After the Third Wave

The French discussion of Heidegger's relation to politics is still under way. Its most recent phases include a continuing debate that has most recently opposed Fédier to Nicolas Tertulian, the well-known Lukàcs specialist,^[167] Janicaud's sober, insightful discussion of the intrinsic link between Heidegger's conception of Being and Heidegger's Nazism,^[168] and aspects of Meschonnic's discussion of Heidegger's language.^[169] The primary lesson of this review of the French debate on Heidegger's Nazism concerns the delicate relation between thought and the context in which it arises. We do not know how a philosophical theory takes shape; but we do know that it can be neither reduced to nor separated from the context in which it emerges, including the social and political context on the one hand and the network of competing views against which it strives on the other. Heidegger's position—despite his repeated but apparently strategic claims, clearly meant to create his own legend, by stressing a positive relation of his position to pre-Socratic thought only—needs to be understood against the complex background of theology, Kant's thought, German neo-Kantianism, particularly Lask, and medieval Aristotelianism, as well as the social, political and historical situation in Germany between the two world wars.

The French debate offers a particularly interesting example of the delicate relation between thought and its context. With the exceptions noted, it is distinguished by its concern even now to defuse the problematic relation between Heidegger's thought and politics by arguing for a discontinuity between Heidegger's early and later position in order to "save" his thought and—insofar as the French discussion is dependent on Heidegger's theory—itself. Yet Heidegger only turned against one form of Nazism, not Nazism as such. To fail to see this point, to confuse his withdrawal from the historical form of National Socialism with an unproven rejection of the essence of a movement Heidegger continued to embrace, is to fall victim to the problem of the emperor's new clothes.

Now French philosophers are not less intelligent or well informed than those elsewhere. How can we explain their reluctance to see that the emperor has no clothes on? I believe that the reason lies in a persistent, unhealthy degree of identification of contemporary French philosophy with Heidegger's position, which literally forms its horizon. We can

formulate what is clearly an existential predicament in the form of a paradox: to the extent that the horizon of contemporary French philosophy is constituted by Heidegger's thought, it cannot examine Heidegger's link to Nazism without putting itself in question, that is, without simultaneously criticizing the Heideggerian position. In a word, Heidegger's French connection prevents, or impedes, the French thinkers from perceiving that the emperor has no clothes.

The French example is unusual for the extent to which Heidegger's thought dominates French philosophy. The result of this domination is to remain attentive to the unthought in Heidegger's position, at the cost of obstructing any attempt to place the Heideggerian horizon into question. This consequence is useful to the extent that French philosophy remains within the Heideggerian orbit, but it is also philosophically dangerous. For at least since Plato philosophy has consisted in the refusal to accept undemonstrated assumptions, in the constant effort to examine itself in order to clarify, demonstrate, or eliminate what it merely presupposed, in order to move forward by moving backward through an examination of its presuppositions.

The recent effort of some dissident French thinkers, especially Bourdieu, Janicaud, Tertulian, and from another angle of vision Ferry and Renaut, to examine the roots of French Heideggerianism, to reflect on the so-called French problem, is a healthy sign. Despite Heidegger's oft-cited claim that when French philosophers begin to think they think in German—or by implication think about Heidegger, or even within the ambit of Heidegger's thought—it indicates that French thought will be even more robust, and accordingly able to grow in new and different ways, when it has finally examined its own Heideggerianism. For to the extent that Heidegger still forms the horizon of French philosophy, to appreciate the limits of his thought is to go beyond Heidegger and hence beyond French philosophy. But this move beyond Heidegger is, however, necessary if French thought is to advance beyond its present level.

The French discussion is an extreme example of the problem posed by the reception of Heidegger's Nazism. For a variety of reasons, philosophers in general, not just Heideggerians, have been slow in confronting Heidegger's Nazism. Now the process of the understanding of the thought of any important thinker, of someone who breaks new ground in a significant sense, cannot be immediate since new ways must be found to comprehend the genuinely novel aspects of the position. But Heidegger's Nazism is deeply rooted in, indeed basic to, his philosophy, which cannot be comprehended in isolation from his political turning. At least since De Waelhens, a number of Heideggerians, particularly in France, although elsewhere as well, have insisted that the link between Heidegger's philosophy and politics can be understood only by someone so

deeply versed in Heidegger's thought as to be a follower of the master. If we accept this claim, then the result is still another paradox, which can be formulated as follows: only a Heideggerian can grasp Heidegger's thought, including the relation between Heidegger's Nazism and his philosophy; but as our discussion of the French debate illustrates, the link between Heidegger's Nazism and his philosophy can only be grasped from a vantage point located outside of Heidegger's position. It follows, then, on this Heideggerian hypothesis for the understanding of Heidegger's thought, that Heidegger's political engagement is literally beyond criticism: for either it can only be understood by Heideggerians, who cannot confront the problem within the framework of Heidegger's own theory, to which they are committed; or it must be understood by non-Heideggerians who, according to the Heideggerian claim about understanding Heidegger, also cannot understand it. The result, then, of the Heideggerian view of Heidegger is to render this aspect of Heidegger's thought strictly unknowable, a kind of thing in itself, a theory about which anything can be believed but nothing can be known.

This result, which follows from the Heideggerian approach to Heidegger, is obviously unsatisfactory, since it suggests that in the final analysis a careful, responsible, but critical reception of the complex issues raised by Heidegger's turning on the basis of his thought to National Socialism is impossible. On the contrary, I believe that we can best, and perhaps only, understand Heidegger's position, including his Nazism, if we are informed about it but also not committed to it as in principle correct. The preceding discussion has shown that Heidegger's thought cannot be understood apart from his Nazism, but that his Nazism cannot be comprehended by those unconditionally committed to the truth of his thought. If Heidegger's Nazism cannot be grasped by someone already committed to his thought and if his Nazism is integral to his philosophy, then his philosophy, including his Nazism, can finally best be understood, and perhaps only grasped at all, by someone prepared, without presuppositions or prior commitments, to let the conceptual chips fall where they may, but not by someone whose main investment is in the defense of Heidegger's thought.