This is an inexplicable bias of his
Hegel’s “guidelines to the lecture courses [. . .] about Philosophy of Right” is the only text from the canon of political philosophy taken by Heidegger as the basis of a seminar reading. It is, furthermore, the only text on political philosophy in general that was taken into consideration by Heidegger in the context of his work at all.
Started the day researching Arendt’s early education to determine how she ended up with a superior mind to today’s jewesses and then I decided that’s a task that can be in the chosen people’s hands, not mine.
She already had been arrested by the gestapo, released, and fled to France by the time this seminar was being conducted.
There are a couple secondary texts on this polphi course of his, one not in English yet
I think I detailed some dimensions of this course before but I can’t find the link, unless that was just a “happy dream” I had.
This was published in 2011 and translated in 2014, and it’s only 100 pages.
What, you don’t think my intentions here are innocent? It’s just about Spirit
(That’s the name of the Frenchie with the study.) He identified with Hegel, the latter of whom he believed was reactualizing Heraclitus. So the totality of the history of occidental thinking was being realized in him.
These things are a purely detached, academic interest for me, so I don’t know why feds would think to arrest me on charges relating to that paltry Capitol “riot”, believing that I’m only trying to formulate an intellectual basis for a TRUE coup in the future. How “paranoid” they’d be to think that.
This is Heidegger’s judgment from 1933
[Hegel’s] philosophy gained a highly remarkable influence on the ethos of the state.
As a symptom, Arendt was studying thinkers like Marx and Trotsky, and causing social agitation, when she was arrested by the gestapo.
These hostile scholars aren’t totally useless
There’s an open critique of Schmitt in this seminar.
The political interpretation of the meaning of Being – and we only get 100 pages.
He thought that the struggle for recognition preceded the friend-enemy distinction.
Typical for him, his focus is not on the political as such but the foundation from which the political emerges. His idea of struggle is derived from the Heraclitus fragment that begins War is the father of all things. War for recognition as the ground of reality precedes the friend-enemy distinction- war for recognition that results in free men and slaves.
To describe it ironically, in this seminar Hegel is Heidegger’s friend, Schmitt is his enemy.
If you don’t trust this seminar in the hands of the enemy here is the original German text (which is surrounded by other courses on Hegel too). In that it’s about 120 pages for instance. “Just cut out the most essential parts, we don’t want our slaves knowing about those.”
You might not notice this on the surface (the extant text consists of his and his students’ notes which actually makes for an irritating read)
his way of conceiving the entire lecture course as a debate with Schmitt on the proper interpretation of Hegel.
I doubt you’re going to say a line today that I appreciate more than the one above.
It’s significant to note that one thing they DID agree on was the Führerprinzip. In this they had the same “enemy” of the liberal division of powers.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s Russian sites I’m finding these primary texts on google from.
I eagerly await this day
You can “knock your socks off” and ctrl+f certain keywords in German here
all training would have to be geared towards a Reich academy
Kind of cool, the original word is Reichshochschule.
This is from the notebooks written in the years the seminar in question was taking place.
Another word of interest- “volk” appears over 200 times.
Let’s stick with the debate in the seminar though- he accuses Schmitt of being
“far too extrinsic [viel zu äußerlich]” compared to Hegel’s grasp of “originary essence [ursprüngliche wesen]”
THIS IS MY IDEA OF FUN!
I’ve written before how it’s such a disappointment that Heidegger didn’t write books on political philosophers and that we have to rely on the Jew Strauss’s as a next-best-option. Perhaps we will clarify the concept of the political through this seminar and grow new eyes for reading Strauss?
“I just want people to get rounded up, how is this going to help me with that?” This is beginning at the beginning of that. Why begin halfway? If you don’t begin at the beginning then you risk being of the same essence of the people you are rounding up. See, purely detached, academic interest. For instance, when I say that I want my Führer to be a philosopher-king and that this is the way toward that it is obviously a purely detached remark. It’s not like we’re living in a “police state” where the “enemy” is already being rounded up, right?
Don’t you like to have a detached interest in dialectics, my dear friend and honored enemy?