"Michael Dummett, an anti-racism activist as well as a Frege scholar, later recounted how he had been deeply shocked to discover from this that the man he had "revered" as "an absolutely rational man" was at the end of his life, according to Dummett, a 'virulent anti-Semite' of "extreme right-wing opinions".""Frege thought Jews ought at least be deprived of certain political rights...and wrote that it would be best if Jews would "get lost, or better would like to disappear from Germany."""In an entry dated 5 May 1924 Frege expressed some agreement with an article published in Houston Stewart Chamberlain's Deutschlands Erneuerung which praised Adolf Hitler.""Frege claims that ethno-racial partiality in public policy (that is, preferential treatment for those he calls “citizens of Aryan descent”) can be justified by appeal to general features of the logic of sequences, including genealogical sequences (“Stammbäume,” as he had earlier called “branched” descent lineages in his 1879 Begriffsschrift). And he gives careful consideration—implicitly responding to claims in Hermann Lotze’s three-volume Logic—to the question of how the use within legislation of vague predicates (that is, concepts without sharply bounded extensions) might adversely affect the application and interpretation of antisemitic laws, jeopardizing the “feasibility” of the kinds of persecutory antisemitic legislation favoured by him and his comrades in the fascist German-völkisch Freedom Party." "Why did Frege make that choice? Why did his commitment to logical consistency, scientific objectivity, and reason-guided inquiry lead him to such a political trajectory?What does it mean when the two men who shaped 20th century philosophy the most - Frege and Martin Heidegger - were both antisemites who admired Adolf Hitler?
Maybe anti semetism is there for a reason.
>>25280543He hated Arabs? Or do you just mean he was anti-Jew?
>>25280575You should try reading the rest of the post.
Smart people say a lot of dumb shit. Karol Marks, the father of modern science, was a victim of this, too.
>>25280588Who determines what's "dumb shit" and what's not?
>Godfather of Continentals: Nazi Heidegger.>Godfather of Analytics: Nazi Frege.Umm... 20th century bros?
>>25280543>What does it mean when the two men who shaped 20th century philosophy the most - Frege and Martin Heidegger - were both antisemites who admired Adolf Hitler?I haven't read any of Freges's diaries, only a few of his essays on language and sense, so for all I know you have him 100% dead to rights, and he may well have supported every move by the Nazis if he hadn't died in 1926. I take more issue with Heidegger being brought up here, only because he's such an oddbird that I don't think he simply fits without specification or qualification. (His wife, otoh, she fits.)Heidegger's antisemitism was different in character from that of the Nazi regime's, rejecting biologicism. And one can see that Heidegger didn't quite fit in with the Nazis based on 1) Karl Lowith's account of his last meeting with Heidegger in 1936, wherein Heidegger, though wearing a party pin proudly, bitterly complained that he couldn't understand why people like Julius Streicher were part of the inner party, 2) his conflicts with Alfred Rosenberg while doing work with the Nietzsche Archive, and 3) a passage in his posthumously published Mindfulness where he expresses frustration over part of a speech Hitler gave in 1939. His Black Notebook remarks on Jews are also a bit underwelming taken as a whole (https://www.academia.edu/11943010/References_to_Jews_and_Judaism_in_Martin_Heidegger_s_Black_Notebooks_1938_1948), he railed against Catholics and Catholicism substantially more, and with at times greater hostility. There is also that whole willingness to take Arendt as his slampig, which appends a few asterisks to his position.
Imagine being such a retard that you think antisemitism or its opposite view matter in any meaningful sense and they aren't just opinions shaped by contingent events that have no metaphysical depth.It's like going back to the 15th century and judging an otherwise brilliant French scholar because he doesn't like the English. It doesn't disclose anything. OP is a retard as well for celebrating this and believing Frege somehow proves antisemitism because he was the heckin high IQ logician. Even Aristotle must have held ridiculous beliefs.
>>25280654The book’s opening chapter, for example, details the long record of editorial deceit, challenging basic scholarly norms, which meant many of Heidegger’s darkest passages were simply removed from his texts published between 1945 and the 1980s, and even more recently.One especially notable example Wolin examines was Heidegger’s unbelievable 1939 advice to his students that “it would be worthwhile inquiring into world Jewry’s predisposition to planetary criminality”. In 2014, Peter Trawny, the editor of the lecture series in which Heidegger made this claim, revealed he had been pressured by Heidegger’s literary executors to excise this anti-semitic remark when publishing the lectures in 1998. As Wolin comments: one would urgently like to know on what editorial grounds Trawny consented to this elision as well as why he waited 16 years before finally revealing the truth.Heidegger decried “world Jewry” for exercising a “temporary increase in power” in the modern world. Their “empty rationality and calculative ability”, a supposedly racial characteristic, he believed fitted the Jewish people especially well to profit from modern societies’ embrace of technology and cosmopolitan, universalist ideas.The forms of “world reason” associated with ideas we now call human rights, the philosopher worried, were “uprooting” all peoples from the “forces … rooted in the soil (Boden) and blood (Blut)” of peoples with particular homelands, led by the Germans.We need to be clear. Heidegger in no way dismissed what the Nazis called the “Jewish question (Judenfrage)” as a barbarous prejudice far beneath the dignity of philosophy. He aimed to reframe this “question” in the light of his philosophical concerns about the modern West’s supposed “uprooting” of all things from their meanings, through technology.Wolin’s analysis hence follows a growing number of commentators in confronting, most disturbingly, how Heidegger embraced philosophical rationalisations for the Shoah itself as an act of Jewish “self-destruction (Selbstvernichtung)”. After May 1945, the philosopher defiantly claimed Nazi crimes were “1000-fold” less grave than the “thoughtlessness” of the Western powers. As his left-leaning admirers agonised unknowingly about why the great thinker would not express remorse, we now know that Heidegger in his Notebooks was impugning “world Jewry” for orchestrating a “revenge industry” against Germany, through their supposed conspiratorial control of “world journalism”.
>>25280698Didn't address a single point I made, and just decided to go with Wolin's account (and implicitly those of Emmanuel Faye and Victor Farias, all liberal polemicists). Lowith's account:>In response to my remark that there were many things I could understand about his attitude, except how he could sit at the same table (at the Academy of German Law) with someone like Julius Streicher, he remained silent at first. Then, somewhat uncomfortably, the justification followed ... things would have been "much worse" if at least a few intelligent persons hadn't become involved. And with bitter resentment against the intelligentsia, he concluded his explanation: "If these gentlemen hadn't been too refined to get involved, then everything would be different; but, instead, I'm entirely alone now." To my response that one didn't have to be especially "refined" in order to renounce working with someone like Streicher, he answered: one need not waste words over Streicher, Der Sturmer was nothing more than pornography. He couldn't understand why Hitler didn't get rid of this guy - whom Heidegger feared.(Cont.)
>>25280698>>25280748And the passage from Mindfulness:>"There is no attitude, which could not be ultimately justified by the ensuing usefulness for the totality" (Adolf Hitler 30, January 1939)>Who makes up this totality? (Eighty million-strong extant human mass? Does its extantness assign to this human mass the right to the claim on a continued existence?)>How is this totality determined? What is its goal? Is it itself the goal of all goals? Why? Wherein lies the justification for this goal-setting?>When is the usefulness of an attitude ascertained? Wherein lies the criterion for usefulness? Who determines the usefulness? By what means does this determination justify itself in each case? Can and should the one who adopts an "attitude" also judge its usefulness and its harm at the same time?>Why isusefulnessthe criterion for the legitimacy of a human attitude? On what is this principle grounded? Who determies the ownmost of the domain of man?>From where does the appeal to usefulness as the measure of truth acquire its comprehensibility? Does comprehensibility justify legitimacy?>What is "totality", if not the quantitative expansion of a particular conception of man as an individual?>What doesattitudemean? Does one arrive at what is fundamental to human being through an attitude? If not, then what does justification of an attitude by the totality and by the ensuing usefulness for the totality mean?>Is there not in this concept "attitude" already a renunciation of every fundamental questionability of a human being with respect to its hidden relation to beyng?>Is not man beforehand and ultimately tied here to the pursuit and control of beings in the abandonment by being? and what are "ideas"? Do they not count as names for the final 'dis-humanization' of everything that man still and always creates beyond himself, so that through "ideas" he inevitably falls below his ownmost? Are not "ideas" phantoms that serve solely the "eternal" forth-rolling and up-surging of "life" and fully close off man in his animality as a "living-being"?>Is not all "attitude" together with totality of a "people" shoved down the yawning abyss of "beings" insofar as attitude and totality always merely spin around themselves?>And does not such a 'casting-oneself-away' to being entail the ultimate renunciation of every inceptual, fundamental calling of man for struggling -- with a knowing leap untobeyng-- forthe essenceof gods and for 'the time-space' of their essencing?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8OsYBkPtVkc&t=12
>>25280698>>25280748>>25280756But ultimately , your post is a bait and switch. There was no disagreement that Heidegger was an antisemite and Nazi, but the whole question is whether those ideas meant the same thing to him as to Hitler himself or the inner party, and that question must be answered in the negative. Heidegger's antisemitism is "metaphysical", to quote the man himself from the link above to all passages in the Black Notebooks, "The question of the role of world Jewry is not a racial question, but the metaphysical question about the kind of humanity that, without any restraints, can take over the uprooting of all beings from being as its world-historical “task.”"
>>25280662>hasn't read Aristotle yet>doesn't know about the mirror menstruation anecdoteHola pleb
>>25280777I have read Aristotle, which is why I place him as example of the highest exerciser of natural reason. Though nice attempt to fit in with the moronic greentexts there, because you out yourself as a dumbass teenager that got into reading to fill the worthless existence you were preordained to go through. Kys phone-posting spic.
>>25280593The experts of course.
>>25280773>There was no disagreement that Heidegger was an antisemiteOkay then, case closed.>>25280748Karl Lowith died in the 1970s at the time when Heidegger's antisemitic remarks were still heavily censored and expunged from his published works. His testimony means nothing. No one has been able to say what facts Wolin gets wrong about Heidegger. They can only cough and sputter that "he's a lib", as if being a Marxist retard still waiting for the proletarian revolution or a French deconstructionist who thinks the age of consent should be set at 8-years old isn't far more embarrassing.
>>25280588funny how literally every incredibly smart person throughout history has been anti-jew until the last 70 years or so. it really activates my almonds
i really like heidegger's thoughts on this
>"Why did Frege make that choice? Why did his commitment to logical consistency, scientific objectivity, and reason-guided inquiry lead him to such a political trajectory?Hmmm geez I don't know.
>>25280543At the same time he maintained a deep intellectual correspondence with Wittgenstein, a jew. Quite the logician. I say that ironically because many logicians tend to be somewhat "inconsistent">Gödel is well known to have paranoid psychotic tendencies; starved himself to death>C.S Peirce (who arguably outclasses Frege) was addicted to opioids and couldn't hold down a job.>Cantor: famously drove himself insane studying the nature of infinityMy theory is that a logician hold themsleves to higher standards of truth than the average population, which becomes an impossible standard to maintain when applied to the realm of human and social life. I would have to think Frege's great respect for Wittgenstein would only have to drive him more mad.>studies say: Don't bore me.Schopenhauer on the connection between genius and madness: >Especially instructive in this respect is Goethe's “Torquato Tasso,” in which he shows us not only the suffering, the martyrdom of genius as such, but also how it constantly passes into madness. Finally, the fact of the direct connection of genius and madness is established by the biographies of great men of genius, such as Rousseau, Byron, and Alfieri, and by anecdotes from the lives of others. On the other hand, I must mention that, by a diligent search in lunatic asylums, I have found individual cases of patients who were unquestionably endowed with great talents, and whose genius distinctly appeared through their madness, which, however, had completely gained the upper hand. Now this cannot be ascribed to chance, for on the one hand the number of mad persons is relatively very small, and on the other hand a person of genius is a phenomenon which is rare beyond all ordinary estimation, and only appears in nature as the greatest exception. It will be sufficient to convince us of this if we compare the [pg 248]number of really great men of genius that the whole of civilised Europe has produced, both in ancient and modern times, with the two hundred and fifty millions who are always living in Europe, and who change entirely every thirty years. In estimating the number of men of outstanding genius, we must of course only count those who have produced works which have retained through all time an enduring value for mankind. I shall not refrain from mentioning, that I have known some persons of decided, though not remarkable, mental superiority, who also showed a slight trace of insanity. It might seem from this that every advance of intellect beyond the ordinary measure, as an abnormal development, disposes to madness. In the meantime, however, I will explain as briefly as possible my view of the purely intellectual ground of the relation between genius and madness, for this will certainly assist the explanation of the real nature of genius, that is to say, of that mental endowment which alone can produce genuine works of art. But this necessitates a brief explanation of madness itself
>>25281438Wittgenstein was a self-hating Jew who mostly agreed with his fellow self-hating Jew Otto Weininger.
>>25281461I don't think he spent much time at all dwelling on that. Certainly his correspondence with Frege had almost nothing to do with the jewish question, and was dedicated to questions of language and logic.
Anti-semitism is the most logical position to take for anyone who isn't a Jew
>>25280543Thinking a guy being brilliant in one technical subdomain automatically makes them an trustworthy sage on all other domains is probably the most essential dumb guy thought there is. It can only be thought by someone that does not have any intellectual competences at all and so cannot imagine how knowledge or expertise works like. Its the underlying assumption that the entirety of the Joe Rogan podcast functions on. Its why conspiracy theorists always flock to some retired physics professor that lost his marbles and became convinced aliens made the vaccinces or something and proudly claim he must be right because hes a physics professor. Its the logic behind people that think Elon Musk is a genius mastermind because hes very rich. What im saying is that you're a retard OP
>>25280543>one of the Top 3 logicians of all time>entire system gets bodied in 5 seconds by Russell's paradox
why did intellectuals used to have these gigabeards like Frege, Marx & Engels. how do you even eat
>>25281711We should compile an Official /lit/ Facial Hair ChartOne hundred great authors showing the heights that beards, sideburns and moustaches can achieve.
>>25281032'Every' is a stretch
>>25281461>Wittgenstein was a self-hating Jew who mostly agreed with his fellow self-hating Jew Otto Weininger.Self-hating Jews are fun because they are often so virulent. They're what happens when a Jew looks at Jews as suspiciously and ungenerously as most Jews typically look at non-Jews.Bobby Fischer is a good example.
>>25281720Exhibit #2
>>25281694You'd have a point if it were just a handful of cranks who were anti-Jew, but it falls apart when the vast majority of people across the political spectrum - left, right, and center - are turning anti-Jew and people from all walks of life - aristocrats and peasants, bourgeois and proletariat, Christians, Muslims, secularists/atheists, scientists, philosophers, artists, novelists, poets, businessmen, etc - have all voiced very similar criticisms of Jews in different times and places.
>>25281745Exhibit #3.WGS was a strongly pro-slavery Southern writer. I think Poe called him America's best novelist or something. Not surprisingly he's not read much these days. He wrote poetry as well. He was a bit of a firebrand by the look of it. Anyway the beard's the thing.
>>25281748The left is anti-Zionist, not anti-Jew, in the same way one can be anti-Nazi without being anti-German. It is Zionists and Nazis that want to conflate the two, because they want to usurp that respective culture. (interestingly, both parties do the same to the other as well: Zionists like to conflate Germans with Nazis to Guilt-trip them into obedience, and Nazis like to conflate Zionism with Judaism to demonize all Jews)
>>25280662>muh metaphysical depthcan't be that deep if you can't write it in classical notation, can it? or are you suggesting that your objection to frege's antisemitism isn't also a mere opinion shaped by contingent events?
>beardsMelville is pretty kino.
>>25281984>your objection to frege's antisemitism isn't also a mere opinion shaped by contingent eventswow anon, i should have written that myself in my post
>>25281917>The left is anti-Zionist, not anti-JewThe left was historically just as anti-Jew. Even Friedrich Engels admitted, "I begin to understand French anti-Semitism when I see how many Jews of Polish origin and German names intrude themselves everywhere."
>>25281986I have that fetish to gay bwo
>>25281720Your Bram Stoker?
>>25281740Ron Unz and Stanley "Hitler was correct about almost everything" Kubrick are others
>>25282861>Your Bram Stoker?How is he mine? Anyway I had a look and he had a fairly neat beard, not really spectacular. You might include him if you needed to make up the numbers but I'm sure there are a hundred better.Not sure <pic attached> should count. GLB isn't really /lit/. He was basically a scientist. But I guess he's most famous for that book on the psychology of the crowd and maybe that sneaks into philosophy or something.
>>25283869Not sure SK was that extreme.There's a random ranting activist on YouTube (maybe not there any more) called Brother Nathanial (Nathaneal?) who I always assumed was Jewish (or brought up as Jewish but then flipped and rebelled against it) but I never checked. He's more the sort of thing I mean.Anyway this is all a bit off-topic for /lit/ I guess.
>>25280543What's the surprise here? Practically everyone prior to 1945 had opinions like these.
