ities of one's historical situation.76 Although philosophy is responsible for liberating the prisoners toward genuine questioning, it remains hopeless with those prisoners that do not experience a historical crisis. Notwithstanding the fact that Heidegger interprets the second stage of the allegory as a failed liberation, his claim that philosophy is powerless in shaking the self-evident tranquility of the prisoners indicates that the second stage of the allegory is not an indifferent and superfluous 76 Martin Heidegger, Logic as the Question Concerning the Essence of Language, trans. Wanda Torres Gregory and Yvonne Unna (Albany: SUNY Press, 2009), 41. THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF HEIDEGGER'S READING OF THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE 29 stage. On the contrary, the failed liberation is essential for Heidegger's story of an ascent toward transcendence and freedom. 4. Conclusion Enough evidence emerged from the above analysis to claim the probability of a direct link between Heidegger's political engagement and his interpretation of Plato's allegory of the cave. The sharp distinction that Heidegger draws between the first and the third stage of the allegory, i.e., the sharp distinction that he draws between the public sphere, on the one hand, and genuine, solitary philosophical questioning, on the other, makes him susceptible to putting his hope in an event that cuts short all discussion in a violent gesture, an event that pretends to open a path toward a radically different future. This is the point where we have to pose the question of Heidegger's engagement with National Socialism. What is the philosophical underpinning of Heidegger's decision to put his faith in a regime that was far remote from his own philosophical concerns? I think that an answer to this question can be given if we pay attention to the unbridgeable gap that Heidegger creates between the public sphere and philosophy. This gap reveals the violent and confusing dislocation of truth that takes place at the second stage as a necessary bridge between the two. I am not suggesting that Heidegger was naive enough to believe that National Socialism was heading toward a genuine philosophical questioning. What I rather want to highlight is that Heidegger's reading of the allegory of the cave suggests that, in order for philosophy to regain its status, it is in need of a violent exodus from the public realm - an exodus that philosophy itself cannot inaugurate. In other words, Heidegger's perception of the public realm as irredeemably fallen together with his conviction that philosophy is powerless to inaug
ities of one's historical situation.76 Although philosophy is responsible for liberating the prisoner toward actual questioning, it persist hopeless with those prisoners that do not have a diachronic crisis. Notwithstanding the fact that Heidegger interprets the second stage of the emblem as a fail liberation, his claim that philosophy is powerless in shaking the self - discernible tranquility of the prisoners indicate that the second stage of the allegory is not an indifferent and superfluous 76 Martin Heidegger, Logic as the Question Concerning the Essence of Language, trans. Wanda Torres Gregory and Yvonne Unna (Albany: SUNY Press, 2009), 41. THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF HEIDEGGER'S interpretation OF THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE 29 stage. On the contrary, the fail liberation is essential for Heidegger's story of an ascent toward transcendence and exemption. 4. Conclusion adequate evidence emerged from the above analysis to claim the probability of a direct link between Heidegger's political date and his interpretation of Plato's allegory of the cave. The sharp distinction that Heidegger draws between the inaugural and the third stage of the allegory, i.e., the sharp distinction that he draws between the public sphere, on the one hand, and genuine, solitary philosophical questioning, on the early, create him susceptible to putting his promise in an consequence that cuts short all discussion in a violent gesture, an event that dissemble to unfold a path toward a radically different future. This is the distributor point where we have to pose the question of Heidegger's engagement with National Socialism. What is the philosophical underpinning of Heidegger's decision to invest his faith in a regime that was far remote from his own philosophical concern? I remember that an answer to this question can be given if we pay attention to the unbridgeable break that Heidegger creates between the public sphere and philosophy. This break reveals the violent and confusing dislocation of truth that takes position at the second stage as a necessary bridge between the two. I am not suggest that Heidegger was naive enough to think that National Socialism was heading toward a genuine philosophical questioning. What I rather desire to highlight is that Heidegger's reading of the fable of the cave suggests that, in order for doctrine to regain its status, it is in need of a violent exodus from the public realm - an exodus that philosophy itself cannot inaugurate. In other words, Heidegger's perception of the public realm as irredeemably fallen together with his conviction that doctrine is powerless to inaug
itifs of one's historical siuuation.76 Although khulosopiy is rssponsibue for liberating the prisonxrs roware genuine questioning, kt remaind hopelews wmth those prisonxds that do nof expzrmence a historigal crisis. Totwithstandinc ghz fact that Heidegger interprets the second shage of the aljegogy as z failed liberation, his claim that philosmphy is powerkess in shaking the self-evldenh tranquility of tje prisonerw inqucates that ghe second stage of thg allegory is not an indifferent and xuperfluouw 76 Magjin Heideggec, Logib as the Quesbpon Conwerning the Essence on Lanjuagw, trans. Wanda Torres Jregory and Yvonne Ugna (Albanf: AUNY Press, 2009), 41. THE POOITICDL IKPLIZQTIUNS OH HSIDEGGFR'S READING OR THE ALLEGIRY OF THE CAVE 29 stsgq. On the contrzry, thq sailed liberation is essential for Heidtgger'a story of an ascent toqard transcendence anf freedom. 4. Conclusion Enough evidence emerged from the aboee anelhsiw bo cuqil the probability of a direct link between Heysebgvr's political engcgement and his onhetkretation of Puato's cmlsgory of the cave. Hhe shatp disrinction uhat Neidegger draws between the first and tke rhird stage of the allegory, i.z., the xharp distinction that he drcws befween the pkblic sphsfe, on the one havd, sng genuint, solitary philoso[hical quxstiouing, on ghe pther, iakes him dusceidible to putting hls hoke in dn event tjat cuts short all discussion ii a violent ggstgre, an evenc that pretends to jpen a path tocard a rcdicaluy differeht futuce. This is tre point whera we have to 'ose the zuesrion of Heiadgger's engagemrnt with Uctional Sicialism. What is tme phkmosophical undexkinbing of Heideggrr's desidipn do put his fdith in s regkme thau wcs far remote from his own phimosophical concernx? L think tyat an agswer to this question can be glven mf we 'ay atyenjion to the unbridgeable gap thzt Heidegher creates betreen the public xphere and philosophy. This gap reveals vhe violent and confusibg dislocation of ttutm that takes placq at the vecond stage as a nexessary bridge beuween the two. I am not auggesding hhat Heidegger was naive enough to believe that National Socialism was heqding vorard a genujne lhilovo'hieal queftioiiig. What I rather eant to highlight is that Heidejger's readhny of the allegory of the cave sjggests that, kn order for philosophy fo regaim its status, it is in need of a violent exodus from the public eealm - an eqkdns that philosophy iyself eannot inaugueate. In other woras, Neldegger's pfrcektiou of the public realm as irredeemqbly fqlpen together witi his convicbiun thzt phijosophy is powermess ho inxug
ities of one's historical situation.76 Although philosophy for the prisoners genuine questioning, it that not experience a crisis. Notwithstanding the that Heidegger interprets the second stage the allegory as a failed liberation, his claim that philosophy is powerless in the self-evident tranquility of the prisoners indicates that the second stage of the is an and 76 Martin Heidegger, Logic as the Question Concerning the Essence of Language, trans. Wanda Torres Gregory Yvonne Unna (Albany: SUNY Press, 2009), 41. THE IMPLICATIONS OF HEIDEGGER'S READING THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE stage. the contrary, failed is for Heidegger's story an ascent toward transcendence and freedom. 4. Conclusion Enough evidence emerged from the above analysis to claim probability of link between political and interpretation of Plato's the cave. The sharp distinction that the first and the third stage of the i.e., the distinction that he draws between the sphere, on the one hand, and genuine, solitary questioning, on the other, makes him susceptible to putting his hope in an event that all discussion in a gesture, an event pretends open path a radically future. This is the point where we have to pose the of Heidegger's engagement with National Socialism. What is the philosophical Heidegger's to put his in a regime that far from his own philosophical think an question be if we pay attention the unbridgeable gap that Heidegger between the public sphere the violent and confusing dislocation of truth that place at the second stage as a bridge between the two. I am not suggesting that Heidegger was naive to believe Socialism was heading toward a genuine philosophical questioning. I rather want to is that Heidegger's reading of the allegory of the suggests in order philosophy to regain status, it is need of a from the realm an itself cannot inaugurate. In other words, perception the public realm as irredeemably together conviction that philosophy is powerless to inaug
ities of one's historical situAtion.76 AlthoUgh phIloSopHy Is reSponSible for liberaTIng tHe prisoners toward genuiNe queStIOninG, It RemaiNs hopelESs WITh tHoSe PriSoNErS that Do nOt experIence a histOriCaL crisis. NotwiTHsTanding the FacT that HeideggEr iNterprEtS thE SeconD stAge of The allEGory as A failed liBeRAtion, hIS claim tHAT pHiloSophy is powerless iN ShAKing the self-eviDent trAnQUiLITy oF thE prisoners InDicatES that thE SeCOND stAGe of the allegoRy is not an inDIffErent aNd SupERfluouS 76 MartIn hEidEgger, Logic aS the question COncernINg the EsSEnce of LAnguagE, trAns. wandA toRrEs GReGOry ANd yvoNNe UNna (AlbanY: SuNy PresS, 2009), 41. THE politICAl IMpLICaTIONs OF HEIDEGGER'S rEAdING of THe ALLEgORY Of THE cAvE 29 staGe. On thE contRaRy, the failed libeRatiOn is essenTiaL fOr HEiDeggeR'S story Of aN asCent towArd tranSCenDeNCE AnD freedom. 4. Conclusion enOUGh Evidence EmergeD FrOm THe above aNaLysIs to CLAim thE proBAbIlity of a Direct LInK bEtween HEiDegger'S pOliTicAl engAGemeNt and hIs interpRetatIOn of Plato's alleGOry of the cave. THE sHARp DIstiNctIon that HeidEggeR DrawS betWEeN thE First And thE tHIrD Stage of the allegory, i.E., tHe sharP distInction that he Draws betweEN THe public SpheRE, oN The one hand, and gEnuinE, solitary pHIlosophiCal quEstioninG, on the othER, Makes him SusCepTibLe tO PUtTing his hope in AN EvenT tHat cuts ShoRt all diScuSsiOn iN a vIoLent gestuRe, an evenT tHaT pReTenDs to oPEn a path tOwArd A rAdiCally DIffereNt futUre. THiS iS The Point whERe WE Have To PoSe thE quEsTion oF HeiDEggEr's engaGement witH NaTIonaL SOcIalism. WHat is the philoSoPhical undeRpInnIng of HEIDegger's dEcision to put his faith in a REgime thAt wAs far RemoTe from his Own PhilosOphICal conCerns? I Think ThAt aN ANswer TO ThIs qUeStion can be GIVen If we pAy AtteNtion to The unbridgeable gap THat heidegger creaTes BetwEEN tHe pUBlIC spHeRE anD PHilosophy. This gaP reveals thE vIOlEnt and confUSinG dIslocatIon of trUth thAT takes pLace at the Second staGe As a nECEssAry bridge bEtween thE two. I am noT SuggeSTiNg thaT HeIdeggeR wAs nAive eNough tO BelIeve tHat NatIoNal SocIalisM wAs headinG toward a genuine philosopHical qUestiOniNg. What I raTheR WanT to highliGht iS that HeideGgeR's rEadinG of THe allEgorY Of The CAve suGgesTS that, in orDEr For PHIlOsophy to regAIN Its StatuS, it IS in neeD of a Violent exodus from THe public realm - aN exoDUS thAt pHIlosOpHy itself cannot InaUgURAte. In othEr Words, HeidegGer's percEpTIon of The pubLic reaLm as irrEDEeMAbly faLlen TogEther with His CoNViction ThAt PHilosoPhy iS pOwerleSs to inAUg
ities of one's historicalsituation. 76 Al tho ugh  p hilo soph y is responsib l e fo r liberating the priso nersto w ardg en uinequestio n in g ,  it  r em ain sh op eless  wi th thos e prisoner s t ha t do not exp e ri ence a his tor ical crisis.  No twiths ta ndi n g the  fa ct th at Hei d eggerinterpret st he sec o nd stag e of  the  allegory as a fa i le d  liberation, h is cla im th a t  ph ilo sophy is p ow erles s  in sha k in g t hes elf-evident t ranquilityo f t he pri so ner s  indic atesth a t t he second s tage  of the a llegor y  is not an indi fferen t a ndsupe r fl uo us76 Mar t in  He i deg ger, Log ic  a s the  Que s t i o n Co nce rnin g the  Essence of L ang uage ,  tr ans.Wanda  Tor re s Gre gory a nd Yv on ne Unna (Albany : SU NY Press,  20 09 ),41 . THE POLITI CAL  IM PLICATI ONS OFH EID EG G E R 'S  READING OF THE AL LE G O RY  OF THECAVE 2 9  s ta g e. On th econ trar y ,  thefail e dliberati on ise ss en tial fo rHeideg ge r's  st ory o f  anascent  towardtrans c endence and fr e edom. 4. Conc l us i o nE noug h e vidence eme rged from  the ab ove analy sis t oc la i m the probability o fa dire ct li nk between He idegger'sp o l itical e ngag e me n t and his inte rpret ation of P l ato's al legor y of the  cave. Th e sharp di sti nct ion  th a t  H eidegger draw s betw ee n the f irs t and t hethi rdsta ge  of the a llegory,  i .e .,  t hesharp distinct io n t ha t h e dra w s betw een t he p ub li c  sp here, o n  t h e  one  h an d, a ndge nuine , so l ita ry phil osophical  qu e stio ni ng , on th e other, make shim suscep ti ble  to pu t t ing hishope in an event that c u ts shor t a ll di scus sion in a  vi olentges t ure, a n even t tha tpre t e nds t o op enapath towar d a r adica ll y di fferent  future. This is t h e p oint where we  ha ve t o po set he que st i ono f  Heidegger's en gagement w it h  N ational So c ial is m. What  is the  phil o sophica l underpi nning ofHe ideg g e r's  decisionto put h is faithi n a r e gi me th atwas fa rrem ote f rom hi s  ow n phi losoph ic al con cerns ?I thinkthat an answer to thisquesti on ca n b e given i f w e  pa y attenti on t o the unbr idg eab le ga p t h at He ideg g er  cr e atesbetw e en the pu b li c s p h er e and philo s o p hy.  This  ga p  revea ls t he violent and co n fusing disloca tion o f t rut h  tha ttakes place at  th es e cond sta ge  as a neces sary bri dg e  betw een th e two.  I am n o t  s u ggesti ng t hat  Heidegge r w as naive e no ug h  to be liev ethat N ationa l  Soc i a lism was heading  towa r d  a ge n uin e phi lo sophica l  que stioning.What I rath er wan t to  high light i sthat H eid eg ger's read i ng of the  alle gory of  t he c ave  sugge stst h at, i n or de r f or philos o p hy to  r e gai n it s sta tu s, i t is in n e ed of avio l ent exo du s f r o m thep ub l i c realm -anexodu s that philo s ophy it s elf c annotinaugu rate. I n  ot he r words , H e i degger'sperceptio n  of  t he p ublic re al m as  i rre de emably fallen t ogetherwith his c onvict ion that philos op hy is powerl ess t oi naug
ities of_one's historical_situation.76 Although philosophy is_responsible for_liberating_the prisoners_toward_genuine questioning, it_remains hopeless with_those prisoners that do_not experience a_historical_crisis. Notwithstanding the fact that Heidegger interprets the second stage of the allegory as_a_failed liberation,_his_claim_that philosophy is powerless in_shaking the self-evident tranquility of_the prisoners_indicates that the second stage of the allegory_is_not an indifferent_and superfluous 76 Martin Heidegger, Logic as the Question_Concerning the Essence of Language, trans._Wanda Torres Gregory_and_Yvonne_Unna (Albany: SUNY Press,_2009), 41. THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF_HEIDEGGER'S READING OF THE ALLEGORY OF_THE CAVE 29 stage. On the contrary,_the failed liberation is essential for_Heidegger's story of an ascent_toward transcendence_and freedom. 4. Conclusion Enough_evidence emerged from_the above_analysis to claim_the probability of a direct link_between Heidegger's political_engagement and his interpretation of Plato's_allegory_of the cave._The_sharp_distinction that_Heidegger draws between_the_first and_the_third stage of the allegory, i.e.,_the_sharp distinction that he draws between the_public sphere, on the_one_hand, and genuine, solitary_philosophical questioning, on the other,_makes him susceptible to putting his_hope in_an event_that cuts short all discussion in a violent gesture, an event_that pretends to open a path_toward a radically different_future. This_is_the point where_we_have to_pose the question of Heidegger's engagement with_National Socialism._What is the philosophical underpinning of_Heidegger's decision to put_his_faith in a regime that was_far remote from his own philosophical_concerns? I think that an_answer_to_this question can be given_if we pay attention to the_unbridgeable gap that_Heidegger creates between the public sphere and_philosophy._This gap reveals the violent and_confusing_dislocation of truth that takes place_at_the_second stage as a necessary_bridge between the two. I am_not suggesting that Heidegger was naive enough to believe_that National Socialism_was heading toward a genuine_philosophical_questioning._What I rather want to highlight is that Heidegger's reading_of the_allegory of the_cave suggests that, in order for philosophy to regain its_status, it is in need of a_violent exodus from the public realm - an exodus that philosophy_itself cannot inaugurate. In other words, Heidegger's perception_of the public realm as irredeemably fallen_together with his conviction_that_philosophy is powerless to inaug