2 Answers

  1. Of course not. For example, take the same Ezra Pound, whose collaboration with Mussolini was strongly emphasized. Have you read Pound's book about the parallels between Japanese and Greek theater? It is very, very difficult to get it, not to mention that it is not translated and probably will never be translated. The book itself does not contain fascist appeals, it's just that the author's reputation has already been “blackened”, and they don't want to deal with his texts.

    Another thing is Heidegger, who for many years, thanks to various fables and anecdotes (and also due to the fact that almost no one ever read even his available texts), created a “liberal” image, the image of a person who joined the NSDAP out of stupidity, but never fundamentally zigged, etc.There was a kind of American “philosopher” Callister – he is absolutely sure that Heidegger is as liberal as the late Hilary Putnam, for example.

    Please also note that a year ago, Guenther Figal resigned from the position of Chairman of the International Society named after him. Heidegger, as soon as volumes 94-96 of Gezamtausgabe were published. But in December of last year, Thomas Vasek found a direct quote from Julius Evola in one of Heidegger's texts… So, everything is much more complicated than it seems at first glance. A fundamentally new Heidegger opens up to us, which many of us may never be ready to accept. Certainly Heidegger is not Bibikhinsky.

  2. Nothing would have changed. Actually, “ambiguous things” – his support for the Nazis and Hitler, membership in the NSDAP and moderate anti-Semitism-were never a secret. The recently published Black Notebooks revealed only that Heidegger was a more blatant anti-Semite than could be inferred from the fact that his students and friends (including his teacher Husserl) included many Jews.

Leave a Reply