He rejected nationalism not after the war but always, because he was a European thinkerand continued the mission of the Western Logos. But the destiny of Logos was Greek inthe Beginning and German in the end. That is an absolute fact it doesn’t depend onwhether are we Germans or not. I accept this evident truth, being Russian. So the real Fatherland for Heidegger was philosophy and Germany as the nation of philosophers and poets: Hölderlin, Rilke, Schelling, Hegel, and Nietzsche. Nationalism is a modern, artificial concept, as is internationalism, which is its correlate. I am against nationalismand against all creations of modernity. I am deeply persuaded that Modernity isabsolutely wrong in every respect. I agree with Heidegger that the Earth [
Erde] in the Geviert [the Fourfold] is a philosophical idea, as is world [Welt] (or heaven [ Himmel]). So Germany is an idea, as is Russia. Earth is dialectically linked with the Sky. And their battle (Streit) forms the Dasein of a concrete people (Volk). So Heidegger founded anexistential understanding of people ( Dasein exiestiert völkisch, he used to say) that isneither nationalist, nor internationalist. This point is the basis of the Fourth Political Theory.
We cannot understand the meaning of the End (where we live) without understanding the meaning of the beginning. All Greece philosophy, language, culture is of absolute importance. We are living on the margins of Ancient Greece. Everything was discovered and lived there already. European history is a weak and increasingly decadent repetition of Greek patterns. Political philosophy as philosophy in general was the creation of the Greek genius. The Greeks are our destiny, our identity. The Beginning is more importantthan the End, because the End is contained in the Beginning not vice versa. So contemporary Europe is the End of the Greek in many senses.
Being an admirer of Heidegger, I nevertheless have a personal vision of Platonism andChristianity that doesn’t quite coincide with HeideggerÕs. But his criticism of liberalism is quite correct, because liberalism is the very essence of Modernity. The individual taken for the central point in this political ideology is the utmost interpretation of the Cartesianabstract (i.e. un-rooted) subject, brought to the last consequences. Communism and fascism as well have their ground in the Modern subject Ð collectivistic in communismand nationalist in fascism (racist in Nazism). I accept the existential and Seynsgeschichtliche criticism of liberalism proposed by Heidegger. The human being should be relocated historically and spatially, because the Da of Da-sein indicates aconcrete phenomenological realm a landscape, a language, a history. National socialism was wrong to accept modern concepts of the individual, the race, the nation, the modern interpretation of the State, technology, progress, and so on. So there is no need to make appeal to it [National Socialism] in order to combat Modernity or liberalism. We need not imitate the contingent circumstances of the twentieth century, but try to found the Fourth Political Theory based on the pure intuitions of Heideggerian philosophy. Heidegger’s criticism of liberalism is absolutely authentic and relevant, and we need to explore furtherthe philosophical foundations of such criticisms, setting aside his political commitments.
Derrida put Heidegger in a New Left context and explains him in a postmodern way, thus perverting the main structure of his thought. As a liberal, Rorty is absolutely inadequate to deal with Heidegger, because their basic ideological situations are opposed and his interpretation of Heidegger is a caricature. In order to understand Heidegger correctly, we need to share the basic anti-modern position that explains the main direction of his thought. He cannot be understood by liberals or communists (new leftists). They will criticize him or pervert his thought.
First of all, it is almost impossible to understand Heidegger from a position fully exterior to his own, from the outsid e. After the end of WWII, in the West the liberal approach became the normative ideology and in the communist East obviously the communist onedid. So an objective understanding or, better, empathic comprehension of Heidegger’s (always implicit) political philosophy was excluded from very beginning. Liberals and communists (or their various mixtures) could criticize Heidegger or denounce him. Orelse they could recuperate fragments of his philosophy, perverting the whole in a liberalor Marxist context. But acceptance of some aspects of Heidegger by Sartre, the French New Left, or postmodernists can be valid in nothing if we really want to understand hisown thought. The same thing usually happens in liberal readings: severe criticism or rare efforts of recuperation. We understand nothing in Heideggerian political thought.Moreover, we have no means to understand it, or even to start trying, under the condition of the dominant post-WWII ideological landscape. It is not a failure; it is the result of historic paradigmatic conditions. We could start to understand Heidegger only after liberation from the hypnosis of all three forms of political Modernity: liberalism, communism and fascism. It is a challenge for the future.
As for myself, I am not to the right or to the left. My standpoint is against Modernity, which I reject as antithetic to the truth, but whose dialectic I consider not as something casual but as the dialectical moment of the destiny of Logos. Left and right are essentiallymodern. So they have nothing to do with my comprehension of being in its political dimension. But my anti-modernism had two periods: early Apollonian (traditionalism)and later Dionysian. The latter corresponds to the discovery of Heidegger’s political philosophy. This discovery has led me to the development of a Fourth Political Theory, based on an existential interpretation of the essence of
das Politische [the Political],(using Carl Schmitt’s term).
It is very pertinent question, resounding with my previous answer well. Eurasia is a philosophical topos, exactly. It is first of all a Seynsgeschichtliche reality and only then ageopolitical, political or economical one. So it is for me the land of New Beginning,nowhere land, the na-koja-abad of Persian thinker Suhrawardi. It is the territory for awakening an Ereignis. That is the core of my own Seynsgeschichtliche
vision of the historic moment. The rebirth of Eurasia is an eschatological and spiritual event.
Today, Eurasian people are in a profound existential sleep. But the logic of history putthem in front of the dilemma either to awaken or die. That doesnÕt depend on will: thewill is orientated toward self-destruction. But the turn (Kehre) is always possible. Wherethere is risk there is salvation as well, as Hölderlin used to say. So I defend the choice of salvation. It is my choice and I hope Russia’s choice. We see signs of possible awakening in Russia through intermediary forms, such as the rejection of liberalism and American hegemony, and the search for identity. The same is true on a lesser scale for other Eurasian peoples. But I am sure the awakening will come all of a sudden. Being prepared by all human history, it will arrive quite unexpectedly. Such is Ereignis. It can last. It is the rift in the texture of the sleep-time of inauthentic existence
Ideology and Weltanschauung, or worldview, belong to the realm of doxa. They are sub-philosophical, because philosophy deals with the truth that is far above doxa. The main concern of philosophy is to understand the truth and to be in the truth or near the truth. The philosopher is the guardian of the truth of being, Heidegger used to say. So between ideology and philosophy there is not exclusion, but hierarchy. Philosophy first,ideology later. Doxa can never be really true. In the best case, it can be approximation of truth; in the worst case: farthest withdrawal from the truth. The first is orthodoxy, the second allodoxy, or the act of intellection corresponding to the other-than-truth, orientedwrongly. The Fourth Political Theory and Eurasianism, or Dasein-politics, or existential politics, are the names for philosophical orthodoxy. Modernity and its three political ideologies are allodoxy. They are wrong not in the sense that they are not true (all ideologies are not true), but in the sense that they point in the direction that has nothing to do with the truth, in other direction, not the right one.