Arendt and Heidegger – moral failures? 31 Oct 2009 Slate has an essay on Arendt and Heidegger by Ron Rosenbaum that suggests they never really disavowed or freed themselves from fascist ideology. Worth a read. Philosophy Politics Race and politics
Epistemology You and me, baby, ain’t nothing but mammals 7 Apr 2010 The song of the title of this post is a catchy and highly amusing piece that suggests that if we’re just mammals we should have sex. It’s sort of a low brow version of Andrew Marvell’s To his coy mistress. Instead of Time’s wingéd chariot, we should do what mammals… Read More
Biology My presentation on Mercier and Sperber’s Argumentative Theory 11 Jul 201222 Jun 2018 During my recent trip to Berkeley, I was asked to give a discussion starter about Mercier and Sperber’s recent Behavioral and Brain Sciences article on the function reasoning has been given by evolution. They broadly argue that reasoning is not an internal process and evolved with its “main function” as convincing others of what… Read More
Evolution Arseholes! Systematics, phylogenetics and HPS 10 Feb 2011 There’s been some developments this day. First of all a defunct blog on history and philosophy of science has revived with a new skin and as a group blog: AmericanScience: A Team Blog. I keep wanting to say “F&*k yeah!” It used to be the Forum for the History of… Read More
This essay is not very coherent, perhaps because Rosenbaum is pretty obviously more interested in contemporary ideological struggles than in understanding what happened 60 or 70 years ago. I find it distinctly odd that somebody would characterize Arendt’s politics without saying a word about her books on political philosophy. Her politics just aren’t fascistic. There’s no mystery about it: read the Human Condition. Arendt’s personal relationship with Heidegger is not shrouded in darkness either. Her postwar correspondence with Heidegger and Karl Jaspers is in the public record and reading these letters makes it pretty clear that the grownup Arendt, though she continued to respect Heidegger for his philosophical intensity, was anything but an aging schoolgirl with an incurable crush. Meanwhile, Rosenbaum, who is apparently always spitting mad, can’t decide whether Heidegger was a brown shirt or a brown nose. He probably wasn’t all that handsome either. Antisemitism,Nazism, radical evil, the holocaust: these terms have become sacred and are usually invoked to prevent thinking. The real crime of Arendt wasn’t her mistaken view of Eichmann–one can reasonably have many takes on the actual man and his character–but the violation of a taboo. What’s intolerable about the banality of evil phrase is that it suggests that what happened in the 30s and 40s in Germany was not, after all, a theological mystery but something rooted in human mediocrity.
Well said, Jim. Arendt’s political philosophy (which Rosenbaum seems to know nothing about) seems still underrated today, and the Banality of Evil, while important, is not particularly representative. Compared to a guy whose analysis of why theocracy is fascistic includes the word “duh,” there’s really no contest. Articles about philosophical figures would be more welcome if done by people who took pains to understand them, rather then using them as foils for hysteria.
While I understand Rosenbaum’s point of view, I wish that essay had more substance in it. I didn’t come away from it convinced that Arendt’s relationship with Heidegger had the kind of influence he’s suggesting. I do think, however, that people too often ignore just how compatible Heidegger’s thought was with Nazism. Maybe the people who have devoted their lives to phenomenology and continental philosophy would rather not consider how precariously close to fascism certain strains of continental thought tend to be. Oh, and I see that you’re in Indiana. If you have some free time and want to drop down and have a beer in Bloomington, I’d be happy to join you. 😀
Thanks, Wes. I’m at Notre Dame for a conference and I’m leaving shortly after it finishes. But if you wanted to go Irish and come here, I’m sure I can find some time for a Guinness. Thanks for the measured points, both of you. Jim, I think you are most probably right; but it’s not often that one finds an essay on philosophical figures.
I’d love to if I could. But, alas, I have business in Btown today. Perhaps some other time. Oh, by the way, I’m doing a presentation on Nicolas Rasmussen’s “Picture Control” on Wednesday for my history of American science class. He’s at NSW and used to be at Sydney. Do you know him? I’m trying to find some informative reviews of his book, but haven’t had much luck so far.
Oh well. Yes, I know Nick, although I know him for his history of amphetamines (scary stuff!). He’s an excellent science historian.
I’m loving his stuff on the electron microscope. Although I’m very suspicious of pragmatist epistemologies, his over all understanding of the practice is second to none. I really admire historians who have taken the time to really learn the science they write about. Noretta Koertge has been circulating your species book around the department lately, and other people I’ve spoken with here like your work. If you ever want to give a talk at IU I’m sure you’d find a receptive audience.