/lit/ - Literature

>>12376255
>They're the fathers, but this grandfather gave the deconstruction tool for cultural marxist, which as we can see has lead to nothing but revolutions and disintegrations.
Heidegger has nothing in common with either Marxism or cultural Marxism. nothing. sorry. i can understand that maybe you are associating deconstruction with cultural Marxism, so that anything that suggests the deconstruction of language et al might proceed from Heidegger, but...no. Heidegger is explicitly interested in overcoming the tendency *to fit language precisely to concepts.* he's not trying to make language opaque, he's saying that its natural opacity is what is captured in poetry, because language isn't everything...and it certainly shouldn't be used casually. true, he has his own fun with the nature of language, by calling it into question, but this is mostly there so that we don't fall into the trap of metaphysics. this is, however, a very different project from the critique of ideology which the Frankfurt School will undertake later on, and it also has very different goals in mind.

>There's nothing conservative in his philosophy, or Nazi Germany for that matter.
so Nazi Germany was not a conservative moment? okay, if you're trying to distinguish the fascists from the legit old Junker class, i might agree. and Spengler too, i guess. if by 'conservative' you mean the legit old aristocratic class of Germany, rather than in the more contemporary sense of being 'everything that isn't progressive,' okay.

but...still. there's just something very weird about reading 'Nazi Germany was not a conservative moment.' it obviously was, it was a *conservative revolution,* or reaction, much as is becoming popular these days. Heidegger's whole ontology of Being as opposed to the gestell - to the metaphysics of production, technology, and, yes, lots of other people who weren't Germans...this is a conservative thinker. again, if you are drawing a line between *fascism* and *German aristocrats,* then the *true* conservatives in that group are the aristocrats, yes; but if not, and if we are comparing Heidegger to, say, someone like Jurgen Habermas, or any number of other social democrats...it makes no sense to say he wasn't.

saying 'Heidegger is the grandfather of Cultural Marxism' also is just some crazy and reckless talk. being suspicious about language does not mean Cultural Marxism. and, honestly, Cultural Marxism itself is a really loaded term. it's like 'Patriarchy.' it's not especially useful.