selene1022v.DeleteThis@yahoo.com (selene1022) wrote in message news:<cfdb308.0403170607.af5b2c1.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>...
> pete_bayle.DeleteThis@yahoo.com (Pete Bayle) wrote in message news:<8d9486cd.0403161244.53ee2664.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>...
> > Looking for info on Duranty I ran across this, and thought of you.
> >
<font color=green> > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2003_11_01_cano.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2003_11_01_cano.html</font</a>>
> >
> > Humbert Wolfe poem.
> >
> > You cannot hope
> > to bribe or twist,
> > thank God! the
> > British journalist.
> > But, seeing what
> > the man will do
> > unbribed, there's
> > no occasion to.
>
> I used Conquest for my Duranty source, looks like the NC did as well.
> Wish I had more time to look into it. As for the charge that Gareth
> Jones was some type of crypto-fascist--typical stalinist tactic. Go
> and read his reportage from Germany, written in 1933. The guy worked
> for Lloyd George. He reported on Hitler's personality, and made some
> very valid points (and let's not forget a few of the comments GO made
> about old Adolph as well...)Hitler could be charming and charismatic
> on a superficial level. He also got the German economy to work in the
> 1930s. Does noting that mean that Jones supported him? Hardly,
> especially when one reads ALL of his reports from Germany, and puts
> them into the proper historical context. I wonder if Robert Conquest
> has written anything more about all this. Conquest I trust.
>
> JV
The context is also all the other postive comments, even including
Churchill IIRC. I also think this include alot of the American media.
I too trust Conquest.
Interesting to compare Jones (who I know little about) to Heidegger.
In a recent book on Sartre by Bernard-Henri Levy, in English -
Sartre:The Philospopher of the Twentieh Century, in French - Le Siecle
de Sartre, Levy presents a devastating critique of the Heidegger
question, both poltically and philosophically.
The book is a very interesting commentary on the philosophy and
politics of the 20th Century (hence the French title is better) but
you need to know alot about both philosophy and have a very good name
recognition of French literary culture to be able to follow it. I can
be tough going, but the connections he makes are very interesting.
Levy compares Heidegger's collaboration with the Nazi's and his
philosphy and finds them interwoeven to such a degree that there is no
way to disentangle them.
He also finds that his ideas are central to almost all thought which
followed them. To discard Heidegger means to disgard Foucault,
Derrida, et al. He finds this unthinkable.
But there are two Heideggers, one the dark pessimist, deploring the
technological culture and the distance from being, arguing for the
superiority of the Greeks and the historicity of language, etc, etc.
But there was another Heidegger.
"It's when he becomes an optimist that Heidegger becomes a Nazi.
It's when he starts to think that decline is reversible, that the
catastrophe can be undone - it is when he becomes a progressive that
he throws in his lot with Hitlerism.
Heidegger's Hitlerism was not a dark night of the soul, it was a
moment of light - the moment when, in the night of the century, he
decided to introduce a ray of hope and clarity.
Such is the principle of separation between the two Heideggers.
Such is the principle of that distinction, that 'critique' in the
proper sense of the term, that Sartre and the others carried out on
the facts, without necessarily formulating it as such.
Such is, yes, the form of critique that we will have to apply if we in
turn wish to escape from the impasse formulated in these words: it is
impossible to be Heideggerian, it is impossilbe not to be.
Such, finally, is the lesson of this critique: what it tells us about
the century which has just ended: what it tells us about the one that
has just begun; and the fact that totalitarianism - as Sartre had
clearly understood - has always been a child of the day rather than
the night." (page 161)
Ironically, in Heidegger's longing for the Greeks he comes to believe
that it is the Nazis who are the true heirs of the Greeks. Laughable
really.
But it is this quest for purity. For perfection. That is what is so
terrifying.
And what could be purer than Being. Dasein. Being without any element
of the human. Without imperfection. All or nothing in Camus' terms.
I think Levy is right. This is the origin, or at least the ally, of
totalitarianism.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: For Robbie