… responds to the controversy described here [subscription], in which a new book about Heidegger’s Nazism goes beyond intellectual attack and calls for the criminalization of his writings as hate speech.
UD thinks, by the way, that the New York Times, in quoting Richard Wolin about the issue —
Richard Wolin, the author of several books on Heidegger and a close reader of the Faye book, said he is not convinced Heidegger’s thought is as thoroughly tainted by Nazism as Mr. Faye argues. Nonetheless he recognizes how far Heidegger’s ideas have spilled into the larger culture.
“I’m not by any means dismissing any of these fields because of Heidegger’s influence,” he wrote in an e-mail message referring to postmodernism’s influence across the academy. “I’m merely saying that we should know more about the ideological residues and connotations of a thinker like Heidegger before we accept his discourse ready-made or naïvely.”
— should have revealed that he signed a petition in support of the book. He is more partisan than he appears in his remarks to the Times.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:19PM
So I don’t know French, but what is this petition against? Did someone outlaw this lame book? Or is it just a general letter of solidarity in the face of Western academia’s lock-step fascism?
November 9th, 2009 at 1:57PM
Rita: It protests the discredit and defamation of a book which displays the deep connection between the work of Heidegger and Nazi doctrine. It hopes for the widest possible distribution for the book and finds disgraceful the attacks on it. (I’m paraphrasing the petition’s content.)
November 9th, 2009 at 4:43PM
At least according to legend, there was once a time when writers, academics, etc tended to be *more* absolute in their support of free speech than was the population in general. Now, members of these professions seem rather to often be in the forefront of those who want to criminalize speech.
What changed?
November 9th, 2009 at 4:54PM
Well done. John Stuart Mill gives you a cookie.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:12PM
I agree with David Foster (and apparently I would also be the recipient of a cookie?). What changed is that through a many decades long process of self-selection and promotion, the views of academics have become so uniform, and the holders of these views have become so convinced, to a degree that evokes the most extreme religious conviction, that their views are the only ones to hold and that all other views are wrong (although most times they don’t say wrong, they say intolerant, hateful, anti-multicultural, or blah-phobic.., and then start screaming "hater!" "bigot!") that they take the next logical step: attempting to ban views they disagree with from public presentation or consideration. This only reinforces and advances the process described.
The radical left goes on and on about rights and freedoms – for instance, the tremendous loss of freedom we apparently all suffered under the previous presidential administration. However, I am much more afraid of the loss of freedom and the challenge regarding further loss of freedom that is being directed by that large number of sophisticates who simply know better than the rest of us, and are deciding what we can read and think and say and what we cannot: the true believer academics on college campuses.
The radical left has always had a special place in their hearts for the vilest expressions of totalitarianism (Uncle Joe Stalin, Comrade Fidel. Pol fucking Pot…, after all, it’s all about the mass control of others) and in the absence of any "successful" model of totalitarianism toward which to direct their fond yearnings these days, I suppose this is how they keep themselves occupied.
Americans can take some comfort in the fact that while there are many on college campuses that would outlaw and ban in a second speech and ideas that are contrary to their own perfectly correct views, the American legal system, at least for now, continues to uphold this most basic right of free speech. In our neighboring Dominion to the north, Canadians whose feelings have been hurt by the comments of others, or who disagree with the assertions of others, can take their hurt feelings and disagreements to "human rights tribunals". (Sorry for the quotes, UD, but I just have to – these are what they are actually called, and no one would believe me if the words weren’t emphasized in some way!) These extra-legal star chambers, where the plaintiff is funded by the state and the defendant funds their defense themselves, where the defendant is not permitted to confront his or her accuser, where the public is not allowed to observe, are the next logical evolutionary step in the suppression of free speech. I’m sure a number of readers of this post will imagine that I’m making this up. I challenge them to research, read and learn.
So, we Americans should consider ourselves warned. This is where it could be all heading.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:46PM
And as an emblem of the post-ironic age: Students at Washington University commemorate the fall of Communism, and university officials shut down their commemoration.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:36AM
Hmmm, unsure if it’s not too idealistic to want to mix Martin H. into this “serious liberal arts education”. In between Lacrosse practice and poetry slams our students can assimilate only so much.
What’s wrong with steak and chops what-you-see-is-what-you-get Anglo Saxon philosophers? We can simply assign a few piquant Nietzsche aphorisms if some punk or Goth starts complaining.
Martin is big in France because most students are happy to spend 25 years on a doctorat and then go to work in a nasty village with lots of cheap booze and no running water. Our students are much luckier, they will go on to interesting administrative jobs or do some kind of ironic art project. Unless a student has perfect German and has summered at least once in the vicinity of Todtenauberg I would tell them to just read Bertrand Russell and go do some important stuff.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:49AM
Thank you RJO for bringing that to our attention. The commemoration of the fall of communism (brought on by free people refusing to give in – do we have the stomach for that kind of fight now?) was most likely crowding out the anti-Israel rally (is it Israel Apartheid Week again already?), the pro-Fidel rally, or the "Marines are war criminals" rally. The nerve.
I think Everet Lapel is on to something. I don’t think that Martin H. is necessary. But he shouldn’t be banned either. Isn’t the best remedy for bad ideas a little sunshine?