Heidegger and Nazism

After the war Heidegger made much of the fact that he resigned his post as rector after June 30, 1934. This was concurrent with the infamous “Night of the Long Knives,” which saw forces loyal to Hitler stage a three-day carnage resulting in the assassination of Ernst Röhm and over one hundred of his Storm Troopers. Heidegger later insisted that after this date he broke completely with Nazism. However, he never cancelled his membership of the NSDAP, and in a lecture on metaphysics given a year after his resignation Heidegger publicly referred to ‘the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism’ 

Records show that after the war Heidegger never made a public or private disclamation of his support for Nazism. This was despite the fact that former friends urged him to speak out against the many crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime. Heidegger never did.

In 1966 he gave an interview to “Der Spiegel”, in which he discussed his political past. This was done on the one condition that it would be published ten years after his death. In the interview Heidegger defended his involvement with National Socialism, by arguing that he did not see an alternative and insisted that ‘he was defending the integrity of the university against the Nazis' attempts to politicise it.’ He definitely presented his role during the Nazi period a lot more innocent than it actually was.

---

Heidegger’s Philosophy

Being and Time (Sein und Zeit), published in 1927, is considered by many to be Heidegger's most important work. This book was his first noteworthy academic work, and earned him a professorship at Freiburg University. It investigates the question of being, stating that ‘the question of Being is the absolutely fundamental question of philosophy, but also of existence itself.’ Heidegger labels this being ‘Dasein’, and the book conducts its study through themes such as anxiety, mortality, temporality, and historicity.

Heidegger insists that modern man has forgotten the meaning of the question of Being. He says that in using the common word "is" we no longer know what we mean. According to Heidegger, the subject-predicate logic which we use every day hides the true meaning of what existence really is. He claims that the Greeks had an authentic experience of Being as "unconcealment." But when Greek philosophy was translated into Latin, it lost the richness of this primal experience. The experience of Being was reified into a relation between a thing and its properties. Heidegger sees it as his task to retrieve the original meaning of Being which has been lost. From this point of view he goes to war against the entire history of Western philosophy following the Greeks.

According to Heidegger, German philosophers and German people use a particular framework which they associate with German culture and history, to make sense of the world they live in, and of their place in it. In other words, they use it to find their historic destiny.

This is what gives them their own particular understanding of the nature of Being. He considers the ‘death of metaphysics’ , as a symptom, and maybe even the cause, of social and cultural decay in German and perhaps also in European society.  

Heidegger felt that a revival of interest in questions of philosophy and metaphysics might contribute to the ‘rebirth’ of Germany. felt that Nazism had an ‘inner truth and greatness’ that could inspire and transform all Germans. He believed that this new Germany ‘would be able to lead all of the other nations of the world into a socially, politically, and spiritually superior post-modern era.’

Heidegger and Nazism

For many years there has been discussion about the link between Heidegger’s thought and politics. This began in the 1940s when Karl Löwith, Heidegger’s former student and later colleague, began a debate on it in the French journal ‘Les Temps Modernes’. The initial start of this debate ended quickly, but it has been a much bespoken topic ever since.

        Opinions and views on the relation between Heidegger’s thought and his Nazism vary substantially. Some think that his Nazism is not relevant, because they feel that it is simply ‘symptomatic of a weakness of contemporary thought’,  and that we should distinguish ‘between Heidegger the thinker and Heidegger the man.’ In other words, they believe that there is no connection between the two, and that his actions did not affect his philosophy.

One can argue that there is no evidence that Heidegger’s political beliefs and ideals associated with Nazism were indeed linked to his philosophy. That is to say, the basic principles of his philosophy were actually quite similar to other ideological positions in German politics. In fact, his principles are just as compatible with the ideology of traditional conservatism as they are with Nazism. In addition, people such as Hans Georg Gadamer, whose conservative beliefs were comparable to those of Heidegger, chose not to join the Nazi party. Therefore some people have put forward that not his philosophy was the main reason for Heidegger to embrace Nazism, but his failing character. This could explain why he never really showed any remorse for being part of the Nazi party.

Others, such as Alan Paskow, feel that it is not right to separate the understanding of a person’s political views from his or her fundamental philosophy. He does, however, state that ‘it does not follow from this that a Nazi political orientation implies a ‘Nazi’ philosophy.’

However, many others object against the vision that there is no actual link between his philosophy and Nazism. As Richard Polt points out, some claim that ‘if he had stuck to his concept of authenticity in Being and Time, he could never have become a Nazi.’ To support this statement they refer to the discussion of authentic and inauthentic Being-with. ‘Heidegger distuingishes between leaping ahead, which opens up possibilities for others, and leaping in, which does things for others, relieving them of responsibility.’ In the case of Nazism, Hitler’s leadership was a form of leaping in, and Heidegger behaved as a they-self when he surrendered to the charms of Nazism.

Obviously Heidegger’s Nazism raises important moral and political issues. According to Tom Rockmore, serious study of Heidegger's thought can no longer steer clear of the theme of Heidegger's Nazism. In his book he suggests that for Heidegger, ontology and politics are connected. Therefore, we cannot separate his actions from his thinking.

His Nazi turning is not merely due to external factors, such as the decline of the Weimar Republic, and the concern with reactionary German Volksideologie , nor to his inability to comprehend politics, nor even to his psychological need to achieve a powerful position in the German university. Study of his thought, and what he says about it, shows that Heidegger was indeed led to Nazism on the basis of his philosophical position, as he himself admitted. In 1936, when his former student Karl Lowith suggested to Heidegger that his support for Nazism seemed to come from the very essence of his philosophy, "Heidegger agreed with me without reservations and spelled out for me that his concept of "historicity" was the basis for his political 'engagement.'"

The question of the relation between Heidegger's thought and his politics, including the issue of anti-Semitism, can therefore be seen as compatible with Heidegger's own views. Victor Farias has concluded that Heidegger's anti-Semitism and his Nazi commitments were ‘neither a sport nor an aberration but were intrinsic to his development as a thinker.’ Farias argues that these attitudes were preceded by a long period of drafting, going back to the anti-Semitic Christian Social movement of Austria and the region in which Heidegger began his studies, Messkirch and Constance.

Finally, some insist that Heidegger's thought is so difficult that only someone who is fully engaged in it, only a true believer committed to his vision, could possibly understand it. However, if only a "true" believer can apprehend it, then Heidegger's Nazism is beyond criticism or evaluation of any kind, because no "true" believer will criticize it.

 

---

Conclusion

As this essay clearly sets forth, the reason for Heidegger’s turn to Nazism is extensively debated. Some argue that his philosophy and his political beliefs are in no way related. Others feel that we cannot separate his actions from his thinking, because they believe that for Heidegger, ontology and politics are connected. If he would have stuck to his own philosophy, namely his concept of authencity in Being and Time, he could never have become a Nazi.

In the discussion of Heidegger's Nazism, the distinction between Heidegger the man, and Heidegger the philosopher is frequently called on by his students in order to save, if not him, at least his thought. This distinction stresses the recurrant declaration that Heidegger was a rather awful person, and suggests that this was the actual justification for him to embrace Nazism.

However, if Heidegger's philosophical thought and his turn to Nazism are in fact in some way related, if one admits that his identification with National Socialism was motivated by his philosophical theory, as Heidegger himself did, then a critique of his actions immediately reflects on his view.

Finally, some suggest that Heidegger’s Nazism is beyond criticism or evaluation, because his thought is so complicated, that only someone truly committed to his vision could apprehend it, and as no “true” believer will ever criticize it, the truth will remain a mystery.

If we look at the discussion on the existing or nonexisting connection between Heidegger’s philosophical and political beliefs, it is almost impossible to decide who is right or wrong. Both sides make a strong argument, but nobody has managed to come up with a definite answer or theory. This debate will probably continue to go on for a long time and Heidegger’s Nazism will always remain a controversial subject in philosophy.

Bibliography

1. Burns, Tony, ‘The philosophy of Martin Heidegger and its political implications’

2. Grondin, Jean, ‘Why reawaken the question of being?’ In: R. Polt (dir), Heidegger’s Being and Time. Critical Essays. Lanham/Boulder/New York/Toronto/Oxford : Rowman & Littlefield Publ., 2005, pp.15-31

3. Meier, David A, ‘Book Review’ German Studies Review, Vol. 21 No. 1 (1998), pp. 164-165

4. Paskow, Alan, ‘Heidegger and Nazism’ Philosophy East and West, Vol. 41 No. 4 (1991) pp. 522-527.

5. Polt, Richard, Heidegger: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1999.

6. Rockmore, Tom, On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy. Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1992.

7. Rubenstein, Richard L., ‘The philosopher and the Jews: The case of Martin Heidegger’ Modern Judaism, Vol. 9 No. 2 (1989), pp. 179-196.

8. Safranski, Rüdiger, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press, 1998.

9. Sheehan, Thomas, ‘Heidegger and the Nazis’, The New York Review of Books, Vol. 35, No. 10 (1988), pp. 38-47.

10. Steiner, Alex, ‘The Case of Martin Heidegger, Philosopher and Nazi’

World Socialist Website

Date accessed: 16/11/2007

---