3 ms·

I would concur in your take on the argument. I think it's important, to promote rational and productive discourse, to push back on those that would have us beli

I would concur in your take on the argument. I think it's important, to promote rational and productive discourse, to push back on those that would have us believe that ideas are in essence, "guilty by association", based on the reputation or history of those who formulate said ideas. Instead, the ideas, theories, philosophies, etc. should be confronted directly on their own merit or lack thereof. I don't think someone, in good faith, could claim that the ideas of liberty and freedom proposed by many of architects of the constitution of the United States are lessened simply because some of these people were slave owners. That's not to say that we can't look back now and agree that their practice of slavery was morally wrong, but to pillory their positive contributions to the world simply because of this seems quite nefarious.

throwawayjava 7y ago
Comparing philosophers with constitution writers is a bit difficult. Philosophizing and nation building are quite different from one another. But, basically, the question we should ask: "is there a direct connection between Heidegger's philosophical prescriptions and his fascism?" If so, that suggests a pretty serious problem with his prescriptions -- that, in certain milieu -- his ideas comfortably co-exist with or perhaps even feed/justify a fascist mindset. IMO that line was always kind of obvious, but in any case, Heidegger drew it directly for us in his Black Notebooks. Especially in Heidegger's case -- because of the very broad nature of the prescriptions that follow from his work -- I think that's quite different from mere "guilt by association".