Heidegger’s philosophy cannot be separated from its objectionable politics without collapse.

Evidence

This word ‘ambiguity’ comes up again and again in describing Heidegger, and it applies not just to his character or actions, but to his philosophy. Ever since 1945, philosophers and historians have tried to work out whether Heidegger’s thought is entirely invalidated by his Nazism, or whether it can be judged in isolation from his personal and political flaws. Some people have proposed trying to rescue certain aspects while discarding others, burying the dangerous bits like so much radioactive waste while holding up the occasional fragment deemed worthwhile. But this seems unsatisfying: Heidegger’s philosophy forms a dense, complicated whole in which every aspect depends on every other. If you try to remove everything unpleasant from Being and Time, the structure collapses. — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 305

Categorization

• XREF: This raises the same ‘can the author be separated from the work’ question relevant to discussions of other philosophically compromised figures. — connects to: Heidegger’s philosophy cannot be separated from its problematic elements — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 305; Heidegger’s uncommented 1935 lecture shattered Habermas’s separation of politics from philosophy
• QUESTION: How do partisans of Heidegger’s value (like his defenders via his ‘turn’) respond to this holism claim? Worth chasing the secondary literature.

Broader Connections

• Heidegger’s philosophy cannot be separated from its problematic elements #expands (0.90) — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 305
• Heidegger’s uncommented 1935 lecture shattered Habermas’s separation of politics from philosophy #exemplifies (0.85)