Recent disclosures regarding the relationship between Heidegger’s thought and his own version of National Socialism have led me to rethink my earlier efforts to portray Heidegger as a forerunner of deep ecology. His political problems have provided ammunition for critics, such as Murray Bookchin, who regard deep ecology as a reactionary movement. In this essay, I argue that, despite some similarities, Heidegger’s thought and deep ecology are in many ways incompatible, in part because deep ecologists—in spite of their criticism of (...) the ecologically destructive character of technological modernity—generally support a “progressive” idea of human evolution. (shrink)

The concept offreedom in Heidegger’s sense of truth or unconcealedness of beings may be applied to future generations without thereby reducing the status of other elements within the environment to mere means, since Da-sein’s approach as one who is a caring and concernful, anxious and aware of its own death in an authentic manner, does not place man in any sense “above” other things. This care (Sorge), concern, favor can be captured in Heidegger’s remark that man is not the lord (...) of beings, but rather is “the Shepherd of Being.” Accordingly. we may be able to learn to moderate our ordering andcommanding attitude and learn to “listen” and free beings. letting them be what they truly are. If so, we might then require no special justification in order to extend toward earth, sky, and future persons the same understanding and freeing concern we normally give to, and wish for ourselves. (shrink)

I learned very early, perhaps even before 1933 and certainly after Hitler’s huge success at the time of his election to the Reichstag, of Heidegger’s sympathy toward National Socialism. It was the late Alexandre Koyré who mentioned it to me for the first time on his return from a trip to Germany. I could not doubt the news, but took it with stupor and disappointment, and also with the faint hope that it expressed only the temporary lapse of a great (...) speculative mind into practical banality. It cast a shadow over my firm confidence that an unbridgeable distance forever separated the delirious and criminal hatred voiced by Evil on the pages of Mein Kampf from the intellectual vigor and extreme analytical virtuosity displayed in Sein und Zeit, which had opened the field to a new type of philosophical inquiry.Could one question the incomparable impression produced by this book, in which it immediately became apparent that Heidegger was the interlocutor and equal of the greatest—those very few—founders of European philosophy? that here was someone, this seemed obvious, all modern thought would soon have to answer? Emmanuel Levinas has been professor of philosophy at the École Normale Supérieure Israélite de Paris and at the University of Paris I . Among his books that have been translated into English are Totality and Infinity, Ethics and Infinity, and Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Paula Wissing, a free-lance translator and editor, has recently translated Paul Veyne’s Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? (shrink)

The concept offreedom in Heidegger’s sense of truth or unconcealedness of beings may be applied to future generations without thereby reducing the status of other elements within the environment to mere means, since Da-sein’s approach as one who is a caring and concernful, anxious and aware of its own death in an authentic manner, does not place man in any sense “above” other things. This care, concern, favor can be captured in Heidegger’s remark that man is not the lord of (...) beings, but rather is “the Shepherd of Being.” Accordingly. we may be able to learn to moderate our ordering andcommanding attitude and learn to “listen” and free beings. letting them be what they truly are. If so, we might then require no special justification in order to extend toward earth, sky, and future persons the same understanding and freeing concern we normally give to, and wish for ourselves. (shrink)

In this book the author lays bare and illuminates the systematic connections between Heidegger's philosophy, his accounts of modernity and technology, and his political views. This is by far the best of the more than a dozen books and anthologies washed up by the latest wave of the Heidegger-Nazism controversy.

Recently several philosophers have argued that environmental reform movements cannot halt humankind’s destruction of the biosphere because they still operate within the anthropocentric humanism that forms the root of the ecological crisis. According to “radical” environmentalists, disaster can be averted only if we adopt a nonanthropocentric understanding of reality that teaches us to live harmoniouslyon the Earth. Martin Heidegger agrees that humanism leads human beings beyond their proper limits while forcing other beings beyond their limits as weIl. The doctrine of (...) the “rights of man” justifies human exploitation of nonhuman beings. Paradoxically, however, the doctrine of rights for nonhuman beings does not escape the orbit of humanism. According to Heidegger, a nonanthropocentric conception of humanity and its relation to nature must go beyond the doctrine of rights. We can dweIl harmoniously on Earth only by submitting to our primary obligation: to be open for the Being of beings. We need a new way of understanding Being, a new ethos, that lets beings manifest themselves not merely as objects for human ends, but as intrinsically important. Heidegger calls this ethos the “fourfold” of earth and sky, gods and mortals. Humanists argue that Heidegger is wrong to abandon the principle of human rights in favor of the notion that we are obligated to “let beings be,” while some radical environmentalists accuse hirn of being a humanist because he supposedly overestimates the importance of humankind’s ability to speak. Heidegger insists, however, that language makes possible culture, without which thereis no human experience of nature. An environmentally sound ethos. can arise, according to Heidegger, only from a shift within the cultural heritage of the West. Richard Rorty agrees that we must become open for a new “conversation” with the West, even if this requires abandoning traditionally important fields such as epistemology. The need to develop a new understanding of Being is so great that thinkers from the analytic and continental traditions of philosophy are finally initiating a long-overdue dialogue. (shrink)