I see no evidence that Heidegger's reputation is secure. He is widely known as a Nazi and as a brilliant philosopher. It is unfortunate that so many people seem to fear (though they will never actually say) that Heidegger's philosophic reputation will ultimately overshadow his moral reputation. Once again, I see no evidence to support this. It is hardly possible to think of a single philosopher of any importance, not to mention any historical figure of significance, whose morals are not regularly re-examined with good motivations (good reasons) or bad (incapacity to stop moralizing).

What's most interesting is that people try to defend Heidegger, when it's rather obvious that he sat by,and accepted a role in the Nazi regime. If Heidegger had a moral compass, he would have refused the April 7th order from Berlin, and would have resigned his position. Great philosopher, but horrible man.

This is a sad article. Benjamin, Adorno--peripheral? Arendt--the love-lorn ex? Ridiculous. More worrisome is the lack of care with which the author touches on Heidegger. There is Heidegger's support for Nazism, and then there is Heidegger's work in philosophy which, for all the Quines and Austins, remains among the most incisive philosophical work of the past century. Being a Nazi, or a Nazi supporter, does not preclude him from acknowledged as a philosophical genius. Whether one agrees with his views are, of course, another question entirely. The most insidious part of this article is the disgraceful way in which it confuses Heidegger's Nazism with Heidegger's intellectual legacy.

An earlier book on the topic is Victor Farias, "Heidegger and Nazism" (Temple University Press, 1989). He has the photo of Heidegger in Nazi uniform on his cover.

It is so unbelievable that such an evil can arise in a society which has achieved so much in arts, music, ethics, religion, science etc. but then, admirers of anti-Semitism are living among us to day also in Europe, some of the best universities of North America too. Have made any progress?

The reviewer doesn't say that Arendt, Benjamin and Adorno are peripheral; he says they are "more peripheral" than Heidegger. I would have to agree with that.

I wouldn't call Walter Benjamin peripheral.

An article remarkable for its total ignorance of the writers it discusses. It seems that the author hadn't even heard of Heidegger, Arendt, Benjamin and Adorno before reading the book under review. It is demeaning to Arendt to suggest that she was helped rehabilitate Heidegger because of their relationship. Even a cursory reading of her work shows her complex and ambivalent relationship with Heidegger. And to suggest that Arendt, Benjamin and Adorno are "peripheral" is laughable - they are as dominant as thinkers get this this age.

"He had taken the precaution beforehand of "His reward was to be made rector of Freiburg, with an inauguration ceremony that he underwent in Nazi uniform" Heidegger was elected rector by the faculty, before that speech. Later in 1933, Berlin decided it would appoint all university rectors, and Heidegger was reappointed. Photographs show Heidegger wearing faculty regalia. "He then proceeded to remove all non-Aryans from the university." Jews were removed by decree from Berlin, on April 7th, 1933. Heidegger delayed implementing the ban at Freiburg until November 3. "With the philosopher's approval, Brownshirts toured the campus and conducted military exercises there." The SA (Brownshirts) controlled the student union and campus. The faculty had voted for him because he was acceptable to the SA. "Heidegger was such a disaster in his new post that even his loyalty to the party and the Führer could not preserve him in it for more than a year." The Nazis tried to appoint him to the University of Berlin. Heidegger refused to leave Freiburg. He was attacked by other professors allied with the Nazis. Heidegger resigned the rectorship April 23, 1934. A month later, the SA were wiped out in the Night of the Long Knives, ending what support Heidegger had had in the new regime. The above is just a sample from a single paragraph of the inconsistencies in the article. The controversy is detailed in Wikipedia (Heidegger_and_Nazism) with 85 footnoted references. Do the assrtions in this article originate from Sherratt's book?