti-Semitism section. Theonemacduff ( talk) 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply

He was not that antisemitic as to avoid extramarital affairs with Jewish women. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I added a new section with well known testimonies, I hope it's ok. If I may, the phrase at the beginning "His first act as Rector was to eliminate all democratic structures, including those that had elected him Rector" need referencies and explanations. I think it should actually be removed, because it's already a value judgement. Thanks Filinthe ( talk) 15:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC) reply

It looks like the new section on testimonies has already been undone. Can I suggest that instead of inserting "the other side" so-to-speak throughout the article, as though there are two equally opposing sides, you create a new section regarding criticism of the view that Heidegger was more of a Nazi than the Nazis? Mfhiller ( talk) 03:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

Also I agree that the beginning statement is problematic. It is a little unfair to Heidegger. Is there something else one can say instead? Mfhiller ( talk) 03:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

Hi, thanks for the message, the section has been removed because of WP:NOR, which I don't understand. I'm not "on the other side", even if I confess I like Heidegger's philosophy. The problem is that this page is written out of Farias book, which is absolutely not a reliable source (so WP:NO), together with the fact it don't even refer to the book itself but to a review (by Thomas Sheehan). Farias and Faye's books are not reliable, the german wikipage don't use them, the french either. Here's the section I'd like to add :

Student testimonials

Among Heidegger's students, Günther Anders saw in Heidegger's lectures a "reactionary potential", and Karl Löwith told that his master spoke of Hitler enthusiastically, but most of them agree that Heidegger was actually an adversary of Nazism. Walter Biemel, Heidegger's student in 1942, testified in 1945 ^[1] :

"Heidegger was the only professor to not give any Nazi salutations prior to beginning his courses, even though it was administratory obligatory. His courses... were among the very rare ones where remarks against National Socialism were risked. Some conversations in those times could cost you your head. I had many such conversations with Heidegger. There is absolutely no doubt he was a declared adversary of the regime."

Siegfried Bröse (who was relieved of his functions as Sub prefect by the National socialists in 1933 and became one of Heidegger's teaching assistant in 1934) wrote to the de-Nazification hearing :

"One could see - and this was often confirmed to me by the students - that Heidegger lectures were attended en masse because the students wanted to form a rule to guide their own conduct by hearing National Socialism characterized in all its non-truth... Heidegger's lectures were attended not only by students but also by people with long-standing professions and even by retired people, and every time I had the occasion to talk with these people, what came back incessantly was their admiration for the courage with which Heidegger, from the height of his philosophical position and in the rigor of his starting point, attacked National Socialism" ^[2].

Equally, Hermine Rohner, a student of 1940 to 1943, bears testimony to the fact Heidegger "wasn't afraid, as for him, even in front of students from all faculties (so not only "his" students), to attack National Socialism so openly that I hunched up my shoulders" ^[3]

Georg Picht in 1933 : "The way Heidegger conceived of the revival of the university, this became clear to me on the occasion of a memorable event. To give the first lecture within the framework of „political education“ - a compulsory measure introduced at the universities by the Nazis - Heidegger, rector at that time, invited my mother's brother in law, Victor von Weizsäcker. Everyone was puzzled, because it was well-known that Weizsäcker was no Nazi. But Heidegger's word was law. The student he had chosen to lead the philosophy department thought he should pronounce introductory words on national socialist revolution. Heidegger soon manifested signs of impatience, then he shouted with a lout voice that irritation strained : "this jabber will stop immediately !" Totally prostrated, the student disappeared from the tribune. He had to resign from office. As for Victor von Weizsäcker, he gave a perfect lecture on his philosophy of medicine, in which national socialism was not once mentioned, but far rather Sigmund Freud." ^[4]

Because of what he calls a "spiritual resistance", czech resistant fighter and former Heidegger's student Jan Patocka includes his master among the Heroes of our times.

I have to translate the last testimony too. Perhaps could it be joined to the Karl Löwith's testimony. Filinthe ( talk) 10:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Those testimonials are original research and are a good example of undue weight. We need to use secondary or tertiary sources not primary sources. While those are interesting statements we need a secondary source to establish their significance within the debate, and if we can't find any secondary sources then they were not significant and are not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. Now those are great sources for a scholarly paper, but that is not what we are doing right now. We are not trying to establish Heidegger's position on Nazism, we are documenting how the debate happened. If those letters didn't feature prominently within the debate then they do not bear inclusion. Coffeepusher ( talk) 11:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Ah sorry I didn't well understand. So these testimonies are available for instance in a pretty good article by Karl Moehling : Heidegger and the nazis in Heidegger: the man and the thinker, Thomas Sheehan ed., New Brunswick, 2010 Transaction Publishers p.38

Filinthe ( talk) 18:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't know Karl Moehling, but Thomas Sheehan certainly is a well-known and respected Heidegger scholar. Filinthe can you summarise Moehling's position? Also, I don't agree that the current article simply repeats Farias and Faye. I'll agree that some of it is badly written and should be improved. However, Hugo Ott wrote a political biography that supports many of Farias's conlcusions regarding Heidegger's collaboration with the Nazis. Faye is a goof but I don't think the article depends on him. Mfhiller ( talk) 01:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

Well, Moehling argues like Fédier that Heidegger was no nazi and that he became a party member to be able to counter the nazi students. About Farias, I think in particular about the sections "Denounced or demoted non-Nazis" and "Attitude towards Jews" ("Heidegger's rectorate" as well) which are just copies of Sheehan's review, so highly doubtful, it can't be taked for granted. Hugo Ott would be a far better reference indeed. Fédier "answered back abundantly clear Farias's researches", the german wikipage is not afraid to say it ("1988 erschien das Buch „Heidegger – anatomie d'un scandale“ von François Fédier, der den Untersuchungen von Victor Farías am deutlichsten widersprach.") It's actually in Anatomy of a scandal that those testimonies were originally quoted to counter Farias (who had so many new documents that he overlooked them...). So I assume I may now publish them on the main page? [User:Filinthe|Filinthe]] ( talk) 09:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The article for the most part is consistent with Hugo Ott's research. The position that Heidegger only joined the Nazis to counter Nazi students is unsupported. Although interesting your claims amount to original research and express a minority view, both of which are clearly governed by WP rules. Also the evidence Ott supplies for Heidegger being a Nazi is pretty overwhelming and I don't believe a word of his apologists, who, Heidegger included, sound like a bunch of holocaust denying cry-babies. Compare Heidegger and Riefenstahl for example. Can I suggest again the you create a new section supported by relevant secondary sources? Mfhiller ( talk) 04:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

Unsupported?!! Minority view?!! Hanna Arendt, Jan Patocka, Walter Biemel, Marcel Conche, Philippe Arjakovsky, Henri Crétella, Pascal David, François Fédier, Hadrien France-Lanord, Matthieu Gallou, Gérard Guest, Alexandre Schild, Bernard Sichère, Éric Solot, Pierre Teitgen, Peter Trawny... How many more references do I need? This sounds like a personal value judgement, and moreover like an insult ("holocaust denying cry-babies"), take it back. Ott is only one time quoted in the article (19) by the way, but I don't feel like debating with people who can accuse anyone of negationism. Filinthe ( talk) 07:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Ok, both of you back down a bit. Filinthe, if you have read WP:SYNTH you know that it isn't enough that the testimonials appeared in another work,you need to place them in the same context that the other work placed them. also if you read WP:WEIGHT you know that yes in fact you are supporting a minority view. There were some heavy hitters in that view and you have a good list, but there are more scholars who support the idea that Heidegger personally and philosophically aligned himself with the Nazi party line. I agree that mfhiller should strike the cry baby comment, and filinthe needs to strike the comment about negationism. Once you guys calm down maybe we can look at how to best deal with this. Coffeepusher ( talk) 21:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC) reply

OK, yes, sorry Filinthe. I withdraw my comment about holocaust denying cry-babies. I wasn't, however, accusing just anyone of negationism; I was accusing Heidegger of negationism (majority view). My problem with your edits are: you do not provide edit summaries, and, you give equal weight to a minority view based on primary sources. Wikipedia has clear rules that your editing ignores. Coffeepusher has given you the links. To be perfectly honest I am sympathetic with a lot of Heidegger's philosophy, particularly the Introduction of Being and Time (the only part Husserl considered phenomenological) and his later writings on the end of philosophy. Regarding the question of Heidegger and National Socialism, I am open to all interpretations; your editing, however, needs to conform to Wikipedia practices. Mfhiller ( talk) 21:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

I've edited the lede as per some of Filinthe's comments trying to make it more neutral. Like to hear comments. Mfhiller ( talk) 22:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiiler reply

Fine, I belong actually a bit to this bunch of Heideggerians and nobody is less negationist. Concerning Heidegger himself, Hanna Arendt is not the only one who thinks that his remarks on extermination camps are philosophically without compare (most of her Origins of totalitarism 's third part is based on them). Concerning the student testimonies, I have 2 big referencies, Karl Moehling's article and Fédier's Anatomie d'un scandale, is it enough? Your edit is a bit more neutral, but I would add that the nazis themselves already dismissed Heidegger before the de-Nazification hearing. Filinthe ( talk) 21:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The important thing to keep in mind is that according to WP rules "this bunch of Heideggarians" express a minority point of view and cannot be given equal weight in the article. That is why I have been suggesting that you develop a separate section. I admit that some of the student testimonials that Moehling - who I have read now - are intriguing, though a lot of his argument relies on Heidegger's own testimony which most now consider whitewashing (e.g., Ott). I am only familiar with Fedier secondhand, through Rockmore's book on Heidegger and French philosophy, since I can't find anything in English translation. Rockmore is highly critical of Fedier who he thinks mostly just rehashes Beaufort's hysterical defence of Heidegger and ignores important historical facts. Also, the section should not be titled "student testimonials" as this implies consensus among former students of Heidegger, which there is not (e.g., Marcuse, Lowith, Levinas). Perhaps the article should begin with a section after the lede summarising the main points of view regarding Heidegger and Nazism (I believe either Sheehan or Rockmore have a summary that could be used as a source). You could then develop Fedier's et. al position in more detail in a further section. But the dominant emphasis of the article must remain on the fact that Heidegger was a committed Nazi, since this is the point of view held today by the majority of Heidegger scholars. Mfhiller ( talk) 06:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

I’m not sure it’s such a dominant opinion anymore. Times are changing, more and more scholars accept now the idea that Heidegger didn’t lie. The german wikipage is very cautious for that matter. Fédier's masterpiece Anatomie d’un scandale helped a lot, it’s a pity it's not translated. His master Jean Beaufret was one of the rare members of the french Resistance, I wouldn’t dare call him hysterical, one needed to keep his cool at those times. I'd rather speak about hysterical attacks against Heidegger, such as Farias's. WW2 is a complicated story. The de-Nazification hearing had a lot of difficulties judging Heidegger, the French were actually ready to release him as the students and the university itself told he wasn't guilty. Marcuse and Levinas were not in Germany between 1933 and 1945. Löwith is actually the only one who told Heidegger was seduced by Hitler in 1936, so in a trial his testimony wouldn't be used (testis unus testis nullus). And he wasn’t in Germany either, but in Rome. So we may say that all the students who were there testified that Heidegger was very soon an adversary of the regime, it was well-known and Heidegger risked his life. This is the reason he didn’t apologized after the war. He didn(t have to, he did what was to be done when it had to be done, not afterwards, people from abroad couldn't understand anyway. I found a translation of Picht's testimony who tells how Heidegger as rector sabotaged the nazi indoctrination "political education" day in Julian Young's Heidegger philosophy nazism p.20 (so Fédier is not the only one who quotes it) :

"The way Heidegger conceived of the revival of the university, this became clear to me on the occasion of a memorable event. To give the first lecture within the framework of „political education“ - a compulsory measure introduced at the universities by the Nazis - Heidegger, rector at that time, invited my mother's brother in law, Viktor von Weizsäcker. Everyone was puzzled, because it was well-known that Weizsäcker was no Nazi. But Heidegger's word was law. The student he had chosen to lead the philosophy department thought he should pronounce introductory words on national socialist revolution. Heidegger soon manifested signs of impatience, then he shouted with a lout voice that irritation strained : "this jabber will stop immediately !" Totally prostrated, the student disappeared from the tribune. He had to resign from office. As for Viktor von Weizsäcker, he gave a perfect lecture on his philosophy of medicine, in which national socialism was not once mentioned, but far rather Sigmund Freud." (Fédier Heidegger à plus forte raison p.44, G.Picht "Power of thinking" in Erinnerung an Martin Heidegger Neske, Pfullingen, 1977, p. 198)

The german page contains a section summarising the main points of view, I could translate it.

Filinthe ( talk) 19:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks Filinthe. Juilian Young is exactly the kind of "third-party" source to use. I've read some of his book on Heidegger and Nazism: he is good because 1) he accepts Ott's research regarding Heidegger's collaboration with the Nazis and 2) attempts to "de-nazify" Heidegger's philosophy while acknowledging the former. Young is a reliable source in relation to WP standards and summarizing him avoids charges of original research etc. Mfhiller ( talk) 01:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

Good news, thanks, so all what's in his book, I may use it? I added the section on the main page together with Löwith's testimony, feel free to change or remove it. I also tried to make the lede more neutral. Filinthe ( talk) 08:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I've moved some good text concerning the "Heidegger controversy" from the Martin Heidegger's page to this one. I'd like to reorganize that a bit, if I may. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filinthe ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC) reply

References

I've read that a Mitläufer is actually no sympathiser, to the contrary : he gives in to peer pressure without conviction nor resistance, so no fellow traveler either, and plays no role. ( German Wikipedia : Ein Mitläufer schließt sich nicht aus innerer Überzeugung einer Gruppe oder Handlung an, sondern folgt einem Gruppenzwang oder sucht die soziale Umgebung. Er nimmt auch keine tragende oder treibende Rolle ein. Im Gegensatz dazu bezeichnet man jemanden, der aus Überzeugung handelt, als einen Sympathisanten.) Filinthe ( talk) 13:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks as always Filinthe for your insights. I both agree and disagree as far as the general sense of the term, as used in particular by the United States, during denazification proceedings in the Western sector after World War II. As everyone ought to know today there were many, many problems with denazification. The division between East and West Germany (and the division between East and West Berlin) are obvious examples. The Cold War, not to mention the enormous task of classifying every single German person, with the added problem of ex post facto law has made it an almost impossible set of problems to resolve. Mfhiller ( talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

Carl Schmitt stated in his own defence that having faith in an ideology is not in itself a crime. E.g., he said, present-day Christians cannot be held accountable for the crimes of the Inquisition. These being said, as pointed above, Heidegger had lots and lots of occasions to write racist philosophy and did not do it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I am proposing that only Fedier references that can be cited from English sources should be kept. Wikipedia standards do not allow unverifiable information. The statement "so-and-so (never translated into English by a recognised translator) says"... cannot be allowed on English WP insofar as the source is inherently unverifiable and therefore un-encylcopeadic. I don't mind a few references here and there, but now that an entire article is being over-written on the basis of dubious French sources, I'm becoming uneasy. In the first instance, Tom Rockmore, in his book on Heidegger's French legacy, has stated something to the effect of "Fedier's arguments are so ridiculous that one can hardly call them arguments, let alone waste their time translating them." I believe Richard Wolin takes a similar position. I can provide good sarcastic quotes from Rockmore. Also from Wolin too, both good, highly respected Heidegger scholars. Mfhiller ( talk) 23:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

Ok, I don't mind, Safranski and Young are sufficient, but why Farias and Faye's insane books would have the honour to be translated and not his? It's unfair. "Fedier's arguments are so ridiculous that one can hardly call them arguments, let alone waste their time translating them." :D Sarcasm is easier than argumentation. As far as I know, noone has refuted Fèdier's argumentation, but he indeed refuted completely Farias' book. Rockmore and Wolin are certainly good scholars, but here they obviously don't know what they're talking about. Rockmore believes Heidegger's beer and sausages Science Camp in the Black Forest was a "reeducational camp" (does he know what a "reeducational center" really is?) and they both agree with Farias that Heidegger's ambiguous way of speaking about Nazism between 1935 and 1945 hides his own Nazism. But why would one hide their own Nazism during Nazism itself, when it was an everyday obligation to show enthusiasmus for Hitler? They also think Heidegger should have cancelled his NSDAP membership. Imagine the letter : "Dear Führer, I'm sorry but I must confess I don't agree anymore with your politics." It was totalitarism, they would have him killed on the spot, he and all his family. Filinthe ( talk) 12:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC) But please, give me the sarcastic quotes from Rockmore. cheers Filinthe ( talk) 06:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I found some comments on Fédier in Rockmore's On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy. He really has no arguments but sarcasm to oppose. "The rectoral address shows an explicit concern (which Heidegger there stresses but later minimizes) to utilize the university for the purpose of achieving a goal schared by the nazis : the realization of the historical destiny of the German people." To share a goal with someone doesn't prove anything. Which people doesn't believe in its historical destiny? I like to quote Tony Blair's last speech as Premier Minister, May 10, 2007 : "This country is a blessed country. The British are special. The world knows it, we know it, this is the greatest country on earth." This is not specifically nazi. I would even say that it is not nazi at all, because as Arendt shows it Nazis were actually no nationalists but rather internationalists. They had only one goal : worldwide antisemitism. Filinthe ( talk) 07:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) All these people who speak of Heidegger's nazism are not aware of the danger : if one of the greatest thinkers of all times was a real nazi, then nazism is no insane ideology but can be justified. Until the 70's was Heidegger considered as a left wing thinker (Sartre), but now, thanks to Farias and Faye, right wing extremists and even antisemitics begin to quote Heidegger! Heidegger antisemitic, what a gift! We can't allow that, this is the main reason Fédier fight so hard (he told it once), and the reason I'm here too. Filinthe ( talk) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

There's almost too much here to tackle in one sitting. Yes, it is unfortunate that there are no English translations of Fedier. However, although Farias and Faye's insane books (btw I don't think Farias's book is insane) have had the honour to be translated, so also has Hugo Ott's book. There are no criticisms of Ott's book as far as I know. Ott provides plenty of evidence that Heidegger was no mere lemming but followed his conscience in supporting the Nazis. Can you dispute Heidegger's almost giddy enthusiasm with National Socialism in 1933? Can you dispute the Nazi uniform he wore? What about his denunciation of Staudinger to the Gestapo? In what sense was Heidegger not an ultra-conservative and a fascist? Like many philosophers he was at least a megalomaniac (think of Hegel's proclamations regarding the culmination of history in his own thought, or for that matter Marx). This doesn't mean that Heidegger wasn't a good philosopher (or Hegel or Marx); it just means that he was a megalomaniac and probably a fascist too. Why can't we just accept this? It is quite understandable why Heidegger might have tried, as you put it, to hide his own Nazism even when it was an everyday obligation to show enthusiasm for Hitler: quite simply Heidegger had become disenchanted with the Nazis for not following what he perceived to be the true path of Nazism. Heidegger made no secret of this. And why shouldn't Heidegger have cancelled his NSDAP membership? Many people took far greater risks and survived; many of course did not survive. Should we blame Heidegger then for being a coward? He probably was cowardly. You are right that statements about historical destiny in themselves prove nothing. But they certainly prove something when they are linked to antisemitism, and not just antisemitism as we all know. As soon as one raises the question of historical destiny in these terms one has breached a wall, justifying all types of indoctrination, violence, and industrialised murder. In that case one might hold Tony Blair in equal contempt with Adolf Hitler. There are very real dangers interpreting Heidegger. I don't agree at all, however, that if one of the greatest thinkers was a Nazi then Nazism is no insane ideology. Nazism is an insane ideology no matter what, even if one of the greatest thinkers was a Nazi. A great thinker can also become terribly confused, as Heidegger did. Nothing needs to be explained away. Let the right-wing extremists and antisemitics quote Heidegger: I don't give a shit what they think about Heidegger. The only thing Heidegger ever said was that it is the responsibility of philosophy to ask fundamental questions. Mfhiller ( talk) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller reply

Heidegger did take risks, not all of them, but it was sufficient to repair his error as Arendt recognised it. He was no lemming in 1933, that's for sure, he believed in the revolution, but not in Hitler's one. Heidegger rejected Pan-Germanism, and he even said he was no nationalist. He was either fascist nor ultraconservativ nor antisemitic. This revolution he imagined was the contrary of nazism (he was so blind it took him 10 months to see it, but Europe needed several years, in 1936 the Olympics Games are a success). The so-called "Conservative Revolution" is a particular german movement proposing a "third way" between bolchevism und liberalism, and has nothing to do with antisemitism. The main figure for Heidegger is Hölderlin who called for a "revolution of all ways of thinking", but Nietzsche and Hofmannsthal are mostly seen as representative : rejection of the modern world and call for a new one but linked to the tradition. Hitler claimed he represented this ideal but of course it was a lie. This is a common error to interpret Nazism as a nationalist movement, nazis were either nationalists nor socialists (see Arendt). Nazism is not an extreme form of nationalism, but is as well internationalist as bolchevism, his right name is totalitarism. I'm personnaly no nationalist, but I can understand it, for instance in Germany after the Treatise of Versailles, or in France during the Occupation. French think they have a historical spiritual mission, Jews too, Russians, Americans too, all of them, this is a normal way of thinking for a people. Filinthe ( talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I checked up in Fédier about the SA-uniform, he says Heidegger never wore it. Filinthe ( talk) 13:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The article now states that Richard Rorty is both a critic and a supporter. I deem that this would be not only logically inconsistent, but also not the case. My expertise does not allow me to solve this problem, so I hope one of you could! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.130.3 ( talk) 15:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• I came here with the exact same problem, to ask the exact same question. Could someone who knows Rorty well enough make an edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.198.73 ( talk) 03:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• There's nothing illogically about being a supporter and a critic. Rorty can have both favorable and unfavorable opinions about Heidegger (although I have no idea whether he did or not). -- Mathscienced ( talk) 23:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• This really needs to be cleaned up. I spotted it the first time in. In spite of the previous comment, including Rorty as both a detractor and a supporter is confusing to a reader. If it is true that Rorty was both a critic and a supporter, then the second mention of him should at least read: "Richard Rorty (who was also a supporter)." Rmrwiki ( talk) 05:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC) reply

References

-- Mauro Lanari ( talk) 18:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The account of the Baumgarten denuciation is incorrect. See Baumgarten's own account in the Appendix to Lang, Heidegger's Silence. Theonemacduff ( talk) 07:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) reply

The article should contain something about the Black Notebooks. I've proposed on the Black Notebooks talk page that the Black Notebooks article be merged here. Any thoughts? Mfhiller ( talk) 03:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Agreed, especially considering how relevant those appear. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/oct/09/heidegger-in-black/ -- Mathscienced ( talk) 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Agreed. This whole article could be read as "Heidegger wasn't a Nazi, and here's the proof". Something on the Black Notebooks might help, as would a section on the influence of National Socialism on his philosophy.-- Te Karere ( talk) 06:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Formally, he was a card-carrying member of NSDAP, thus a Nazi. This is beyond dispute. But, as NY Books notes, he got disenchanted with Nazism and became suspect for the regime. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

After the War, Heidegger was defined as a " Nazi follower". The category is controversial; due to efficiencies in the denazification process, many assignments were administrative in a bid to reduce caseload. In any case, the Black Notebooks, a stub-class article, has yet to be merged here. It would balance the article to some extent. In addition to the noted disenchantment with the Nazi bureaucracy, Heidegger expresses his privately-held anti-Semitism. Many scholars have founded their work on Heideggeran philosophy; he was an extraordinary ontologist. However, he was also a person. Denialism does not do him justice. Te Karere ( talk) 08:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not peddling denialism. We have to distinguish between hard facts and mere opinions. Heidegger wasn't a racist ideologue, nor a war-monger-er. He was suspect to the regime because he had supported Ernst Röhm and because he had shown an inclination towards race defilement. So, the regime did not see him fit for political office, nor for propaganda tasks. Anyway, Heidegger's thinking was just too abstract to have an impact on the war/genocide. He wasn't a camp guard, a bureaucrat (except one year of being a rector) or a soldier, so he played no role in WW2/genocide. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I would question the very relevance of this article. What does it matter whether one German philosopher was or was not a supporter of Nazism? I don't recall any articles on whether any given Russian composer, poet or philosopher was a supporter of Communism. 122.59.167.152 ( talk) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Whole books have been written about this. Leutha ( talk) 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I have added the image for the November 1933 election. I feel we could add a bit more as Heidigger is focusing on the election from a philosophical point of view. basically there was only one list and the image gives an important cue as regards the circumstances of H.s endorsement. Leutha ( talk) 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Heidegger and Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107062318/http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/88-nazi.PDF to http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/88-nazi.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926142855/http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/NormalNa.pdf to http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/NormalNa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Martin Heidegger and Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/past_issues/issue/winter_1989_v15_n2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303223914/http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11052004-163310/unrestricted/Gauthier_dis.pdf to http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11052004-163310/unrestricted/Gauthier_dis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404150727/https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/330T/350kPEEHeideggerSelf-Assertion.pdf to https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/330T/350kPEEHeideggerSelf-Assertion.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902185841/http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html to http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902185841/http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html to http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Who is Eduard Langwald? Is this advocate in favor of Heidegger the best authority on Heidegger and Nazism? Why must many evidences on Heidegger and Nazism be concluded by «Eduard Langwald thinks the contrary»? This amounts to give again and again the last word to Eduard Langwald on important points. -- Dominique Meeùs ( talk) 10:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This article needs to be revised in order to incorporate new research on the topic, most importantly, Richard Wolin's new book:

Wolin, Richard. HEIDEGGER IN RUINS: Between Philosophy and Ideology. 1st ed., Yale University Press, 2023, https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300269130. p. 488.

The book updates many of the issues addressed in this article. There is plenty of textual evidence to support Wolin's case. I will refrain from doing the update as I am not a Heidegger expert. Fvelasqu ( talk) 12:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Again, whatever Wolin stated, other philosophers will deny it. As argued above, Heidegger wasn't a biological racist, but a culture-ist. And he was neither warmongering nor bloodthirsty. One can be a racist in mind, but a humanitarian in practice, like Rudolf Steiner. If Heidegger were in charge, he would have schooled Jewish children to behave Aryan-like. If it were up to him, nobody would know that a child is Jewish. Is that against human rights? Yes. But he did not want to kill Jewish children. That's the real serious charge, and AFAIK nobody could prove he wanted that. The rest of his antisemitism could be dismissed as inane idle talk.

I could not read all of it, but this does not speak very highly of Wolin's work: Charlesworth, Marcus (28 July 2023). "Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology Richard Wolin, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2023, pp. 488". Canadian Journal of Political Science. Cambridge University Press (CUP): 1–2. doi: 10.1017/s0008423923000422. ISSN  0008-4239.

Some buzzwords: National Bolshevism, Strasserite, Ernst Röhm—yes, Heidegger was a member of NSDAP, but apparently opposed to Hitler. The Nazi regime suspected this, but he was not deemed dangerous to the regime. They did not arrest Heidegger, but neither was he rewarded for his early propaganda work. About the time that Röhm was killed, Heidegger decided to keep a low profile, since he was known as a Röhm sympathizer. So, yeah, just because he were a Nazi non sequitur that he supported Hitler.

Morals: if Wolin cannot show that Heidegger supported the genocide, in the end it's just idle talk. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply