Heidegger's Relationship With The Fur Principle

Several Greek city-states had the government form of an oligarchy, where the small group of people wield the ruling power. They were considered the highest class as political power was shared amongst the group (Carr). The groups were formed based off of aristocratic birth or wealth (Carr). Unlike this class, the lower class citizens in the oligarchy did not share the same rights as they lacked full political rights and were not eligible to rule (Carr). They are thus excluded from voting or having any type of say for any political decision for the city-state Furthermore, the right to vote or to be eligible for power was based off of wealth in this government form. In contrast to this government for his city-state lived under, Aristotle explores
what determines and qualifies someone to rule for the political community. Aristotle states that the “only virtue that is distinctive of the ruler” is intelligence (Aristotle 1277b26). Most importantly, he discusses the type of ruler that “must have the knowledge and ability both to be ruled and to rule (Aristotle 1277b16).” He describes this type of rule of one that must be learned – one must be ruled in order to rule. This idea is definitely contrasted by his government form of an oligarchy where the rulers in power mostly have not been ruled before. In Heidegger’s rectorate speech, there is an affinity between leadership and ruling towards Nazi ideology of leadership.
Heidegger states that, “for what is decisive in leading is not just that one walk ahead of the others, but that one have the strength to be able to walk alone, not out of obstinacy and a craving for power, but empowered by the deepest vocation and broadest obligation (Heidegger 6)”. This statement has an underlying relationship with the Fuhrer Principle – “the independence of all factional interests, but unconditional dependence on the people (“The Führer Principle”).” Furthermore, his statement about university teacher leadership holds the value that all the students are there for the sake of the teacher and that they have the recognition and distinction that whatever they do is
necessary. Heidegger’s subjection to science also has a certain affinity to the expected self-subjection for the mass of people under Nazi Rule. Heidegger notes that, “only if we resolutely submit to this distant injunction in order to gain again the greatness of the beginning (Heidegger 4).” He was talking about “the injunction to return to the beginning of science in the era of the Greeks (Summary #14).” However, the similarity is this certain self-subjection that he proposes they must follow in order to achieve “greatness” – similarly to the how Nazi propaganda urged the people to follow the movement for greatness as well ("The Führer Principle."). The self-subjection one must follow is one that they must trust without complete reason. Similarly to the Fuhrer principle, the masses of people should not question the Fuhrer’s decisions – they must subject themselves to his rule as they trust his decisions for greatness. Although America is not an oligarchy, as to how Aristotle’s system was, they both hold similarities among one another. In my opinion, the problem with American government/economy is that many of the rich have a lot of power which affects the way in which US government functions. In particular, the one percent of America holds a lot of control within elections through their enormous contributions to candidates. In addition, they also are able to control Congress as lobbyists are able to use their money to pass legislations they support them. Although these statements are a bit general and are under certain restrictions or circumstances, the US government is influenced by a certain group of wealthy Americans to an extent. Similarly, to the oligarchy, the one percent has influence in representation in elections and satisfying their needs as compared to the masses of citizens. The choices and powers of Aristotle’s governing council, the Fuhrer, and the US president all have their own distinctions.
The governing council allows for a collective organization to be in control compared to the masses. If the best intelligence is in rule together, then their combination of excellence will be able to act together and together have an adequate sense to make decisions. Aristotle’s system also favors the masses for them to collectively control different functions. In contrast, the Fuhrer holds all the choices and powers of the state as the dictator. Their rule is not to be questioned by the masses as they hold the Fuhrer Principle ("The Führer Principle."). This type of rule called for the “obedience of all subordinates”, whether it may be the people or top officials, as all aspects of life were to be determined and controlled by the party ("The Führer Principle."). In contrast, the US president has numerous powers and choices granted by the Constitution, but they do not hold all the power of the state due to constraints and checks. The US president has several executive powers as the commander in chief of the Army, making treaties, nominating ambassadors, calling executive orders, etc. (Trueman).” However, their powers and decisions are kept under control by the other institutions through approval, review, interpretation, etc.
(Trueman).”