I mean
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger_and_Nazism
- https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger
Gabriel Rockhill: The CIA & the Frankfurt School’s Anti-Communism (emphasis mine):
Adorno also pursued this line of thinking, or rather feeling, in his criticisms of anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist student activism of the 1960s. He agreed with Habermas—who had himself been a member of the Hitler Youth and studied for four years under the “Nazi philosopher” (his description of Heidegger)—that this activism amounted to “Left fascism.”
But this is about directly attacking Heidegger’s labrynthine bullshit, for what it’s worth. It’s not just about pointing out the man hid his Nazi past and others were complicit in this deception. It’s about refuting the actual bullshittery itself and explaining how it’s been picked up by numerous other schools of thought throughout the “anti-authoritarian” left and liberals.
Edit: Oh I thought this was a reply to the other article. Yeah reading about some of the stuff Adorno wrote was really shocking considering how people presented him to me as some quirky cultural critic.
Turns out you can be a big Nazi and still have some valuable insight on how the modern way of thinking is shaped by technology. Since philosophy is not about idolizing one guy and dogmatizing everything he says, it should be possible to take peoples ideas into consideration regardless of (however keeping in mind) how shitty their political opinions/actions were.
The man argued truth didn’t exist in the absence of humanlike entities. Bro denied the existence of reality. He said that art was a truer representation of the world than scientific measurements.
Well his argument is that the concept of an objective reality requires the subject to abstract away its own existential entanglement with said reality, whereas the phenomenon everyone percieves directly is always the world that affects ones own existence, not the world as it is on its own. That’s not crazy, it’s an idea you can have. It also doesn’t mean there is no reality or no truth or that scientific measurement is pointless, just that the “experience” of the world is the primary thing and everything else is a derivation. And for me it truly is a problem that today’s notion of science tends to only value quantitative measurements, because for the humanities, that is a pretty big assumption about your subject that really narrows down the approach. (I feel there is a tendency to emphasise on producing measurements rather than on their interpretation) Maybe there’s even a link between that and the fact that it is so impossible today to imagine an alternative to capitalism.
