http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/books/09philosophy.html?pagewanted=1&hpw
I can't believe that this was printed. In the New York Times, of all places. This article does nothing other than mention the same three pieces I discussed, throw in a quotation from Richard Wolin that says essentially nothing, and then end with a bizarre stream-of-consciousness section about Heidegger's thought, and then the concluding one-two punch here:
"A verbal brawl over Heidegger’s theories should not be surprising, though. After all, the classic American position on how liberal societies should treat dangerous ideas is worth more discussion.
That is precisely what Mr. Faye says he wants. In his view teaching Heidegger’s ideas without disclosing his deep Nazi sympathies is like showing a child a brilliant fireworks display without warning that an ignited rocket can also blow up in someone’s face."
What precisely is the classic American position? What does its worthiness for discussion have to do with this article? Mr. Faye says he wants to discuss the classic American position about dangerous ideas? Why is she calling him Mr. Faye? And the last sentence is kind of uncontroversial, although the image is unnecessarily grisly—of course the Nazism should at least be mentioned—but Faye, according to her own account, goes much further than that ("classing as hate speech" is different from a "warning").But Faye's book is beside the point. Is this a book review, or what? Cohen seems to have not read Faye's book—she doesn't quote from it or anything. This "article" is based on online articles, and the comment section of one of those articles, and two e-mails that she sent. But it's also not an essay in the sense that it has any discernible argument or point. Bah! The weird thing is that I don't even care about the Heidegger debate that much. It's just maddening to see complex philosophical texts turn into warring and senseless screeds, which then turns into a mushy bland article in the NYT that reads like an extended Twitter.
ohhh, I tried to post a link to this article in your earlier post and it didn't go through!
ReplyDelete"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 literally guffawed out loud when I read that paragraph
Wow, the paragraph Adam cited features a non-sequitor of such epic proportions that it must be the product of Wolin's tangled mind.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I too saw this article and wondered what on earth the point was. I mean, why is THIS in particular getting play in national newspapers? Faye's argument is obviously terrible and there really is no controversy here, just two or three crackpot nobodies spouting off about nonsense. This whole thing makes me despair.
... and people said the public intellectual was dead!
ReplyDeleteI am lost.
ReplyDelete