+
From: robert scheetz <76550.1064@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:09:21 -0500
Loren Dent:
>I've read a few authors that have labelled heidegger as a "conservative".
>I'm interested in everyone's opinions using possible similarities and
>differences.
Loren,
Like everything he's... both conservative and revolutionary...
dialectical.
1)Class etiology is petty bourgeois, priest-teacher
(mandarin); which false consciousness predisposed him to a politics
of ressentiment and cultural despair, and the fascist error.
Fascism is popular, a folk ideology, and revolutionary; a style
not to the taste of Mathew Arnold's and Edmund Burke's (Eng Rev &
Am Rev were, to the despair of Tom Paine, chamber-o-commerce rev's,
of course); not careful of the sacred artifact of Tradition, but still
profoundly reverant of the really antique superstitutions...
2) Philosophically he begins as a bomb-thrower, clearing the field,
de-structuring the Thinking of West Civ. But if that is the content,
the form is the archetypal jeremiad or augustinian pastor. And then
as his career succeeded, around 1930, he seemed to undergo an
inversion: the message became arch-conservative (Gks & Holderlin)
and the form radical, almost a manic contortionism of lang, trying
to wring its neck to get it to let go the truth...
And so on...
Better defer to the others.
Sorry, for not responding...
don't really think I'm qualified...too much the amateur to address
such a comprehensive quest.
Bob
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
