Rong Jian: Wang Hui's "Heidegger Moment"? （榮劍：汪晖的“海德格爾時刻”？）
My work, "What does it mean for a revolutionary to win?
– On Wang Hui's "Revolutionary Personality and Philosophy of Victory"
has attracted widespread attention since its publication in the media. The
edition has been read by over 260,000 people. Perhaps this is because the
target of my criticism is the famous Professor Wang Hui, who undoubtedly
occupies a crucial position in the genealogy of Chinese New Left scholar‘s
position. Prior to this, criticisms of Professor Wang Hui had been made from
time to time, from the "reading and judging" incident to the
plagiarism allegations against him, all in the course of a In the course of
time, public controversy arose over Wang Hui's scholarship and professional
ethics. This time, he took the opportunity to commemorate the 150th anniversary
of Lenin's birth to release an elaborate article titled "The Personality
of Revolutionaries and the Philosophy of Victory", which was originally
published on the almost silent atmosphere in the country commemorating Lenin is
negligible and was triggered by the fact that in my It seems that this is not a
nostalgic trip for Wang Hui, but an attempt to "what to do" in China
in the name of commemorating Lenin's birthday. It offers a theoretical proposal
for leaders in times of uncertainty about the character of revolutionaries and
their triumph. There have been all sorts of exhortations or letters of
allegiance, but Wang Hui has created a new version of the hymn, and with all
due respect, this one is the best. It is a repetition of what Heidegger said
when he was Chancellor of the University of Freiburg: "The Führer himself,
and the Führer alone, is today the Führer, and even the future reality of
Germany and the laws of reality".
Of course, Wang Hui is no match for Heidegger, but the
difference in academic ability has not prevented them from working together in
their respective countries and in different fields. historical period to become
a staunch nationalist, or, rather, to exhibit in facing the supreme ruler of
their respective countries a Heidegger, a master of existentialism and
phenomenology, is considered by most historians of philosophy to be "the
most powerful and influential figure of the century. A master of existentialism
and phenomenology, Heidegger is considered by most historians of philosophy to
be "one of the most powerful and influential writers of the century. The
philosopher", who devoted his life to the absoluteness of
"thinking" and the purity of philosophy, refused to translate his
philosophical statement directly into a "philosopher". an agenda for
social change; he even argued that it was necessary to wait 300 years in order
for Protective Thought not to be sold off cheaply in a year's time for thought
to work again. But when Heidegger took over the rectorship of the University of
Freiburg in 1933, he seemed to have departed completely from what a philosopher
ought to be. He regarded Hitler's rise to power that year as Germany's
"Great and Powerful Year" and the "silence" and prudence
towards the reality that Siegel's position demanded Majestic dawn".
Many researchers have argued that Heidegger's involvement in
the Nazi movement was not an accidental lapse, and it seems to me that this is
not unlike the German philosophical self-hacking Hegel's long-standing
hero-worship complex is related to the tendency towards nationalism. Hegel
maintained that national rationality was the highest stage of rational development
and that only in the universal sphere of the state, the family and civil
society, could the state and the civil society be considered as the highest
stage of rational development particularity can only be overcome and
transcended. But whether the personification of national rationality can be
embodied in the Prussian monarch, Hegel does not think so, on the contrary, on
the basis of the development of the "spirit of the world" and
"world history", and the defeat of the Prussian army at Jena in 1806 under
Napoleon's command. He saw France and Napoleon as the beginning of modern
history, and his own country as the moment of the "end of history".
Prussia only symbolically represented the "Germanic world", the
highest stage of world history. In this view of history, Hegel and Kant shared
the same view of Europe's ups and downs, which they observed on the basis of
world citizenship. Hegel called Napoleon a "world spirit on
horseback". Hegel called Napoleon "the spirit of the world on horseback",
embodying on the one hand his vision of world history that transcended the
nation-state. On the other hand, he also embodied his eager anticipation of a
great man whose mission was to realize national and world rationality.
It may also be on the basis of this tradition of German
philosophy that one of Arendt's defenses of Heidegger after the war was that
she thought that Heidegger Plato's motivation for engaging in Nazi political
activity is similar to Plato's travels to Syracuse to offer his services to
tyrants. The proposal was aimed at saving the Greek city-state by transforming
the tyrant. But Arendt admits that Plato did not achieve this goal and that on
his return to Athens he realized the danger of putting further theory into
action. Desire is meaningless. She thus writes: "Now we all know that
Heidegger also succumbed to the temptation to change his 'residence' and to
take part in human affairs. But Heidegger's treatment "was in some ways
inferior to Plato's, for the tyrant and his victims were not located abroad,
but were rather in his own country". From the same fate of Plato and
Heidegger as philosophers involved in politics, Arendt concludes with the
observation that the philosopher intervenes in the Human affairs afterward
turned to tyrants and leaders respectively, taking into account not only the
circumstances of the times but also the aberrations of what the French call
occupation. The appeal of the tyrant may be theoretically proven by many
thinkers, with the great exception of Kant.
Does Arendt's defense of Heidegger speak to Heidegger's
heart? There is no way to prove it, but one thing is certain: that inaugural
speech Heidegger gave when he was president of the University of Freiburg, The
Self-Advocacy of the German Universities," is not filled with Nazi ideas,
but he particularly emphasizes the autonomy of the universities, arguing that
autonomy Meaning: "For ourselves to be what we ought to be, we set our own
mission and decide for ourselves the path to achieve that mission! and
method". He also expressed what Arendt might have thought of as the
"Plato complex" - "to educate and educate from and through
science". To train the leaders and guardians of the destiny of the German
nation". At the same time, Heidegger asked German university students to
undertake three obligations, namely, to provide labor service, national defense
service, and knowledge service for their country. "The destiny of the
nation through the people in its spiritual mission" is a passage that many
critics have identified as Heidegger's way of addressing the National Socialism
appeals. Of course, in his speech, Heidegger did not forget to proclaim the
dignity of philosophy, stressing, in particular, the need to return to the
"spiritual-historical here and now". The "beginning", that
is, the awakening of Greek philosophy, "knowledge must unfold its own
supreme resistance", "the Greeks considered, not to make practice
conform to the theory, on the contrary, they understood theory itself as the
highest realization of true practice. For the Greeks, science was not a
'cultural industry' but the most intrinsically decisive core of the whole
ethnonational being." Heidegger took as his point of reference the Greek
philosophy that aimed to shape the German nation "as a historical-spiritual
people", and in his lecture, he said, "I am not going to be able to
do that. Lastly, Plato was quoted as saying, "All great things stand in
the midst of a storm".
Judging from Heidegger's above-mentioned speech, there does
indeed exist deep within him what Arendt described as a philosophical spirit of
The motive for reforming the Führer's thought, he said, was that caught between
Bolshevism's imaginary theory and the materialism of capitalism, Germany was
the only country in which the Führer's ideas could be transformed. The most
dangerous "purely philosophical state" in danger, Germany has to save
itself, and Nazism has to return to a vibrant golden age to once again discover
this possibility of true German consciousness. In 1966, in a meeting with the
German "Kaiser", Heidegger was able to make a speech in which he was
told that he would not be able to give up this knowledge until 20 years after
the collapse of the Nazi Empire. In a conversation in Der Spiegel (Heidegger
demanded that this interview be published 10 years after his death), Heidegger
explains He said, "With 32 political parties holding their own views and
public opinion in disarray, it is necessary to find a first and foremost
representative of the country. He saw in Nazism the possibility of
"something new here, new dawn". But he also said that he regretted
having exhorted his students in 1933 to make the Führer the "law" of
Germany's reality and future. It was probably because of this historical lesson
that Heidegger became pessimistic about the role of philosophy in society, and
was no longer as pessimistic as he had been in 1933. He was convinced that
philosophy could discipline and educate the Führer or the tyrant. In his own
words: "Thinking is not inaction, but an act based on thinking itself, and
this act consists of an entreaty with the destiny of the world". He confesses:
"The distinction between theory and practice that originates from
metaphysics and its mutual transformation is an obstacle to the openness that I
understand in my thinking. He confesses: "The distinction between theory
and practice derived from metaphysics and their mutual transformation hinders
the openness of vision of the road that I have come to understand in my
thinking," he says. "The great danger of thinking, however, is that,
from what I have seen alone, no thinker of today is 'great' enough to be I am
able to bring my thoughts directly to the things I am thinking about and to
shape them in a way that will lead me to the path of thinking.
Heidegger's notions of philosophical purity and the role of
the mind may have constituted his post-war refusal to be a party to the Nazi
confrontation in the 1930s. Heidegger apologized profoundly for the history of
cooperation. Heidegger defended this history by describing the defection to the
Führer as a kind of compromise, stressing that without it he would not be able
to fulfill the principal's commitment to the Führer. The mission. And an
important fact that can support Heidegger's independence is the fact that he
has been president of the University of Freiburg for only ten months. In the
summer of 1944, Heidegger was forcibly sent to the Rhine. He was the oldest of
a group of teachers recruited to dig trenches on the other side of the river,
and the Nazis exempted 500 of the most famous scholars, scholars of the world.
He is not on the list of scientists and artists who served during the war. In
spite of this, too many serious scholars of intellectual history, this history
is indisputably the greatest stain on Heidegger's life. There is much evidence
to prove that Heidegger's relationship with the Nazis was not so pure. As
Jaspers recalls, Heidegger had never been a Nazi before, but in the spring of
1933, Heidegger suddenly took a serious interest in the Nazi movement.
Interestingly, when Jaspers asked how an uneducated roughneck like Hitler could
lead Germany, Heidegger’s answer was: "Education is simply irrelevant,
just look at what a pair of hands Hildegard had." Heidegger's colleague at
the University of Freiburg, Dr. Heinz Bollinger, argued that Heidegger was a
Nazi: "He just sat in Hitler in the Classroom".
The history of Heidegger's collaboration with the Nazis, for
whatever reason, is the result of Heidegger's fantasy of a Platonic
"philosophical king" to reform the real-life Führer, or because he
had the mission of leading a university and had to make the necessary
compromises with the Nazi government. Neither the fact that this collaboration
lasted only ten months nor the fact that it lasted only ten months, can account
for the step Heidegger took in 1933. It was the first time that Heidegger had
been given an exemption from liability. What's more, 1933 - the "Heidegger
moment" - was not only the most humiliating moment of Heidegger's life. It
has also become an important event in the history of Western thought, and its
revelation to future generations is that how intellectuals, especially the
pioneers of thought whose aim is to shape the spirit of nationhood and national
consciousness live in peace when faced totalitarian tyranny? They may not be
free from fear, and they may not be free from temptation, but as possessors of
the ideas which Heidegger has always advocated, they should at least Inherent
in it is the requirement to keep silent about the injustices that are so openly
wreaking havoc in the world, rather than being complicit in them. In this
sense, the collaboration between Heidegger and the Nazis, short-lived as it was
and possessing a particular historical legitimacy, still broke through the
"Heidegger Moment" is a symbolic window on the relationship between
intellectuals and the power of the state and its rulers.
The "Heidegger Moment" as a symbolic window on the
relationship between intellectuals and state power and its rulers. A series of
similar events occurred in Japan during World War II, and a number of
influential philosophers and scholars of the time, as well as a number of other
Japanese scholars, were involved. Historians and literary scholars have turned
almost collectively to cooperation with the military, using the knowledge and
intellectual resources at their disposal to participate in the national
"general war". In the most typical case, in 1942, a number of
prominent scholars and left-wing writers of the Kyoto School held three
seminars on the subject of They are: "The Position of World History and
Japan", "The Ethics and Historicity of the East Asian Co-Prosperity
Sphere", and "The Philosophy of the Total War", from these
themes, it can be seen that the Japanese intelligentsia, in constructing the
so-called "modern super grams" of history, had turned to a full-scale
reaction to militarism support. In particular, it is worth mentioning the
famous philosopher Kita Nishida, who wrote several articles after the
"February 26th Incident" urging the Japanese people to be vigilant to.
After the outbreak of an all-out war
between China and Japan, he was involuntarily involved in the construction of a
"philosophy of total war", despite the dangers of militarism. He
wrote "The Principle of the New World Order", an article that later
humiliated him. Another figure was Mr. Takeuchi, who was highly respected by
the New Left in China, and a great admirer of Lu Xun. Writing after the war
broke out, he hailed: "History was made. The world was changed overnight.
Trembling with emotion, civilization watched over the passage of a ray of light
that flew like a rainbow. On December 8, the day the edict of the Japanese
nation's war was announced, the pleasure coalesces and burns. The mood was
incomparably refreshing." It can be seen that in Japan's "Heidegger
moment", far more intellectuals than in Germany consciously devoted
themselves to the national war machine. They were the accomplices of militarism
and constituted the most shameful page in their personal history.
Has China now entered a "Heidegger moment" as
well? Judging from China's standards of thought and knowledge production,
scholars who dedicate themselves to singing the praises of nationalism are
unlikely to have the ability to think. Most of them are theoretical
opportunists. From his academic background, Wang Hui's position as a new
leftist and a "critical intellectual" is consistent with the
theoretical opportunism of his work. The actual theoretical propositions are
quite different, and he is more concerned with the political and value
aspirations of nationalism. The "revolutionary personality" and the
"philosophy of victory" he proposes this time are completely tailored
to the leaders and are designed for China's current political and economic
situation and for the political necessity to rewrite the revolutionary
narrative, to recall the arrival of new revolutionaries, to re-imagine a new
revolutionary-led time. In these respects, Wang Hui goes completely beyond
Heidegger's attempts to philosophically reshape the idea of the Führer and to
passively adapt it to Nazi politics tendency, becomes an active and proactive
intellectual engagement that seeks to provide a new dimension to the
independent decisions and actions of a supreme revolutionary. This is proof of
the legitimacy of the law.
It is therefore fair to ask, what would Wang Hui have done
if he had been in Germany in 1933? Did he need Heidegger's philosophy to
suggest to the Führer that he should construct Germany according to the
philosophical tradition inherited from ancient Greece? Nationalism? Or to seek
as much freedom as possible for the sphere under one's control by strategically
seeking some kind of autonomy through "three-hailing of long-live". I'm afraid I don't even need it! On the one
hand, it is impossible for Wang Hui to have philosophical consciousness and the
metaphysical ability to think, and on the other hand, he would never have dared
to talk to someone who had the metaphysical ability to think. The leader of the
"revolutionary personality" plays the game of the evasive. All he has
to offer is straightforward loyalty and dedicated service. The only
communicative obstacle he might have encountered was the deliberate obscurity
of his rhetorical style which might not have been immediately apparent to the
new generation of revolutionaries. The mind is made up. So I prefer to believe
that Heidegger's cooperation with the Nazis was based on a strategic
consideration or a compromise that had to be made. His eventual withdrawal from
the position of Rector of the University of Freiburg showed that he had not
lost his basic conscience and moral qualities as a philosopher and that he had
not lost his faith in the moral integrity of the philosopher. For Wang Hui, I
prefer to believe that the theoretical proofs he is making at this "what
to do" moment is in fact his own. It is a political decision, and this
political decision is definitely well thought out and is "righteous"
without turning back.
Because politics requires immediacy, not philosophy, and the
process of discernment, like a labyrinth, has often eluded the politicians. The
Führer would have preferred that the chancellor speaks to the pupils plainly,
in contrast to Heidegger's inaugural speech. The only thing that matters is the
law of reality and the future of Germany. If Wang Hui had lived in Germany in
1933, his grand narratives about "revolutionary personality" and
"philosophy of victory" would have been The Führer's heart was more
moved by Wang Hui's philosophical narrative than by Heidegger's. First of all,
the "revolutionary personality" was a perfect hat to wear on the
Führer's head.
First of all, the hat of "revolutionary
personality" fits perfectly on the Führer's head. The "second nature" of the
revolutionary who is good at seizing the initiative, and the fact that the
revolutionary is always the revolutionary and never fear defeat. The Führer is
revolutionary. This is almost a complete and accurate description of the
Führer's personality. The Führer is such a revolutionary superman, full of the
revolutionary mission, with an unyielding spirit of struggle, and an assertive
pursuit of power! He is good at creating revolutionary opportunities at the
"weakest point", and will never admit defeat in the end. Such a character
of revolutionaries existed not only in the Red regime but also in any system in
which the leaders were above the parties and not subject to power. And in this sense, Wang Hui's narrative of
the revolutionary is tailored specifically to such a leading figure.
Secondly, Wang Hui's idea of a close and mutually
reinforcing dynamic relationship between leaders, political parties, and the
people was also a major factor in the German Nazi movement. In the end, it was
fully realized. From the relationship between these three, it is clear that the
German Nazi movement avoided their differences better than the Soviet period
and the Cultural Revolution in China. The rupture of the Zhang Li relationship
- the rupture of this relationship was seen by Wang Hui as the collapse or transformation
of the socialist state in the 20th century. Motivation. Hitler's rise to power
and the establishment of a Nazi regime to replace the Weimar regime was,
formally, the result of a national democratic election, a result which suggests
that the Nazi parties and their leaders had the basis of popular support, that
is to say, the basis of legitimacy. In the end, however, the Nazi regime
evolved into a totalitarian system in which the Führer became a dictator and
the Nazi Party a tool of the Führer. The people have completely lost their role
in determining the power of the state in a situation where politics and ideas
are doubly controlled. Therefore, the introduction of the concept of leadership
and the discourse on the leader-party-people relationship is fundamentally a
totalitarian It is a narrative of democracy that ultimately points to the
leader's dominant relationship with the party and the people. The so-called
"dynamic tension" is simply the unconditional support and obedience
of the people and the party to the leader.
Thirdly, Wang Hui's "philosophy of victory" is to
provide the ultimate spiritual impetus to those revolutionaries who are not
afraid of defeat, because, in the end, they are bound to be defeated. Inspired
by the triumphs of the Nazi revolution, all defeats in the revolutionary
process were temporary, and defeats were only the starting point for the next
triumph. Such a philosophy of triumph can be said to have permeated the Nazi
philosophy from beginning to end, as demonstrated by Goebbels' own propaganda
documentary, "The Will to Win". Victory is arguably its most classic
version, and one of Hitler's most frequently uttered words is
"victory", from German victory to the victory of the Aryans was the
conquest of the world. This was the Führer's picture of victory for the German
people. Even in the final moments of the Allied conquest of Berlin, the Führer
did not give up his belief in the ultimate victory. The collapse of the Third
Reich was a catastrophe for Germany and the rest of the world. It is clear that
a dictator who denies defeat, a war-mad man who clings to a philosophy of
victory, is the greatest threat to human civilization.
Wang Hui's grand narratives of "revolutionary
personality" and "philosophy of triumph", if anything, create
his "Heidegger moment". That is at least in terms of their broadly
similar attitudes and positions towards their leaders or heads of state, in
terms of their respective. The
difference between the two men is as great as the difference between the two
men in terms of their state of thought. Heidegger, while having to bow down to
the Führer, still retains within himself the dignity of thought and the
superiority of a philosophical view of politics. His courageous resignation
after 10 months as President of the University of Freiburg is a testament to
his courage. Wang Hui, on the other hand, has abandoned his previous position
because of the changing situation in China, especially because of what he calls
a general crisis in party politics. ambiguous, evasive and opportunistic
political rhetoric, while actively opting for a clear political decision, i.e.
from Lenin's " It will draw political energy from the "revolutionary
personality" and rebuild the "philosophy of victory" that places
sacrifice and tragedy on the agenda for winning action, thereby serving to The
reshaping of revolutionary leaders for a new era injects new intellectual and
moral resources. By comparing the two, one can see that Wang Hui went further
than Heidegger in his "Heidegger moment".
Faced with the failure of the international communist
movement, especially the socialist experiments of the 20th century, Marx, as
the founder of scientific communism, did not necessarily need to ultimate
responsibility, but his ideas were a major inspiration to the successive waves
of revolutionaries and their revolutionary movements that followed the Paris
Commune. His view of revolutionary history, from class struggle to violent
revolution to the realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat to the
realization of the "revolution", is unquestionable. Communism, which
has mobilized generations of revolutionaries to participate and organize one
revolutionary movement after another. Revolutions have won, revolutions have
failed, either victorious or failed, revolutions have caused havoc all over the
world. Aren't the sexual consequences a warning to mankind? For almost 150
years, the international community has been singing, "There has never been
a savior, nor does it depend on a fairy emperor". How can anyone come out
and openly advocate a "new political, economic and social system" led
by a leader or a head of state? I write to remind the public that the
"Heidegger moment" is far from over, that in philosophy, faith, and
morality there has been a loss of knowledge and knowledge of the world. After
the final restraining role of human beings, we will continue to witness how the
degradation of intellectuals has helped propel politics back into a long and
unforgiving existence. Dark moment.
The magazine Spiegel, after considering it over and over
again at the end of its 1966 interview with Heidegger, finally decided on the
title: "There is only another God who can save us." Who is this God?
Does this god work for Heidegger? Does this God work for the Chinese
intellectuals?
Author: Rong Jian, independent scholar.
榮劍：汪晖的“海德格爾時刻”？
拙作《革命者的勝利意味着什麽？——評汪晖的“革命者人格和“勝利的哲學”》，在自媒體上發表後引發了廣泛關注，其中一個版本的閱讀量已突破了26萬。這或許是因為我的批評對象是著名的汪晖教授，他在中國新左學者譜系中無疑占據着至關重要的位置。在此之前，對汪晖教授的批評時有發生，從“讀書評獎”事件到對他的抄襲指控，都曾經在一個時間裏激起了公眾對于汪晖治學水平及其職業倫理的争議。而這一次他借紀念列寧誕辰150周年精心推出的文章——《革命者人格與勝利的哲學》，本來在國内紀念列寧幾乎悄無聲息的氛圍中是可以被忽略不計的，之所以引發了我的關注，是因為在我看來，這不是汪晖的一次思想懷舊之旅，而是他以紀念列寧誕辰為名，力圖在中國當下“怎麽辦”的彷徨時刻，為領袖提供一個關于革命者人格及其勝利的理論方案。歷史上曾經有過各種勸進書或效忠信，但汪晖開創了一個新的頌聖版本，恕我直言，這個版本無異于重復了海德格爾在任弗萊堡大學校長時說過的那個話：“元首本人并只有元首本人才是當今乃至未來德國的現實以及現實的法則”。
汪晖的學術能力當然和海德格爾沒法比，但學術能力的差異并不妨礙他們在各自國家以及不同的歷史時期成為一名堅定的國家主義者，或者說，在面向他們各自國家的最高統治者時表現出一種相同态度和立場，并作出相應的理論反應。海德格爾作為存在主義和現象學大師，被大多數哲學史編撰者公認為“是本世紀最有力量和影響力的哲學家”,他一生致力于“思”的絕對性和哲學的純粹性，拒絕将自己的哲學綱領直接演變為社會變革的綱領；他甚至認為，為了保護思不至于在一年内被廉價抛售，有必要等待300年的時間再讓思來發揮作用。但是，在1933年，海德格爾在接任弗萊堡大學校長時，似乎是完全背離了一個哲學家的應有立場以及思所要求的對現實的“沉默”和謹慎态度，他把希特勒這一年的上台視為德國“偉大和莊嚴的破曉”。
許多研究者都認為，海德格爾卷入納粹運動不是一個偶然的失誤，在我看來，這和德國哲學自黑格爾以來一直存在着的英雄崇拜情結和國家主義傾向有關。黑格爾始終認為，國家理性是理性發展的最高階段，只有在國家的普遍性領域，家庭和市民社會的特殊性才能被克服并被超越。但國家理性的人格化是不是可以體現在普魯士君主身上，黑格爾并不這麽認為，相反，他基于“世界精神”和“世界歷史”的發展，把1806年拿破侖指揮法國軍隊在耶拿一舉擊敗普魯士軍隊視為是“歷史終結”的時刻，也就是他把法國和拿破侖視為是現代歷史的開始，而他自己的祖國普魯士只是在象征意義上代表着“日耳曼世界”——世界歷史的最高階段。就這一歷史觀而言，黑格爾和康德是一致的，他們是基于世界公民的身份來觀察歐洲當時風起雲湧的民族國家運動。黑格爾把拿破侖稱之為“馬背上的世界精神”，一方面體現出他超越民族國家的世界歷史視野，另一方面也體現出他對于以實現國家理性和世界理性為使命的偉大人物的迫切期待。
可能也正是基于德國哲學的這一傳統，阿倫特在戰後為海德格爾所做的一個辯護是，她認為海德格爾參與納粹政治活動的動機，類似于柏拉圖旅行到錫拉庫紮（Syracuse）去給暴君提供建議，目的在于通過改造暴君來拯救希臘城邦。但阿倫特也承認，柏拉圖并沒有實現這一目标，他在返回雅典後意識到了進一步把理論付諸行動的欲望是毫無意義的。她由此寫道：“現在我們都知道，海德格爾曾經也屈服于改變‘住所’和參與人類事務的誘惑。”但海德格爾受到的待遇“在某種程度上不如柏拉圖，因為暴君和他的受害者并不是位于海外，而是在自己的國家”。從柏拉圖和海德格爾作為哲學家參與政治的相同命運中，阿倫特總結出來的看法是：哲學家介入到人類事務後分别轉向了暴君和領導者，不僅要考慮時代環境，還應考慮法國人所謂的職業的畸變；暴君的吸引力可能在理論上被很多思想家所證明，惟獨康德是最大的例外。
阿倫特為海德格爾的辯護是否說出了海德格爾的心裏話？無從考證，但有一點可以确定的是，海德格爾在任弗萊堡大學校長時所發表的那個就職演講《德國大學的自我主張》，并沒有充斥着納粹主義的主張，他特别強調的是大學的自治，認為自治意味着：“為了我們自己能夠是我們應該是的，我們自己确立使命，并自己決定實現該使命的道路與方法”。他還表達了阿倫特可能據此認為的那個“柏拉圖情結”——“從科學出發，并通過科學，來教育和培養德意志民族命運的領導者和守護者”。同時，海德格爾要求德國大學生承擔起三項義務，即為國家提供勞動服務、國防服務和知識服務，“在精神使命中通過人民而關乎國家的命運”，這一段話被許多批評者認定是海德格爾在向國家社會主義呼籲。當然，在演講中，海德格爾不會忘記宣示哲學的尊嚴，他特别強調要回到“精神—歷史性此在的開端”，也就是希臘哲學的覺醒，“知識必須展開它自己的最高抗拒”，“希臘人所考慮的，不是要讓實踐與理論相符，恰恰相反，他們将理論自身理解為真正實踐的最高實現。對希臘人來說，科學不是一種‘文化產業’，而是整個民族—國家的此在的最内在的決定性核心”。海德格爾以希臘哲學為指向，旨在為德意志民族塑造成“作為歷史—精神性的民族”，他在演講的最後引用了柏拉圖的話：“所有偉大的事物都聳立在暴風雨中”。
從海德格爾的上述演講中大致可以判斷，在他的内心深處的确存在着阿倫特所說的以哲學的精神來改造元首思想的動機，他說過，因為夾在布爾什維克主義虛無論和資本主義唯物論之間，德國是遭遇危險最大的“純哲學國家”，德國要拯救自我，納粹主義具有返回朝氣蓬勃的黃金時代以再次發掘真正的德國意識這一可能性。這個認識，海德格爾在納粹帝國徹底崩潰之後20年，也沒有完全放棄。1966年，在和德國《明鏡周刊》的一個對話中（海德格爾要求這個采訪必須在他死後10年才能發表），海德格爾解釋說，在32個政黨各執己見和公共輿論亂作一團的情況下，很有必要尋找一種能夠代表國家的首先是社會的綱領，他從納粹主義中看到了“這裏有出現新事物和新曙光”的可能性。但他也說了後悔在1933年勸告學生讓元首成為德國現實和未來的“法則”。可能就是因為這個歷史教訓，海德格爾對哲學的社會作用持悲觀态度，不再像1933年那個時刻，深信哲學可以規訓和教育元首或暴君。用他自己的話說：“思并非是不作為，而是基于思本身的作為，此一作為在于與世界命運的懇談”。他坦承：“源出于形而上學的理論與實踐的區分及其互相轉化的觀念阻礙了我在思中理解到的敞開道路的視野”。“思的最大危險卻在于，僅就我所看到的東西來說，當今的思想家還沒有哪個人足夠‘偉大’到能夠把思直接地并且在造型中帶到事物面前，并因此走上思的道路”。
海德格爾關于哲學純粹性和思的作用的觀念，或許構成了他在戰後拒絕為其在1930年代與納粹合作的歷史進行深刻道歉的内在理由。海德格爾對這段歷史有過自辯，他把向元首輸誠說成是一種妥協，強調不這樣做他就無法履行校長的使命。而能夠支持海德格爾獨立性的一個重要事實是，他就任弗萊堡大學校長僅僅只有十個月時間，他是主動辭職并拒絕參加與納粹黨人新校長的交接典禮。1944年夏天，海德格爾被強迫送到萊茵河對岸去挖戰壕，他是被征召的教師團體中年紀最老的一個，納粹免除500個最著名的學者、科學家和藝術家戰時勞役的名單上并不包括他。盡管如此，在許多嚴肅的思想史學者看來，這段歷史無可置疑地成為海德格爾一生中最大的污點，有許多證據可以證明，海德格爾和納粹的關系并非這麽純潔。據雅斯貝爾斯回憶，海德格爾以前從未流露出納粹思想，1933年春海德格爾突然對納粹運動大感興趣，當雅斯爾貝斯問到像希特勒這樣一個沒受過教育的粗人如何能領導德國的時候，海德格爾的回答是：“教育根本無關緊要，你就看看希持勒那雙手，是一雙多麽了不起的手。”海德格爾在弗萊堡大學的同事海因茨·博林格爾博士認為，海德格爾就是一個納粹，“他就是坐在課堂上的希特勒”。
海德格爾和納粹合作的歷史，不管是基于何種原因，是海德格爾幻想用柏拉圖式的“哲學王”來改造現實中的元首，還是因為他承擔着領導一所大學的使命而不得不對納粹政府做出必要的妥協，抑或這個合作的歷史只有短短十個月時間，這些都不能為海德格爾在1933年所邁出的這一步提供免責的理由。更重要的是，1933年——這個“海德格爾時刻”，不僅成為海德格爾一生中最屈辱的時刻，而且也成為西方思想史上的一個重要事件，它對後世的啟示意義在于：知識人，尤其是那些旨在塑造民族精神和國家意識的思想先驅們，在面對極權主義暴政時，究竟該如何安身立命？他們或許不能免于恐懼，也或許不能免于誘惑，但作為海德格爾一貫倡導的思的擁有者，至少應該按其内在要求對世間公然大肆作惡的不義之人保持沉默，而不是和他們同流合污。從這個意義上看，海德格爾和納粹的合作，盡管時間短暫并具有某種特定歷史合理性，但仍然突破了一個思者的學術和道德底線。
“海德格爾時刻”作為一個象征性的時間窗口，從中所看到的知識人和國家權力及其統治者的關系，顯然并不限于德國，日本在二戰期間也發生了一系列類似事件，一批在當時卓有影響的哲學家、歷史學家、文學家幾乎是集體性地轉向和軍部的合作，用他們所掌握的知識和思想資源參與到國家“總體戰”中。最典型的案例是，1942年，京都學派的一些著名學者和左翼作家，舉行了三次研讨會，主題分别是：“世界史的立場與日本”、“東亞共榮圈的倫理性和歷史性”、“總體戰的哲學”，從這些主題就可看出，日本知識界在建構所謂“近代的超克”的歷史觀時，全面轉向了對軍國主義的支持。特别值得一提的是著名哲學家西田幾多郎，他在“二二六兵變”之後曾多次撰文呼籲日本國民警惕軍國主義的危害性，但中日爆發全面戰争之後，他還是不由自主地被卷入到“總體戰哲學”的建設中，寫下了《新世界秩序原理》這篇後來讓他蒙受羞辱的文章。另一個人物就是被中國新左一直高度推崇的竹内好先生，這位魯迅先生的大崇拜者在日美太平洋戰争爆發之後撰文歡呼：“歷史被創造出來。世界在一夜之間改變了面貌。感動的發顫，文明守望着彩虹一般飛翔的一道光芒的劃過。我們感到了湧上心頭而難以名狀的某種感激之情。12月8日，宣布開戰大诏之日，日本國民的快意凝聚燃燒起來。心情無比的爽快。”可見，在日本的“海德格爾時刻”，有遠比德國更多的知識人自覺地投身到國家的戰争機器中，成了軍國主義的幫兇，也構成了他們個人歷史中最可恥的一頁。
中國當下是不是也進入了一個“海德格爾時刻”？從中國的思想和知識生產水準來看，那些致力于為國家主義大唱贊歌的學者，絕不可能擁有思的能力以及相應的哲學素養，他們大多數都是一些理論機會主義者。包括汪晖，從他的學術背景來看，他所标榜的新左立場和“批判的知識分子”的身份定位，與他的實際理論主張大相徑庭，他更多地表現出國家主義的政治和價值訴求。這次他提出的“革命者人格”和“勝利的哲學”完全是主動為領袖人物量身打造，是為中國當下的政治需要而重新書寫革命者叙事，重新召喚新的革命者的到來，重新想象一個由革命者主導的新時代。從這些方面來看，汪晖完全超出了海德格爾試圖以哲學重塑元首思想以及被動地适應納粹政治的傾向，變成了一種積極的主動的思想參與，力圖為一個至高無上的革命者的獨斷決策和行動提供新的合法性證明。
因此，完全可以設問，如果汪晖處在1933年的德國，他會怎麽做？他難道還需要海德格爾那套哲學來費勁地向元首建議按照古希臘延續下來的哲學傳統來建構德國的民族精神嗎？或者是策略性地通過“三呼萬歲”以謀求某種自治的權利來為自己治下的領域争取盡可能大的自由嗎？恐怕都不需要吧！這一方面是因為汪晖絕無可能具有哲學的自覺和思的形而上學的能力，另一方面他也絕不敢和具有“革命者人格”的領袖人物去玩那些拐彎抹角的遊戲，他只需要提供直白的忠誠和一心一意的服務，他惟一可能遇到的交流障礙，是其刻意營造出來的晦澀修辭風格未必能讓新時代的革命者立即心領神會。如此看來，我寧願相信海德格爾和納粹的合作是基于一種策略性考慮或是一種不得不做的妥協，他最終退出弗萊堡大學校長這個職位，表明他并未喪失作為一個哲學家的基本良知和道德素養；而對汪晖來說，我寧願相信他在當下這個“怎麽辦”的時刻所進行的一系列理論證明其實是他做出的一種政治決斷，這個政治決斷肯定是深思熟慮的，并且是“義”無反顧。
因為政治需要直接性，而不是像哲學那樣，思辨的過程猶如迷宮那樣經常讓那些政治家們找不到北，比較于海德格爾那個大學校長的就職演說，元首肯定更喜歡校長向學生們直截了當地說出，元首惟一地是德國現實和未來的法則。汪晖如果生活在1933年的德國，他的關于“革命者人格”和“勝利的哲學”的宏大叙事，一定能比海德格爾的那套哲學叙事更能打動元首的心。
首先，“革命者人格”這頂帽子就非常适合戴在元首的頭上，汪晖關于“革命者人格”五個特性，即革命者就是革命者，革命者永遠在鬥争，革命者不僅掌握政治權力而且還掌握“精神和道德領導權”，革命者善于掌握先機的“第二天性”，以及革命者是永遠的革命者和從不怕失敗的革命者，這幾乎就是對元首人格的一個完整準确的描述。元首就是這樣一個革命的超人，充滿着革命者的使命，具有不屈不撓的鬥争精神，追求獨斷的權力和對一切思想的控制力，善于在“薄弱環節”創造革命的先機，以及至死也絕不承認失敗的革命性格。這樣的革命者不僅僅存在于紅色政權，在任何領袖淩駕于政黨之上而不受權力約束的制度條件下都會產生，從這個意義上看，汪晖的革命者叙事就是為這樣的領袖人物專門定制的。
其次，汪晖提出的領袖—政黨—人民之間緊密聯系又互相促進的能動關系在德國納粹主義運動中也得到了充分的體現。從這三者之間的關系來看，德國納粹運動顯然比蘇聯時期和中國文革時期更好地避免了它們之間的張力關系陷于破裂的情況——這一關系的破裂被汪晖視為是20世紀社會主義國家垮台或轉型的動因。希特勒上台，建立納粹政權以取代魏瑪政權，從形式上看，是國家民主選舉的結果，這個結果表明納粹政黨及其領袖具有民意支持的基礎，也就是說有合法性基礎。但是，納粹政權最終還是演變成一個極權主義體制，元首成為獨裁者，納粹黨成為元首的工具，而人民在政治和思想被雙重控制的情況下完全喪失了對國家權力的決定作用。所以，提出領袖這個概念以及關于領袖—政黨—人民的關系的論述，從根本上說，就是一個極權主義叙事，它最終指向的是領袖對政黨和人民的支配性關系。所謂“能動性的張力”，僅僅表現為人民和政黨對領袖無條件的支持與服從。
第三，汪晖“勝利的哲學”是為那些從不怕失敗的革命者提供終極性的精神動力，因為在最終一定會勝利的鼓舞下，革命進程中的所有失敗都是暫時的，失敗不過是下一個勝利的起點。這樣的勝利哲學可以說從頭到尾貫穿在納粹的哲學中，由戈培爾親自主導的宣傳紀錄片《意志的勝利》堪稱是其最經典的版本，而希特勒說的最多的詞匯之一就是“勝利”，從德意志的勝利到雅利安人的勝利最後是征服全世界，這是元首為德國人民所描繪的勝利圖景。即使在盟軍攻克柏林的最後時刻，元首也沒有放棄他最終必勝的信念，正是這個必勝的信念導致了第三帝國的崩潰，從而給德國和全世界造成了巨大災難。由此可見，一個不承認失敗的獨裁者，一個始終堅持勝利哲學的戰争瘋子，是對人類文明的最大威脅。
汪晖關于“革命者人格”和“勝利的哲學”的宏大叙事，如果說是制造了他的“海德格爾時刻”，那是在最低限度上就他們面對領袖或元首所表現出來的大致相同的态度和立場來說的，就他們各自據此出發的思想境界而言，兩人的差距就猶如雲泥之别。海德格爾在向元首不得不俯首稱臣時，内心依舊保持着思的尊嚴和哲學俯瞰政治的優越感，這也是他敢于在任職弗萊堡大學校長10個月後凜然去職的勇氣所在。而汪晖則是基于中國當下的形勢變化特别是他所謂的政黨政治普遍陷入危機的情況，抛棄了他以往暧昧不清的、閃爍其詞的和機會主義的政治話語，而主動選擇一種明确的政治決斷，即從列寧的“革命者人格”上汲取政治能量，重建将犧牲和悲劇置于制勝行動綱領的“勝利的哲學”，從而為重塑新時代的革命領袖注入了新的思想和道德資源。兩相比較，可以發現，汪晖在“海德格爾時刻”走得比海德格爾更遠。
面對國際共運史尤其是20世紀社會主義實驗的失敗，作為科學共產主義創始人的馬克思未必需要承擔終極責任，但他的思想對于巴黎公社之後一波接着一波的革命者及其革命運動有重大啟示，則是毫無疑問的；他所主張的革命史觀，從階級鬥争到暴力革命再到實現無產階級專政直至實現共產主義，鼓動起一代又一代的革命者參與和組織起一個又一個的革命運動。革命勝利了，革命失敗了，不管是勝利的革命還是失敗的革命，革命在世界各地所造成的災難性後果難道對人類還不具有警示意義嗎？國際歌唱了快150年了，“從來就沒有救世主，也不靠神仙皇帝”，為何在21世紀的時代條件下，還有人出來公開主張一個由領袖或元首主導的“新的政治、經濟和社會體制”？我寫作本文就是想提醒公眾，“海德格爾時刻”遠未終止，在哲學、信仰和道德已經失去了對知識人的最後約束作用之後，我們将會不斷地見證知識人的堕落如何助長政治重新進入一個漫長的至暗時刻。
《明鏡》雜志在1966年結束對海德格爾的采訪之後，經反復考慮，最後确定的标題是：“只還有一個神能救我們”。這個神是誰？這個神對海德格爾是否有效？這個神對中國的知識人是否有效？
作者：榮劍，獨立學者。
Comments
Post a Comment