06 Aug '20 12:48>
@deepthought saidAnd perhaps he was, just as Heidegger, simply hopeful that the society would rebuild itself. Like most Germans, it is likely that he was unaware that the Holocaust was occurring. He was even removed from hispositions of honor because the Nazis uncovered papers he wrote previously which crticized their racialism, and they thought that he was not legitimate in his anti-Semitism... They described him as an opportunist.
Because Nietzsche was writing in the 19th Century and wasn't significantly more anti-semitic than anyone else. In any case, he was principally attacking the priesthood rather than Jewish people for being Jewish. Schmitt on the other hand provided direct philosophical support to a movement that was current at the time.
But sure, you're right: I would never try to completely exculpate him from this position.
I would simply say that his writings are good & legitimate for us to look at. I am not some hyper-loyal acolyte, but I am saying that his criticisms of universalized principles (something that is very active in our current day and age) is very relevant....
And as far as Nietzsche, I believe he actually did think in terms fo certain peoples have certain characteristics (not universal among the type, but certainly pronounced among them), and he was pro_Germanic and anti-Semitic.
But this was typical, as y ou said, and I am not offended by it. People are people and make mistakes.
What is offensive to me is the anti-intellecutal streak of people that try to clobber you for attempting to even be fair to historic thinkers because they are always in such a moral panic.