It hasn’t been just the last few years. Heidegger’s Nazism became an issue already in the 1960s, when other intellectuals like Paul Celan struggled to reconcile his philosophical insights with his actions during the Hitler regime.

Marcuse was corresponding with him about it in 1947.

https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/40spubs/47MarcuseHeideg...

Heidegger's response looks rather weak to me, but note that Marcuse also didn't get his point about the treatment of East Germans by 'one of the Allies':

Not too long ago, I saw an exhibition on the 'Wolfskinder'[1], and what happened there looked pretty genocidal to me (though of course it wasn't the same as the meticulously planned 'Endlösung').

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_children

But things changed completely when the 'Black Notebooks' were published a few years ago [1]. They showed antisemitism to be a much deeper part of his thought, and it's much harder to argue that he just paid lip service to Nazism. He explicitly asked for them to be published last of all his writings [2], perhaps because he knew how controversial they were.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/13/martin-heidegg...

[2] http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/martin-heideggers-black-n...

Are you suggesting that concepts like Dasein's thrown-ness into the world, the readiness-to-hand of tools, and other Heideggerian ideas, which have nothing to do with Nazism, should now be subject to suspicion on account of their originator's political affiliations?

I don't know if the OP suggested that Heidegger's philosophy should now be suspect, but rather claimed that his philosophy in the eyes of academia and the public has garnered more scrutiny simply because of his ties.

If some great painting was found to have been created by a Nazi, would the merit of the art be suspect in the eyes of art historians and the public? I wouldn't think so, but of course it's a different medium entirely.

People still drive Volkswagens.

Volkswagens aren't metaphysical ideals with potentially negative ethical and political implications.

> his philosophy in the eyes of academia and the public has garnered more scrutiny simply because of his ties

I think this probably is indeed the case. Although I would argue the value of an idea should be entirely detached from who had it, and be a function only of its usefulness, beauty and other significant attributes.

Of course if a Nazi has an idea we might then argue it becomes less beautiful because of that.

I would concur in your take on the argument. I think it's important, to promote rational and productive discourse, to push back on those that would have us believe that ideas are in essence, "guilty by association", based on the reputation or history of those who formulate said ideas.

Instead, the ideas, theories, philosophies, etc. should be confronted directly on their own merit or lack thereof. I don't think someone, in good faith, could claim that the ideas of liberty and freedom proposed by many of architects of the constitution of the United States are lessened simply because some of these people were slave owners. That's not to say that we can't look back now and agree that their practice of slavery was morally wrong, but to pillory their positive contributions to the world simply because of this seems quite nefarious.

Comparing philosophers with constitution writers is a bit difficult. Philosophizing and nation building are quite different from one another.

But, basically, the question we should ask:

"is there a direct connection between Heidegger's philosophical prescriptions and his fascism?"

If so, that suggests a pretty serious problem with his prescriptions -- that, in certain milieu -- his ideas comfortably co-exist with or perhaps even feed/justify a fascist mindset.

IMO that line was always kind of obvious, but in any case, Heidegger drew it directly for us in his Black Notebooks.

Especially in Heidegger's case -- because of the very broad nature of the prescriptions that follow from his work -- I think that's quite different from mere "guilt by association".

> and other Heideggerian ideas, which have nothing to do with Nazism

That's begging the question.

We want to examine his writings to figure out a) how important is the biographical question to his work and b) how bad were the Nazis and why? Maybe thinking in terms of "Dasein" leads inevitably to death camps. Maybe not. But you can't just assume there's no connection (or that there is one). You have to argue it out.

I think the claim that Dasein has to do with Nazism would need to be demonstrated. I think for any idea it is reasonable to assume it doesn't have anything to do with Nazism until demonstrated otherwise. Dasein's throwness, so far as I can see, doesn't have anything to do with Nazism.

Of course there is always the possibility for any idea that it leads to death camps. But it is rather hard to exhaustively explore the consequences of anything.

It could well be, however, that having an affilation with Nazism increases the likelihood that your ideas lead to death camps. Although even that ought to be deomnstrated rather than assumed.

For an idea in general, sure. But Heidegger literally joined the Nazi party and never repented publicly. So there is a burden of proof on the ideas he specifically created to show that his Nazism was unrelated and accidental to the idea.

Yes, this is exactly what has happened in the recent years, with the publishing of his black notebooks. I wonder how they could completely reverse the situation?!

yeah this article is not really jacked in to mainstream continental philosophy attitudes on heidegger after the publication of the “Black Notebooks”, where heidegger is an unabashed antisemite

>It seems like the situation is exactly the opposite. Heidegger was considered a leading throughout the 20th century and it is only in the last few years that the intensity of his NAZI affiliations has become evident (as well as the degree to which he mix philosophy and politics), leaving his philosophy much more suspect.

Nope. His Nazi affiliations were very well known before, during, and after the war, and very widely talked and written about.

He was still one of the most celebrated thinkers in the post-war Europe, including by intellectuals of jewish ethnicity (intellectuals of course tend to know better how to draw a distinction between the person and their work, they're not little children).

And most of those celebrating him, had also touched upon the issue of nazi affiliations, so it's not like they celebrated him hiding those...

The so-called "black notebooks" didn't reveal anything unknown about his collaboration or thoughts, they just got published in much more touchy-feely era, with far less philosophers that had actually lived through those eras alive, and so the scandal was mostly a media one...

That is incorrect unless by "last few years" you mean last 25-30. When I was studying Philosophy in the early 90's we read Heidegger and the professor started that section with a discussion on whether we could separate the philosophy from the politics.

I did not study philosophy but I'd think that you can't separate it.

Philosophy does not happen detached from the real world, does it? It's something that is influenced by the world and the things happening around you, so how could you separate it?

What's your opinion on that? Or your professors?