A single incriminating sentence in a Nazi-era report could doom its subject.

Evidence

That was not the only time Heidegger showed a rigid shell — an extreme form of Gabriel Marcel’s ‘crispation’ — in dealing with people. The philosopher Max Müller, who studied with Heidegger and worked as his assistant, found himself in trouble with the regime in 1937 for writing political articles and working for a Catholic youth group. Freiburg’s vice rector, Theodor Maunz, told Müller that Heidegger had been approached for a report on his student’s politics, and had given him a generally good assessment ‘as a human being, educator, and philosopher’. On the other hand, he had included an observation that Müller had a negative opinion of the state. A single sentence like that meant doom. ‘Go to him,’ Maunz told Müller. ‘Everything else will be fine if he crosses out that sentence.’ — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 299

Categorization

• SHARE: Sobering story for anyone who knows the Heidegger controversy: Müller’s fate hinged on one crossing-out.
• XREF: connects to: One damning sentence in a Nazi-era reference could ruin a career — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 299

Broader Connections

• One damning sentence in a Nazi-era reference could ruin a career #corroborates (0.97) — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 299