Sounds like Hobbes. In our age nobody would say this openly. Back in the day this was not unusual. I have a book by an old English judge written in response to J.S. Mill's book on liberty. The judge talks of crushing skulls instead of following Mill's utopian vision. That style of talk is just what it was like back then. I am sure every German suspected Hitler at schizophrenia, but they tricked themselves into thinking the German "geist" moved within him. Hegel too, I am sure, had schizophrenia, but he turned it into some of the most beautiful and truthful philosophy ever written. Hitler turned out to be a failure, yet keep in mind those were hard times for Germany and many felt that harsh language was not inappropriate

Well, we must in any case acknowledge that Heidegger was, unquestionably, a member of the Nazi party, from 1932 to 1945. I'm sure we can do that, at least. Those who are content to think that he nevertheless knew nothing of the reprehensible actions of the Nazi regime during that time, or that it makes no difference if he did, will continue to do so come what may.

I have acquired an edition of Anxiety now and will proceed with it. — Wayfarer

Given your Buddhist background, I'm eager to read your impressions of it!

The "Address to the German Nation" by Fitche was more self-consistent and although he too called for Jews to leave Germany, — Gregory

Where did Fitche call for Jews to leave Germany?

How do you know H knew nothing about the (extra-judicial murders by the regime before and) death camps during the war when so many 'educated' German civilians throughout das Drittes Reich clearly saw, heard & smelled those atrocities on a daily basis?

:up:

Given your Buddhist background, I'm eager to read your impressions of it! — baker

I've started Kierkegaard's 'Concept of Anxiety', but can't shake the feeling that anxiety/angst/dread is simply what the Buddha terms dukkha. I will persist with it though, it provides many insights into the culture of that period and also some interesting perspectives on other philosophers of the day.

Where did Fitche call for Jews to leave Germany? — Olivier5

https://www.google.com/search?q=fitche+and+jews&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS867US867&oq=fitche+and+jews&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i10j46i10j69i61j69i60l3j69i61.2273j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Where did Fitche call for Jews to leave Germany? — Olivier5

He has a lot of quotes on Jews throughout his writings. He wanted a German nation run by Germans alone

How do you know H knew nothing about the (extra-judicial murders by the regime before and) death camps during the war when so many 'educated' German civilians throughout das Drittes Reich clearly saw, heard & smelled those atrocities on a daily basis? — 180 Proof

Considering the circles Heidegger worked within, it's unlikely he knew anything about the exterminations

that it makes no difference if he did, — Ciceronianus the White

Of course it makes a difference if he supported geonocide. My number one problem with the three major religions on the West are their endorsement of mass murder at "God-Allah-Yawweh's" commands

“A State within a State:
"…the Jewish nation excluded itself…from the German nation by the most binding element of mankind—religion…It (the Jewish nation) separates itself from all others in its duties and rights, from here until eternity... I see absolutely no way of giving them [the Jews] civic rights, except perhaps if one chops of all of their heads and replaces them with new ones, in which there would not be one single Jewish idea." Fitche

:rofl:

So your argument is that Heidegger must have smelled the bodies that were burned and knew it was extermination and not soldiers bodies?

I want to read a lot more of Fitche's philosophy. I've only read sporadic quotes from him of Jews but that doesn't interest me. To my mind philosophy is separate from such questions.

:yikes:

The Jewish people have been a nomadic people for for a very long time. Wanting to be accepted by all nations, they have usually had a very cosmopolitan ideology. Germans traditionally have been very nation and soil oriented. It use to be German law that you had to be born on German land to join their army. These peoples have never gotten along well it seems

:zip:

In Kierkegaard's Journals he said, "the one thing needful" for the doctrine of Atonement to make sense was the "anguished conscience." He wrote, "Remove the anguished conscience, and you may as well close the churches and turn them into dance halls."

This brought to mind a powerful essay from The Hedgehog Review two years ago, The Strange Persistence of Guilt, Wilfred McClay.

Those of us living in the developed countries of the West find ourselves in the tightening grip of a paradox, one whose shape and character have so far largely eluded our understanding. It is the strange persistence of guilt as a psychological force in modern life. If anything, the word ‘persistence’ understates the matter. Guilt has not merely lingered. It has grown, even metastasized, into an ever more powerful and pervasive element in the life of the contemporary West, even as the rich language formerly used to define it has withered and faded from discourse, and the means of containing its effects, let alone obtaining relief from it, have become ever more elusive.

Perhaps this too is a manifestation of Kierkegaard’s ‘angst’. (The remainder of the article is paywalled although I was able to read it as a trial article when I encountered it.)

The number one thing people feel guilt over is sex. According to Freud and Jung (and I think they are right) active sexuality is a choosing of one parent (i.e. boy for his mom) and rejecting the other; in essence, rejecting all parenthood for independent ownership of "thingness". This has very deep affects on the whole psyche and the guilt from it spills over into other areas. People will think they feel guilty for one thing when it really springs from somewhere else

People become Christian to regain a sense of parenthood over themselves again

That is not saying they should leave Germany.

I suggest you go back to hate sites and leave philosophy alone.

That's how to read it. Try thinking

That is how a nazi would read it, no doubt.

In interpreting past ages I interpret hate as violence

So you know for a fact that in what policy was right in Fitche's age? That's not hate on your part but it is arrogant. I don't judge past ages because I didn't live then. Does not modern cultural theory suggest the same? I support Biden, many Democratic policies, but I don't go around judging people from the past as if I knew what it was like to be back then.

Psychoanalysis is gibberish with no grounding.

the feeling that anxiety/angst/dread is simply what the Buddha terms dukkha. — Wayfarer

I've often pondered that this may be the case. There is a strong overlap - dukkha - suffering, pain, stress, unease. Is there a text that articulates dukkha/discomfort with more of a psychological perspective? Pretty sure there was something great by Alan Watts on this but can't remember where I read it. Can't help but feel there is a special resonance in 'angst' - Kierkegaard talks about anxiety as a dizziness of freedom. We might have the capacity to become anyone and this, shall we call it liberty, may be experienced like an ominous sense of mounting disaster. Or something like this. It sounds like slow motion Nietzsche to me.

I think Watts’ book Wisdom of Insecurity was mainly concerned with that very question. (Even if his alcoholism makes you wonder if he was really capable of ‘walking the talk’ I’ve always loved Alan Watts. One thing he never was, was stuffy.)

Overcoming that sense of dread or angst is the meaning of ‘liberation’ but it’s a very difficult goal to realise. I think Kierkegaard probably is more aware of that than almost anyone else in recent European culture.

The problem is that ‘discursive mind’ can never realise that goal - something which Kierkegaard makes clear - that’s his meaning of ‘unscientific’ - as in his book ‘concluding unscientific postscript’. ( I’ve downloaded the audiobook of Concept of Anxiety, and have learned something already!)

The problem is that ‘discursive mind’ can never realise that goal - something which Kierkegaard makes clear - that’s his meaning of ‘unscientific’ — Wayfarer

Yes, that is certainly a clear point of K's. That which truly matters is not reasonable. But then I can't help wonder about how miserable K was in life, how crippled he was by his own choices and how much he got in his own way. Is he really someone we should take heed of?

Watts is similar but different. Chain smoking, hard drinking, busting his arse to feed his many children. Dead in his fifties. Is it a case of physician heal thyself? Or is it the case that we are who we are no matter what we believe or profess? I always remember that Watts called himself a spiritual entertainer. And that is probably right. Nevertheless he was a compelling figure of great reading and syntactic talents. And these days we can hear him and see him on YouTube.

The fatal coastline of the transcendental ego sinks many ships.

‘There would be no fool’s gold if there was no gold’ ~ Rumi.