Connection between a Philosopher and Politics - Essay Example

Is there a necessary connection between a philosopher and politics and their philosophy? Martin Heidegger is one of the most controversial figures among the great philosophers of the twentieth century and this is not because of his contributions, but to his association with the Nazi Party. Despite the latter being the case, this paper seeks to show that Heidegger was in no way influenced by the Nazi beliefs and that his work was completely independent. Heidegger was essentially concerned with the definition and the concept of the Being and how other philosophers throughout history had ignored it for a long time.1 His involvement in the Nazi Party was peripheral at most and later on, he would state that it was the stupidest thing that he had ever done. It should be noted that Heidegger was forced into the sidelines within only months of joining the party and despite the claims that his philosophy is compatible to Nazism, it actually went in the opposite direction. Heidegger’s philosophy was based on an attempt to understand Being, and to address it as a problem that philosophers throughout history had failed to address. He believed that an understanding of being was necessary to ensure that human beings were not only able to understand themselves, but the world around them as well.2 This is in complete contrast with Hitler’s and Nazi policies, which often concentrated on the promotion of the Aryan race as well as the development of social programs designed to destroy rather than to develop and understand. When compared to Heidegger’s philosophy, which advocated for the universality of the human race, the basis of the social programs promoted by the Nazi regime was to ensure that racial purity for the Aryan race was maintained at all costs. This is because it was believed that the German nation had become weak and would not be able to continue retaining its superior status if undesirable individuals were allowed to survive.3 One of the cruellest of these social policies was that of the forced sterilization of those individuals who were believed to be from lesser races and who carried any form of genetic weakness. In order to make this policy effective, laws were put in place to ensure that doctors provided all the information concerning their patients to the state so that the latter could be able to determine those individuals who had the desirable characteristics to ensure the creation of the German master race. A process where individuals could report others who they suspected of being genetically weak was made possible and this ensured that the Nazi government was able to get to as many people as they wanted to make their policy work. The result was that those individuals who were mentally ill or who had physical deformities were either sterilized or euthanized. The criticism of Heidegger for his involvement with Nazism does not take into account the humanitarian or existential nature of his philosophy. This is mainly because he has come to be harshly judged for actions that were taken for political reasons rather than philosophical ones. Through his introduction of the term Dasein, Heidegger attempted to show that the understanding of Being did not refer exactly to human beings, but could be included in the definition of these individuals as unique beings.4 The Being was an entity before it gained any meaning and once it was recognised and put into use, then it gained meaning and the people using it would gain better understanding of it. However, once its use was completed, it returned to its former status; thus creating a situation where it was difficult to truly understand the being. Through this attempt to define Being, Heidegger showed that his philosophy was in no way related to Nazism and that the latter might just have been a passing fancy for him. The definition of Being according to Heidegger shows the influence of Immanuel Kant and his concept of intrinsic value.5 One would suggest that it is as a result of Kant’s influence, where he states that human beings and all other creatures that are rational tend to not only have ends but also have intrinsic value, that Heidegger chose to attempt to define the Being as a separate concept. According to Kant, as a result of all creatures having ends as well as intrinsic values, it is not moral for human beings to use each other as means for their own ends.6 Kant further states that the principle of humanity and every creature that is rational as an end in itself is not borrowed from experience and that each of those beings that are rational are all members of a universal kingdom of ends. These laws are not only made by these beings but these beings are also subject to the laws that have been made. Every rational or human nature is based on the autonomy of the beings, which is practiced by them. Heidegger’s philosophical views can be considered a further advancement of Kant’s ideas. Because this is the case, one would suggest that the connection between Heidegger’s philosophy and Nazism has little credibility and might have been an attempt to discredit this man’s contribution to modern philosophy. Nazi philosophy in no way considered the independence of human beings and it was essentially a dictatorship; a clear contradiction to Heidegger’s conception of Being. The Being is at the centre of the philosophical concept as espoused in the philosophy of Heidegger and it may be used as a way of determining the motivations that bring about the actions of human beings.7 When one considers this view, one will find that it promotes the Kantian belief that all human beings occupy a very special place in creation and this makes them very rational creatures who were given the ultimate commandment of reason.8 It is from this command of reason that all the duties and obligations that are observed by rational creatures are derived. The understanding of Being is based on the suggestion that certain activity or inactivity taken by a rational being is necessary in ensuring that meaning is developed. The Being shows an implicit requirement, which is independent; that it affirms its authority in all situations that are required and justified as ends in itself. Therefore, Heidegger’s concept of the Being is at odds with Nazi political philosophy because the latter does not consider the development of diversity within the human population and instead promotes the supremacy of one over others; a belief that is not held by Heidegger. Heidegger is of the belief that of all Beings in the universe, from the smallest particle to the largest, none of them has the capability of existing everyday with the realisation of Being than human beings.9 Through this belief, he attempts to show that human beings of all Beings are supreme and that the awareness that they possess is essential in ensuring that they are able to make rational choices. This does not compare with Nazism which was a system that was developed through the promotion of irrational ideas such as putting most of the blame for German problems on the Jews and the actions that were taken against the latter as part of the Final Solution. Heidegger’s definition of the Being stands against Nazism because it calls for the rationality of all human beings in their bid to ensure that the world becomes a better place. The irrational racial stereotypes that were promoted by the Nazi regime, especially of Jews as being cunning, immoral, and untrustworthy were brought about with the intention of making the people of Germany became wary of the Jews. This action made the Germans to become essentially irrational and subscribe to the belief that the Jews were undesirable; leading to a form of discrimination that prevented the Jews from conducting any activities with the rest of German society.10 It should also be noted that the Nazi regime ended up conducting activities that were the opposite of Heidegger’s philosophical thought which included presiding over the implementation of discriminative laws against non-Germans so as to ensure that they no longer had a say either socially, economically, or politically and that there was no contact between them and other Germans. For example, Josef Goebbels, one of the most powerful men in the Nazi regime, as a result of his belief that Jews were a corruptive force led him to the irrational action of commissioning anti-Semitic films whose aim was to warn German women about having sexual relations with the Jews.11 These films were aimed at discouraging such relations because it was wrongly believed that they would lead to the pollution of the German race. Heidegger was a man who stood against irrational thought and Nazism was therefore against his paramount beliefs. The approach taken by Heidegger in a bid to understand humanity is still relevant today and this is mainly because it considers its benefits more than its disadvantages. It supports the view the understanding of Being takes place naturally and that it is this that has guided and been dominant for most of the history of modern western civilization. This approach is not comparable to that taken by the Nazi regime, which held the belief that in all aspects of life, including that of race, only the strongest and most competitive can survive in the world. It can further be said that these two approaches differ in such a way that while Heidegger considers the understanding of Being as an essential part of human development as well as the source of its supremacy. The Nazis promoted the belief that only a section of the human race was supreme and it was this that was supposed to rule the world. The interdependent nature of humanity that exists today is compatible with Heidegger’s conception of the Being because it is this process that has ensured that not all the people in the world can survive without one another; that nobody is an island.12 One would go further by stating that the understanding of Being has become essential in ensuring that there is world peace, since because of the dependence between the various states in the world, the likelihood of conflict resulting in war has become minimized. In place of conflict, as was promoted by the Nazi regime in its bid to prove the irrational perspective of racial superiority, Heidegger’s understanding of the Being can be considered to be a means of creating peace through dialogue.13 This is especially applicable in the contemporary world where dialogue has become the main means through which an environment, which is conducive for global cooperation, is achieved. It is only through the understanding of the Being that it is possible for humanity to discover its full potential; a fact that the Nazi regime hardly ever put into consideration but which is implied by Heidegger and can be considered to be the basis of his political thought. Following Heidegger’s approach, an understanding of the Being is a basic part of all humanity and it is a force which has the end result of ensuring that the lives of all the people affected by it improve. It is not only meant to benefit certain races, but through its presence in all humanity, its benefits are able to reach all peoples in the world. The awareness of Being can be considered to be the means through which humanity has been able to achieve the prosperity that it has known throughout its history. According to Heidegger, most philosophers since the time of Plato have not taken the initiative of the further development of an understanding of Being.14 Using a phenomenological approach, Heidegger proposed that each Being in the world may possess characteristics that are determinant of their character.15 One would argue that it is through the understanding of the Being within humanity that has led to a level of prosperity that has never been known in its history. It is a beneficial aspect of the modern world because it not only enables people from diverse cultures to interact and work together towards making a better world, but it also provides them with equal opportunities of becoming prosperous. Following Heidegger’s approach, the cooperation between humans from different cultures that is taking place is most advantageous because it enables the further development of the world through its integration. This is a proposition that was completely alien to Nazi thinking because their policies tended to be aimed at ensuring racial segregation as well as the supremacy of one race over all others. Furthermore, the Nazi policies were in contrast to the concept of Being because they were based on a form of extreme nationalism that was detrimental for the discovery of oneself or the an understanding of Being and this was to such an extent that it came to affect its politics. Its every move to ensure that all opposition to it was crushed made it impossible for it to be in any way related to Heidegger’s philosophical views, which essentially espoused the development of an awareness of self that would produce the best of individuals rather than their worst. The relationship between Heidegger’s philosophy and Nazism is at best remote and this should be a reason to believe that his brief involvement in Nazism was not as a result of any meaningful philosophical convictions. Knowledge of the Being is a means of cultural understanding as well as the integration of humanity into a unified rather than a divided force. Unlike Nazi propaganda, the integration of diverse cultures that exist in the world today is a desirable phenomenon because it helps in the reduction of conflict based on different cultural practices as well as ethnicities. A Nazi, on the other hand, would argue that such an order would be disadvantageous especially considering how it would affect the world order. Those races and cultures that can be considered inferior would be given equal status with those that were far more superior. Racial superiority, according to the Nazis, was the driving force behind the continued maintenance of the global power status quo, where the most developed nations in the world, ended up dominating the rest, essentially creating the rule of the strong over the weak with the culture of the stronger one, namely Aryan, being supreme.16 Despite all the talk against its benefits to the global society as a whole, as espoused by the Nazi political approach, according to the Heidegger, the understanding of the Being is a necessary aspect of the world, where there can develop an understanding of all Beings as they are rather than what they should be. All Beings have to be viewed as equal and this is despite humans being the only ones who have the ability to observe and understand their status as Beings. On the other hand, Equality had no place in the fascist world view since the development of such a situation would have meant that there would have been a lack of direct control over less developed societies, and this would have resulted in the end of the dominance of Aryan civilisation.17 The criticism of Heidegger for having once been a member of the Nazi Party as well as having a similar philosophy as that of this party is based on wrong assumptions. Throughout his work, Heidegger’s philosophical views can be considered to have been based on the concept of human freedom as well as the equality of all that exist as beings. This concept shows that despite having joined the Nazi Party, Heidegger still believed in the natural rights of all humans as Beings.18 One would suggest that the political viewpoints of individuals change from time to time according to the need to ensure that they align with the viewpoint that they believe to be the best for their societies. However, once an individual finds out that his views might not sufficiently serve what he or she stands for, there develops a situation where they end up finding a new ideology. The same can be said of Heidegger who, despite having been a member of the Nazi Party from 1933 to the end of the Second World War, he was only active within it for a short time; about two years. His short time as an active member must have been before he realised that Nazism was not compatible with his philosophical principles and this realisation, as well as the actions of rivals from within the party must have driven him to take a step back. Through this example, it can be suggested that political affiliations are an ever-changing factor and these changes hardly ever affect their basic beliefs or philosophies. In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that Heidegger’s philosophy was based on Being, a concept that he believed was not covered efficiently enough by previous philosophers. A consequence of this attempt is that the criticism levelled as Heidegger for his involvement with the Nazi party is not valid because his was a philosophy based on humanism since his philosophical views were an advancement of Kant’s ideas. Heidegger promoted the belief that of all Beings in the universe, it is only humans who had the ability to have a sense of being. It has been suggested that an understanding of Being is what made Heidegger’s views so pertinent because it shows that they were not compatible to Nazism. In place of conflict, as was promoted by the Nazi regime in its bid to prove the irrational perspective of racial superiority, the focus on the Being is a means of creating peace through dialogue. Through this awareness, the relationship between Heidegger’s philosophy and Nazism has been found to be quite distant since they are in no way connected. Therefore, one would suggest that Heidegger was a humanist who believed in the equality of all human beings alongside other things in existence. The awareness of Being further hints at his opposition to Nazi racial policies in general because it allows for the cooperation of all races and cultures without the dominance of one over others. His involvement with Nazism was out of political necessity rather than any real conviction towards its cause. (Word Count 3013). References Bachrach, S. "In the name of public health — Nazi racial hygiene". New England Journal of Medicine, 351, no. 5 (2004): 417–420. p.417 Baker, David. "The political economy of fascism: Myth or reality, or myth and reality?" New Political Economy, 11, no. 2 (2006): 227 – 250. Brandom, R. “Heideggers Categories in Being and Time.” The Monist, 66, no. 3 (1983): 387–409. Caputo, J. “Husserl, Heidegger and the Question of a ‘Hermeneutic’ Phenomenology.” Husserl Studies, 1 (1984): 157–178. Collins, Jeff. Introducing Heidegger. Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books, 1998. Cranach, M. "The killing of psychiatric patients in Nazi Germany between 1939-1945". The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 40, no. 1 (2003): 8–18. Dahlstrom, Daniel O. "Heideggers Critique of Husserl", in Theodore Kisiel & John van Buren (eds.), Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in His Earliest Thought. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994. El-Bizri, Nader. “Being at Home Among Things: Heidegger’s Reflections on Dwelling.” Environment, Space, Place, 3 (2011): 47–71. Gillette, Aaron. Racial Theories in Fascist Italy. London: Routledge, 2001. Gillespie, Michael Allen. Hegel, Heidegger, and the Ground of History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984. Harrison, Ewan. "Waltz, Kant and Systemic Approaches to International Relations." Review of International Studies, 28, no.1 (2002): 143-62. Heidegger, Martin. Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper Modern Perennial Classics, 2001. McKinnon, Christine. "Human Welfare and Moral Worth: Kantian Perspectives." The Review of Metaphysics, 57, no. 4 (2004): 844-5. Mitchell, A.J. “The Fourfold”, in B. W. Davis (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts, Durham: Acumen, 2010. OHagan, Emer. "Moral Self-Knowledge in Kantian Ethics." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12, no. 5 (2009): 525-37. Porat, Dina.”The Holocaust in Lithuania: Some Unique Aspects". In David Cesarani. The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation. London: Routledge, 2002. Russell, Bertrand. Wisdom of the West. New York: Crescent Books, 1989. Sluga, Hans. Heideggers Crisis: Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. p. 149. Read More