Comment Richard Wolin a-t-il pu, à deux ans d'intervalle, publier deux fois le même volume dans des maisons d'édition différentes, et pourquoi cellesci ont-elles accepté un tel marché? On se trouve en effet ici en présence de deux ouvrages, ayant même directeur de publication et même titre, portant tous deux sur le nazisme de Heidegger, et qui plus est, ayant exactement le même contenu à une différence près! En fait, c'est le résultat d'une rocambolesque histoire impliquant Heidegger, Derrida et Wolin (...) lui-même, exégète minutieux du corpus politique heideggerien. Mais avant de relater cette aventure, laquelle, bien que révélatrice, relève tout au plus de la petite histoire, parlons d'abord de l'histoire avec un grand «H», celle qui, sous la forme du nazisme, s'est engouffrée à la dérobée dans l'œuvre du penseur de Fribourg, et qui menace actuellement d'entacher la philosophie tout entière de celui que d'aucuns appelaient encore, il y a peu, le «plus grand philosophe du XXe siècle». (shrink)

Today, the improper is not only a philosophical issue; it is also a political question. In particular, striving to abandon the improper is central to the contemporary political agenda in many Western countries. Given the risks of a political agenda abandoning the improper in a proper way and realizing a “closed community,” contemporary philosophers such as Roberto Esposito and Jean-Luc Nancy have thought about the relationship between the proper and improper. It is remarkable that Martin Heidegger is an exemplary figure (...) in the analyses of both philosophers. I will analyze Heidegger's line of thought on this issue and how Esposito and Nancy have responded to it. Both Esposito and Nancy state that it is “impossible to abandon the improper in a proper way” in their writings on community. Every proper existence is always marked by impropriety, Nancy and Esposito argue; there is no “original” or “proper” commonality that would liberate us from all things improper. Even before one can appropriate one's property, it is already traversed by the improper. The question “how not to abandon properly the improper?” is in fact one of the imperatives behind their arguments: if indeed the proper is always already, in one way or another, related to or contaminated by the improper, it is indeed an illusion to think we can simply leave the improper behind. (shrink)

Este trabajo parte de la pregunta por la posibilidad de deducir un planteamiento estrictamente político de los análisis ontológicos de la modernidad llevados a cabo por Martin Heidegger. Con este fin, se examina su interpretación del fenómeno griego de la pólis, así como la distinción que en ella se establece entre esta forma de comunidad y el Estado moderno, fundado para Heidegger en la esencia metafísica de la modernidad. Para clarificar esta cuestión se atiende a la proclamación de valores que (...) Heidegger observa en los diferentes modos de organización estatal que aparecen en la época de la consumación técnica de la metafísica. En conexión con ello, se estudia su visión del nihilismo y se ofrece finalmente una hipótesis sobre la forma de Estado que resultaría coherente con la renuncia a los valores que, a su juicio, exige la manifestación del ente en la modernidad como objeto por entero producible. (shrink)

There are several points of interest, several catchwords that evoke the whole complicated heart of the matter: Martin Heidegger in 1933 and later, Paul de Man in the years of 1940-42 and later, Robert Faurisson and the whole group of histo- rians-"revisionists" of the Holocaust in France and in the USA in two recent decades. I would say the following: the material for the discussions that are of interest to me today are the most traumatic events of the twentieth century (...) and the behaviour of the philosopher, or in broader terms, the intellectual, associated with them. We can add to them Sartre’s conception of the "committed literature", Georges Bataille’s fascinations with the war, Maurice Blanchot’s fascist texts from the pre-war "Combat" journal, "maoist" involvements of the French intellectuals in the hot sixties, Michel Foucault’s enthusiasm with respect to the Iranian "spiritual revolution", Noam Chomsky’s basically positive attitude to the "revisionists" who negate gassing in Auschwitz etc etc. If we add that all, we can see a certain complex of questions and issues the penetration of which may be one of today’s "tasks of thinking". (shrink)