Was Heidegger a Nazi?

Heidegger, according to Wikipedia, joined the Nazi Party ten days after being elected as rector of University of Freiburg. Although the Nazi party was originally formed as a fascist socialist party, the party's intent was to limit party membership to less than ten percent of the general population. Business and government elites were encouraged to join, the general population was not. Party membership was forbidden to those who served as soldiers in the army, however for the elites (the SS, for eg) party membership was required. Although government workers and bureaucrats comprised only five percent of the general population, they made up fifteen percent of the party membership.
Bureaucrats (including university rectors, I assume) were three times more likely (than the general German population) to join the Nazi party. It is wrong, however, to extrapolate that government workers and bureaucrats were therefore three times more likely to support the Nazis.

Heidegger came to prominence when philosophers still held a position of prominence in university politics and governance. Being offered a rectorship of a major university was a great honour; it afforded a level of stature and respect granted to only the best and brightest.

Heidegger joined the Nazi party ten days after being elected rector - and resigned the rectorship one year later. Hannah Arendt, a Jew and  considered one the most important political theorists of our time, was a long-time romantic partner. At the end of the war, Heidegger was judged to be a follower of the Nazi party, not an active participant. He never spoke about the war and his time as rector, other than to say that it was the stupidest thing he had ever done. He did, however, have this to say about the mechanization of agriculture:

Agriculture is now a motorized food-industry — in essence, the same as the manufacturing of corpses in gas chambers and extermination camps, the same as the blockading and starving of nations, the same as the manufacture of hydrogen bombs.

This statement echoes the thought of sociologist Max Weber, an earlier Freiburg professor. Weber developed the theory of social mechanization link The horrors of the holocaust were only possible through bureaucratic and industrial efficiency. The statement above expresses disgust at the mechanization and dehumanization of war, it does not  express indifference to the horrors of the holocaust.

Heidegger is guilty of ambition and perhaps temporary hubris. His silence on the subject of WWII cannot be seen as support for the ideals of national socialism and the Nazi Party.

Heidegger's explanation of the presence and being of an object led me to reflect upon the difference between the design of an object and the utility of an object, and to consider whether technology follows the same patterns. When nature causes an object (a plant or a river, for example) to come into being, the object has no intended utility. The plant or river is a plant or a river. When man harnesses the natural object it gains utility. When man harvests or uses the plant it now has utility; we can use it to sustain us physically or we can use it to beautify our life. The flower, however, had no sense of utility, it was simply existing in nature before it was given purpose. In the case of natural entities, they are without utility until they are harnessed or consumed as a commodity. Northern rivers are without utility until they are harnessed to produce electricity. The point I am trying to make here is that natural things are without utility until man repurposes them.
Man made commodities have purpose from their inception. Without utility, they would not be created in the first place. They are created with a distinct, intended utility.
However, man made objects may have unintended utility. A screw driver may be re-purposed to pry paint can lids off, a butter knife may be used as a screwdriver.
It is our ingenuity and creativeness that allows us to use technology to produce outcomes beyond their intended purpose.
The challenge with technology in education is to see beyond the intended utility of the technology and to discover others means of harnessing the technology in ways that add utility to that technology, not to be constrained by the prima facie intent of the technology.

iPads in class

The recent announcement by St. James-Assiniboia school division that all junior high  students will be supplied with a tablet computer is an inevitable development. Whenever a new technology is introduced, the adoption of that new technology is certain. Those who develop the technology do so without knowing the impact that the implementation of the technology will have.  Those who developed the steam powered textile loom did not intend to create industrial sweat shops, Henry Ford's realization that the assembly line could make the personal auto affordable to the middle class did not extend to urban sprawl and air pollution.

The application of Mcluhan's tetrad to the use of tablet computers produces some interesting results. The use of tablet computers might enhance students technological skills, reduce the reliance on expensive and static textbooks, enable students to incorporate the Internet and personal media into the classrooms and will likely exacerbate the decline of handwriting skills. The impact on classroom culture and discipline will depend on the level of control that the teacher has on the use of technology in the classroom, as well as the level of expertise the classroom teacher has with the technology.
The level of resistance and apprehension that parents have expressed with the implementation of the technology is understandable and predictable.  As the Luddites and Sabots did earlier, the new technology is being resisted by those who are being compelled to adopt the new technology. (or, in this case, the parents of the children who will be adopting the new technology).
Questions are being raised about the cost, educational effectiveness and overall efficacy of the new technology, and rightly so. Educational institutions have often been early adopters of technology, and have been at the forefront of technological change.  Smart boards have replaced whiteboards and blackboards, graphing calculators replaced slide rules and you tube and Wikipedia are replacing films and libraries.
The usefulness of the technology will ultimately rely on the skill of the teacher. If the teacher is able to integrate the iPad into the curriculum so that learning is enhanced, then the technology will be a benefit. If not, it will just be another distraction.  Remember the open area classroom and $3000  sx286 computers?

Got to re-reading the interview with Dr. Johnson and decided to delve into who he was. I originally thought that perhaps Bolt Court on Fleet street might be a Fort Rouge reference, as there is a Fleet Street in Fort Rouge. A search of the Manitoba Historical Society turned up empty; no Bolt Court on Fleet St. existed, now nor in the 1930's. A Bolt Court on (the famous) Fleet Street in London did exist- and it had been home to Samuel Johnson, the well-known English essayist, moral philosopher and literary critic. He is perhaps best known today for his statement that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".
Although Johnson wrote many serious books as well as a comprehensive dictionary of the English language, his most popular book, tells the story of a young prince (Rasselas) and his sister who are transported to a place where there are no problems and every desire is immediately satisfied. Rasselas and his sister escape this paradise so that they may return to return to the normal world, where problems and unhappiness are common.
Although I admittedly know little about Marshall McLuhan, what I have heard and read leads me to conclude that the underpinning of his ideas was that society was (is)  wasting its potential on trivial matters and instant gratification. It seems fitting that McLuhan would seek (allegorically ) the counsel of Dr. Johnson for his views on "The Century of Progress". They both possess the view that instant gratification is ultimately unsatisfying. 

This Saturday's Free Press had an article by architect Brent Bellamy that said the key to revitalizing  cities was to encourage the "creative class" to set up shop, who would then drive the economy of the the city forward. How this is supposed to happen wasn't really explained beyond the assertion that the creative class tends to live and work downtown. Although  Bellamy didn't cite him, this is the same nonsense that has been promoted by pop theorist Richard Florida. Bellamy and Florida and the rest suffer from the same blinkered logic that many who identify as the "creative class" are fond of promoting. They imagine a world where cool people are occupied developing programs or designing cool stuff without considering who is going to make the cool stuff, and who is going to buy it? Utility and productivity are seen ( by the creative class) as remnants of a quaint bygone era, or as the domain of third world and developing countries whose competitive advantage is unassailable. Rather than competing with them, we are encouraged to re-invent ourselves as knowledge workers and designers. 
Bellamy and Florida ignore and diminish the role played by people with tactile skills and knowledge. In the first chapters of Sennett's "The Craftsman" the argument is made that craftsmanship encompasses much more than the narrowly defined craftsmanship of a carpenter or violin maker, that all who strive to do something well are craftsman.
In his book "Shopcraft as Soulcraft" Matthew Crawford argues that the kind of satisfaction that workers get from doing "real" hand on work is unavailable to those in the so-called knowledge based or creative spheres. The ability to do a thing well, for its own sake, is not the same as producing a technology or being able to produce a "creative" video game. It  is not the same as the satisfaction one gets from building a house or repairing a motorcycle, for eg.
It seems to me that philosophers tend to lump any skill (academic, musical and tactile) as "craftsmanship" together far too readily. As the saying goes, you can't hammer a nail or build a boat with the internet- no matter how creative you are.

I spent twenty-two years as an industrial electrician. For the last ten years of my electrical career I attended university where I studied philosophy and mathematics, as well as community college, where I earned a Voc. Ed. diploma. After student teaching, I started teaching in the electrical department at a regional high school. I soon transitioned into a math and technology educator, and eventually secured a position at an adult learning centre. I was at the learning centre for seven years.  During my time at the learning centre I earned a B.ED. I then went to Red River College, where I taught Related math and science, in the Access department and eventually the electrical department. I have recently accepted the position of Chairperson, Trades at ACC in Brandon. 

Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to teach students of every age and every ability- from kindergarten to college level. In my new position I have the responsibility observe other teachers in the classroom. Oftentimes, college instructors are hired for their technical expertise and will have little or no teaching experience. In the beginning of their career, new instructors think of themselves as the subject matter expert (SME) first and as an educator second. It is only after they have gained experience and confidence do they come to consider themselves as instructors first and SME second. This may seem like a subtle difference, but I think it has a profound effect on the effectiveness of the teacher. When the new instructor begins to think of themselves as a teacher of students, rather than an expert in a subject area they are capable of becoming better instructors.

Competent  instructors know their subject matter, and are able to impart knowledge to their students. The level of retention among students varies, but the instructor is primarily  a source of information.  Good and effective instructors engage their students as partners in a learning relationship. Rather than merely imparting information, good instructors provide their students with a learning environment that encourages learners to be active and engaged participants in their own learning. Because an active and engaged class is less predictable than a carefully scripted class, new instructors are often reluctant to surrender some authority and control in the classroom. Once they do, however, they are well on their way to becoming educators, and not  merely SME's who instruct 

Although my professional responsibilities no longer require me to be in the classroom, I still view my role as that as teacher first and supervisor/manager second. 
During a recent meeting, we (the management team of the college where I am chair of the Trades School) were asked who the college served. Most responded that the college served the student. However, I suggest that the role of the college is to serve the community as a whole- we serve the community, industry as well as the student. Colleges are governed by a board that is representative of the community, they consult with industry and business representatives annually, and ultimately gauge success by the success of their students. 
Satisfying the needs of diverse interests requires colleges to make difficult choices. If we responded solely to the needs of industry, colleges would focus on merely providing employees that would be useful to industry. However, colleges provide students with the skills that enable them to be productive employees but  also provides them with career mobility. Responding only to the  community would ignore the professional skills of the teachers and managers. We not only know are subject areas, we are also educators who understand curriculum and pedagogy. 
The  way best serve the community is to, therefore, serve the student. A well rounded student capable of reasonable and rational thinking is the strongest asset that we can provide.