tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post3444608085953558698..comments2024-03-18T23:49:35.716-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Nazi PhilosophersEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-89832907935417855952023-09-19T09:50:14.325-07:002023-09-19T09:50:14.325-07:00What a vitally important and timely discussion, as...What a vitally important and timely discussion, as the PhD class has become so instrumentalized by new power-elites. <br />The emergent meta-context is Climate Crisis. Ecofascism was clearly identified in the 1960s, not yet fully developed as a Theory. Based on the National Socialism case, a quarter to a third of of academics may passively comply or actively support what Computer Science AI pioneer, Prof John McCarthy, called "Green Hitler". Such a figure or movement would be anything but Green, that would just be a "Big Lie" for authoritarian domination. Actual Greens and indigenous populations would be targeted for removal.<br />That is why Critical Theory continues so urgent, to ensure "Never Again".Dave Santosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-85543176287315341342011-02-23T10:11:20.768-08:002011-02-23T10:11:20.768-08:00Thanks, Bryan and Mousomer! Mouse: Yes, I have th...Thanks, Bryan and Mousomer! Mouse: Yes, I have thought about that a bit. It's hard to quantify, in part because such people rarely went so far as to resign Nazi party membership. My *impression* is that Heidegger was somewhat typical in having his enthusiasm fade as the 30's wore on.<br /><br />Bryan: I agree it does not strictly follow, only ceteris paribus and on certain defeasible background assumptions. What I hope to achieve with this series of work is not a definitive answer but rather a prod to helping us think our way through what is likely, at root, a very complicated issue, largely empirically unexplored -- the effects of philosophical moral reflection on real-world moral behavior.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-55049912388029869742011-02-22T11:14:27.244-08:002011-02-22T11:14:27.244-08:00Hi Eric,
Thanks for the reply!
We may not really...Hi Eric,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply!<br /><br />We may not really disagree about anything here, but I wanted to highlight one point. <br /><br />Suppose that the academic study of ethics in conjunction with other sorts of practice has an ethically edifying effect. It would not follow from this that the academic study of ethics in isolation has even a marginally positive edifying effect. By way of analogy, consuming table salt is essential for human life. However, it does not follow from this that we find a positive correlation between living and consuming sodium (or chlorine) in isolation.<br /><br />Thank you for stimulating my mind so much! I need it during my sojourn in "the cave" as chair!Bryanhttp://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-91749628215390244432011-02-21T01:07:42.004-08:002011-02-21T01:07:42.004-08:00This was very interesting. I like your "empir...This was very interesting. I like your "empiric" approach to philosophy. It is refreshing.<br /><br />If I may add one element into the equation - I would argue that you should be looking more carefully into the dynamics. As far as I recall, Heidegger was disillusioned by the Nazis (as was, for another example of a prominent intellectual, the Spanish Miguel De Unamuno with Franco). So - assuming that philosophers can err just like any other human being, what I would ask is this - how many of them got disillusioned, and how quickly?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05343273901975401035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-63267327667398721162011-02-09T12:09:36.471-08:002011-02-09T12:09:36.471-08:00Thanks for the thoughts, Bryan! I don't disag...Thanks for the thoughts, Bryan! I don't disagree with your interpretations of Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius, except on one point: Although all of them say, or would say, that studying philosophy is not *sufficient* to generate moral improvement, it of course does not follow from that that studying philosophy does not *on average* lead to moral improvement. If studying philosophy *sometimes* leads to moral improvement for college students (or for professors themselves), as I think they would all tend to acknowledge, then that would seem to imply that people who study philosophy should on average as a group move at least subtly toward behaving morally better than they otherwise would -- unless there is some countervailing force in the other direction, such as a tendency for an equal number of students to be morally harmed by studying philosophy or a tendency for studying philosophy to lead to more association with noxious influences outside of philosophy.<br /><br />The Confucians have a ready answer here, I think, in that they can point to the noxious influence of studying philosophy with Yangists or Mohists, so that maybe on average studying philosophy leads to worse moral outcomes even if studying Confucianism is morally improving. But that then, too, is an empirically testable claim....Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-26038859605792700002011-02-09T10:21:47.643-08:002011-02-09T10:21:47.643-08:00Thanks for the thoughtful response! Your comment ...Thanks for the thoughtful response! Your comment about the Swiss students gave me much to think about and inspired some reflections. (Sorry they are so long-winded!)<br /><br />Consider what Plato, Aristotle and Confucius would say about the environment in which students learn in philosophy classes in the U.S. today. <br /><br />Aristotle would say that benefiting from the theoretical study of philosophy is possible only after good habituation in youth, and our classrooms do not screen for this. In addition, 18-22 year-olds are far too young to have the life experience to benefit from studying ethics.<br /><br />Plato would say that ethical education is a long-term and "multi-dimensional" process, in the sense that students are shaped using a variety of methods (phys ed, music, etc.), all of which are focused on a particular goal. Our classes have students for a few hours a week, and can only "educate" them in one way. Outside of class, they are subject to a variety of other influences, many of them hostile to moral development.<br /><br />Confucius would, I think, say many things similar to the preceding. He would add that a teacher must have the freedom to critique a student's character and personal life. In addition, a student has to make a sincere personal commitment to ethical improvement. Because of the preceding factors, a teacher must have the right to refuse to accept someone as a student or to eject someone from the course of study (even if they are turning in factually accurate and nicely worded essays). None of these conditions obtains in our contemporary philosophy classrooms.<br /><br />In short, these three advocates of ethical education would be surprised if students in contemporary philosophy classrooms DID turn out to be more ethical than a control group.<br /><br />I'm honestly not sure how much effect ethical education has, can have, or should have in a pluralistic educational environment like the one we currently (in theory) have. But I thought it was worth highlighting the preceding points. :)Bryanhttp://faculty.vassar.edu/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-81436426192015785402011-01-12T10:24:06.991-08:002011-01-12T10:24:06.991-08:00Thank you for your reply, those were certainly the...Thank you for your reply, those were certainly the pieces of evidence I had in mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-85651048928338738472011-01-12T09:50:53.898-08:002011-01-12T09:50:53.898-08:00Very interesting thought, Anon! I have been famil...Very interesting thought, Anon! I have been familiarizing myself with the history and my sense is that your proposed interpretation doesn't work. But I'm not sure how to establish that more quantitatively and less impressionistically.<br /><br />One possibility: If your interpretation is correct, then we should expect that the difference between "Nazis" and "gliders" in my database would line up poorly with general political worldview, reflecting instead incidental differences affecting the timing of the decision to join the NSDAP. However, my sense is that the NSDAP members were, as a whole, considerably more active on the political right than were the "gliders", both before and after 1933 (albeit with some notable exceptions).Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-70584666125295765912011-01-11T09:27:44.071-08:002011-01-11T09:27:44.071-08:00Very interesting. I was wondering if your conclus...Very interesting. I was wondering if your conclusion that "Philosophy professors were not forced to join the Nazi party." is a bit too quick. Here's why: you contrast Voluntary Joiners with Gliders, assuming both had similar options: Join or"Join" (i.e. offer token commitments). <br /><br />But suppose the Nazis went about capturing academic disciplines by forcing a certain percentage of the professoriate to join - say 65% (or whatever) - and then allowing the rest to offer token commitments - after you've got the lion's share of philosophy, or history, or whatever, why bother with the stragglers?<br /><br />This would allow the Gliders to free-ride, so to speak, on the forced choice of the Joiners. If this is the case, then it may be just that the difference between a Joiner and a Glider is a matter of luck - perhaps a matter of having to decide before, rather than after, the rest of one's colleagues - rather than a matter of actual commitment.<br /><br />Any thoughts?<br /><br />ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-76082278548829230232011-01-10T08:48:35.050-08:002011-01-10T08:48:35.050-08:00Hi Eric! Thanks are going well. How's life i...Hi Eric! Thanks are going well. How's life in show biz? Students have been telling me I need to watch Futurama. I didn't realize you were involved with it until just now (having Googled you). Additional reason to watch!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-31752144279452143372011-01-08T15:11:57.700-08:002011-01-08T15:11:57.700-08:00you are assuming that Nazis are bad.
I mean you...you are assuming that Nazis are bad.<br />I mean you're right but since I went to grad school I feel like I should mention that!<br />How's life been, Schwitzgebel?Eric Kaplannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-20021874125645036282011-01-07T09:34:56.040-08:002011-01-07T09:34:56.040-08:00@ Bryan: Definitely a possibility. One prediction...@ Bryan: Definitely a possibility. One prediction of this might be that philosophy *students* would behave morally better than either the non-students or the professors. I do have a wee bit of unpublished data on this: Philosophy majors at Zurich are, of all the large majors, the most likely to donate to the student charities. However, their propensity to donate does not increase over time (in fact, trends toward decreasing), suggesting that it is something in their earlier background rather than in the university education that explains that tendency.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-16479265811265876112011-01-07T09:12:59.401-08:002011-01-07T09:12:59.401-08:00Eric -- Thanks for the reference to Leaman. And a...Eric -- Thanks for the reference to Leaman. And a good point about slavery and professional philosophers.<br /><br />Let me muddy the waters even more. What if it turns out that exposure to the philosophical study of ethics (whatever that means) makes people marginally MORE ethical all else being equal; however, being the kind of person who succeeds at professional philosophy makes one LESS likely to experience this positive effect from exposure to ethics. By way of analogy, if it turned out that professional athletes have shorter lifespans on average than non-athletes (perhaps because they are more likely to take steroids during their careers), this would not show that athletic activity is, all else being equal, bad for you. :)Bryanhttp://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-78755935721251351372011-01-06T09:04:12.071-08:002011-01-06T09:04:12.071-08:00That would be very interesting, Bryan! In fact, i...That would be very interesting, Bryan! In fact, in a recent article Leaman suggested the value of looking at McCarthyism. As far as I know, nobody has studied either issue systematically and quantitatively, with a focus on philosophers.<br /><br />Slavery is especially appealing for its huge moral importance and retrospective obviousness. One tricky issue, though, is that the category "philosopher" may have been a bit amorphous in U.S. academia at the time (e.g., with Emerson and Thoreau only on the fringes of academia). One would need clean criteria that don't turn on subsequent fame (which might be conflated with our esteem for their work and thus with their opposition to slavery).Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13218632985106333852011-01-05T12:55:29.854-08:002011-01-05T12:55:29.854-08:00Interesting posting and comments (as always)!
I w...Interesting posting and comments (as always)!<br /><br />I wonder what we would find if we looked into the opposition or support of American philosophers for McCarthyism in the 1950s or slavery pre Civil War?Bryanhttp://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-15672577524849506832011-01-04T15:42:05.590-08:002011-01-04T15:42:05.590-08:00P.S. Leif: If you're interested, I'd like ...P.S. Leif: If you're interested, I'd like to continue our conversation by email: eschwitz at domain: ucr.edu. Drop me a line!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-82837291814980214902011-01-04T15:35:12.158-08:002011-01-04T15:35:12.158-08:00Leif: Yes, you're right that the numbers I jus...Leif: Yes, you're right that the numbers I just gave you don't take into account differences in the rates at which degrees were granted, so that even if the average o-Prof was on the youngish side, there might have been a fleet of people with degrees but no job; I don't have data on that.<br /><br />In the data I'm looking at, most of the people who were dismissed for being non-Aryan or "mixed" were dismissed early on, esp. 1933, whereas most of the later dismissals appear to be for more general lack of ideological conformity.<br /><br />There are only two non-emeritus philosophers on Leaman's list who showed no evidence of Nazi involvement, not even in the NSLB, and yet who glided through without serious reprisal: Siegfried Behn (o Prof in 1932, given a directorship in 1937) and Rudolf Zocher (promoted from Priv-Doz to nbao in 1934 and to apl-Prof in 1939). I do not know to what extent Behn and Zocher endorsed Nazi or Nazi-like principles in their writings and such.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-77081469035359334492011-01-04T11:56:54.275-08:002011-01-04T11:56:54.275-08:00Eric, you're right in assuming that 40ish is k...Eric, you're right in assuming that 40ish is kind of young for a professor. But it was a high concern that the univeristies produced to much people with a degree to the point that a whole cohort of philosophers was on the job market. My (only kind of informed) guess is that most professors got their positions in their early forties, and then held it until retirement, for at least twenty years. Since the numvers of students, doctorates and habilitations steadily increased befpre and after the WWI, bur only few aditional positions were created, the job market was particulary tight. I'd still like to suggest that there was an age gap between the professors hgired pre-war and the younger ones, and tht the onlder ones tried to maintain a conservertive position, mostly regarding Nazism as ruling poltival party, while younger ones either opposed it or assimliated it ideologically.<br />Regarding the quetion of jewishness, i still think that the general rules of the Rassengesetze were applied to higher-level academics more or less arbitray, regarding their social status and could be used as a threat by malicious collegues. (compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Klemperer)<br />After the establishment of the Reichschrittummskammer and the GeStaPo, intellectual life was under strict control anyway, and the slightest susoicion could lead to arrest - and my guess is that some faculties used this condition to weed out lesser-liked collegues.<br />I can't guess hoew moch aktoal comittment was needed to get appointed. But it would be intreesting to see if there was anyone how didn't join the teachers union, the NS-Lehrerbund.Leif Czernynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-65687156620874562132011-01-03T21:01:04.457-08:002011-01-03T21:01:04.457-08:00I got a strong urge to read Wittgenstein after rea...I got a strong urge to read Wittgenstein after reading this.<br /><br />http://thinking-time.blogspot.com/Diary-Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05744484830234313526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-70184275091217058142011-01-03T16:55:35.257-08:002011-01-03T16:55:35.257-08:00Thanks for your continuing thoughts, Praymont! Th...Thanks for your continuing thoughts, Praymont! That's helpful on Tillich. I agree that it's going to be mushy to what extent opposition reflects moral insight or courage; in some cases yes, in some no. Even knowing the details of the biography might not be enough to make that call.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-67025176440941803332011-01-03T13:54:34.663-08:002011-01-03T13:54:34.663-08:00I think I might have misunderstood the standard th...I think I might have misunderstood the standard that you and Leaman have used. I thought you were trying to isolate the people with a habilitation in philosophy who taught philosophy in universities, but it looks like Leaman was listing instead those who had a habilitation (in any subject) and who taught philosophy. <br /><br />Re. Tillich: According to his biography (written by Wilhelm and Marion Pauck), his highest degree in philosophy was the doctorate (from Breslau). He also completed a licentiate in theology (at Halle).<br /><br />The same source reports that Tillich had the Chair at Frankfurt that had previously been held by Max Scheler. The title for the holder of this Chair was "Professor of Philosophy and Sociology". <br /><br />Tillich's case raises another issue: the difference between those who took a stand (against the Nazis) and many of those who didn't might have derived mainly from differences between their non-moral beliefs rather than from any variation in moral probity. <br /> <br />E.g., Tillich of course deserves praise for standing up to the Nazis, but there's a suggestion in the Pauck's biography that his courageous stance was due at least in part to naivete -- his peers and friends thought he didn't realize his vulnerability (to dismissal by the Nazis). Also, he was convinced the Nazis were a short-term phenomenon and would soon be ousted.<br /><br />So, in his case (and perhaps some others), it may be that the main difference between those who took a stand and those who didn't was rooted in the non-moral belief by the former that they weren't risking as much by taking a stand.praymonthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09799593980838361293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-3754071679433752732011-01-03T12:49:27.003-08:002011-01-03T12:49:27.003-08:00@ Leif, cont.: Did one have to support Nazism to b...@ Leif, cont.: Did one have to support Nazism to be promoted out of a Dozent position during the period? In one sense, clearly yes: Almost all professors who did not at least have some token Nazi affiliation (like the NSLB) were driven out in some way over the period. But did one also have to have the higher level of commitment apparently reflected by membership in the NSDAP, SA, or SS? I encoded promotions in my data set, and eyeballing those data, membership in those groups did seem to help. However, 14 "gliders" by my criteria received some sort of promotion during the period. Gadamer, for example, went all the way from Dozent to o Prof & director. (Yes, Gadamer signed the notorious Bekenntnis zu Hitler; in my view it's a close call whether signing that letter should be sufficient to be a "Nazi" for present purposes even without NSDAP, SA, or SS membership; as of now I am not using it as a criterion.)<br /><br />As for the apparent suggestion that quantitative methods are pointless and there's not point in "guessing" who was a Jew: There are records about who was a Jew, by their own lights and by the lights of the Nazis, not a lot of guessing involved. And all generalizations are quantitative, whether that quantification is formal or not. Rendering it formal has weaknesses, of course, but also helps avoid problems like confirmation bias and saliency bias -- as well as inherited, plausible-seeming rumor.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-20903820159186103102011-01-03T12:48:24.564-08:002011-01-03T12:48:24.564-08:00@ Leif: Thanks for your interesting comment!
On t...@ Leif: Thanks for your interesting comment!<br /><br />On the BBG in 1933: Leaman has nice data on this, even listing what section of the BBG individuals were released under.<br /><br />On whether ordentlicher Professor positions were unavailable to the younger generation during the Weimar period: The data from Leaman's book don't appear to support this assertion, at least for philosophers. Given that o Prof is the highest rank requiring graduate degree, then habilitation, then normally an ausser position next, to be an o Prof in one's 40s seems to me "young". In 1932, there are 63 o Profs in Leaman's data set. 32 -- almost half -- are in their 40s, including 14 who were 45 or younger. If anything, it seems to me to skew young.<br /><br />On the other hand, you are right that there was also a wave of retirements with in 1933.<br /><br />[cont.]Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-20669602964955340782011-01-03T12:01:29.336-08:002011-01-03T12:01:29.336-08:00@ Praymont: Jaspers and Tillich are both in Leaman...@ Praymont: Jaspers and Tillich are both in Leaman's list as habilitated profs affiliated with university philosophy departments in 1932. I hope that Leaman did this rigorously. The SEP states that Jaspers was indeed in Philosophy (Heidelberg), but the info I see on Tillich is less clear. Leaman lists him as in Philosophy at Frankfurt in 1932.<br /><br />And yes, I agree that Huber is an ambiguous case, for exactly the reasons you state.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-66793571961887155232011-01-03T08:32:44.810-08:002011-01-03T08:32:44.810-08:00It might be worth considering that a Professor was...It might be worth considering that a Professor was a Beamter 8a civil servant) while a Privatdozent was not. And 1933, this happened:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Professional_Civil_Service<br />As Fritz Ringer has pointed out in his "Decline of the German mandarins" the university culture wasn't as robust as it could have been. Academics were shocked about the development and the outcome of WWI, while most oft the higher ranking academics had compromised themselves by supporting the war. The socialist administrations after the war promoted some pacifist academics, resulting in a cold war between the older and the younger Ordinarius'. That said, German Professors were significantly growing older, while young academics would get a beamtenstelle at all for years (since the Universities didn't have any money to create new positions in the Weimarian time). After the Machtergreifung, some Professors simply retired or died of old age. The ones appointed afterwards had to be supporters of Nazism, which had a stronghold in the student bodies of most universities.<br />Given the relatively small sample of 179 Professors in 1933, a quantitative approach an guessing which persons were deemed to Jewish seems to be a moot point. To loose your tenure, a denunciation by faculty colleagues would have sufficed.Leif czernynoreply@blogger.com