“Heidegger” article at SEP around October
July 13th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: “Heidegger” article at SEP around October :: “Heidegger” article at SEP around October :: “Heidegger” article at SEP around October :: “Heidegger” article at SEP around October
Well,
I just made two contributions to the Wikipedia article about Heidegger.
They are:
Under the Post-war period:
>From Zygmunt Bauman’s perspective, Heidegger’s remark is understood as
properBauman argued that “the Holocaust should be seen as deeply
connected to modernity and its order-making efforts. Procedural rationality,
the division of labour into smaller and smaller tasks, the taxonomic
categorisation of different species, and the tendency to view rule-following
as morally good all, Bauman argued, played their role in the Holocaust
coming to pass.” Quoted from the Wikipedia article [[Zygmunt
Bauman]]..
Under the Der Spiegel interview:
However, in that interview Heidegger qualifies the expression “inner truth
and greatness of this movement” as being nothing else than double-speak. He
affirms there that the Nazi (or: Gestapo) informants who were observing his
lectures would understand that by “movement” he means National Socialism,
while his dedicated students would know this is no elogy for the NSDAP, but
he means it like in the later edit, “(namely, the confrontation of planetary
technology and modern humanity).”
So, my advice is that inside Wikipedia stick to verifiable facts (e.g.
author x in a print-published, peer-reviewed source says it is so).
Interpretation counts as interpolation, and Wikipedia relies on verifiable
knowledge, as existing inside academic studies (print-published,
peer-reviewed). Wikipedia is a platform neither for one’s own
interpretations, nor for value judgments, nor for interpolating scholarly
evidence. Thing like that do not meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria,
which reject using one’s own opinions instead of verifiable scholarly works.
Such works have to be, as a general rule, non-polemic in their nature and
fulfill the requirements stated above. Wikipedia has its own guidelines for
verifiability and such, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V… (Of course, one could
argue that verification has not been properly defined, and but this does not
concern the practices of Wikipedia.) Polemic sources could be mentioned when
a dispute about something or somebody is to be described (as dispute) on
Wikipedia.
Greetings,
Tudor
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-
>archos.com] Namens Gary Davis
> Verzonden: maandag 7 juli 2008 22:44
> Aan: heidegger at an-archos.com
> Onderwerp: “Heidegger” article at SEP around October
>
> Hi, all (again-after some years),
>
