Okay, let’s go here:
1] How would you reconcile his “good ideas” on Being with his choice to remain in the Nazi Party until the end of the war?
2] How has your own understanding of his understanding of Being benefited you in your interactions with others?
Me? Fascism [in the is/ought world] is a historical, cultural and experiential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And Being/being is a complex intertwining of the ontic and the ontological. A particular existing man or woman out in a particular world understanding it from a particular point of view. As that is situated [embedded] in the manner in which Existence itself can be wholly understood metaphysically.
My own rendition of “sick philosophy” revolves around “general descriptions” such as this.
Let’s go here:
If Heidegger were confronted with this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…how do you imagine he would react to it insofar as his own “I” does not fracture and fragment in defending his membership in the Nazi Party?
Edit:
Here there appear to be two schools of thought:
Critics, such as Günther Anders, Jürgen Habermas, Theodor Adorno, Hans Jonas, Karl Löwith, Pierre Bourdieu, Maurice Blanchot, Emmanuel Levinas, Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut claim that Heidegger’s affiliation with the Nazi Party revealed flaws inherent in his philosophical conceptions. His supporters, such as Hannah Arendt, Otto Pöggeler, Jan Patocka, Silvio Vietta, Jacques Derrida, Jean Beaufret, Jean-Michel Palmier, Richard Rorty, Marcel Conche, Julian Young and François Fédier, see his involvement with Nazism as a personal “error” – a word which Arendt placed in quotation marks when referring to Heidegger’s Nazi-era politics– that is irrelevant to his philosophy.
But then [for you] it is straight back up into the clouds of “general description”:
What on earth are you conveying here as it might be translated into a discussion/debate about/over a conflicted good most here will be familiar with?
Stem cell research, capital punishment, immigration, conscription, animal rights, the role of government, affirmative action — how would one differentiate progressive from regressive behaviors here as it relates to the distinction you make between “‘Teaching one how to fish’ instead of ‘feeding someone fishes all the time’”.
In other words, given how you claim “there are tons of examples I could introduce to support my points re ‘progress’ within humanity re the philosophy of moral and ethics.”
Let’s get started.