Every few decades, writes Adam Kirsch, the fact that Martin Heidegger was enthusiastic about Nazism—and not just “an unworldly man who briefly blundered into it”—seems to be rediscovered, and promptly forgotten again. The latest rediscovery has come with the publication of the philosopher’s Black Notebooks, now partially available in English, as well as a volume of scholarly essays about them. Based on the former, Kirsch expounds on the connection between Heidegger’s rejection of ethics and his embrace of the Third Reich:

Of course, Heidegger’s thought does not lead directly to fascism. . . . But in an important sense, Heidegger leaves the door open for fascism, because he values the intensity and authenticity of a belief over its goodness or truthfulness. In a world defined by nihilism, any source of strong new beliefs and convictions is potentially redemptive. That is why, in the early days of the Hitler dictatorship, Heidegger could take the new Nazi regime as a potential source of new values—an assertion of will that would create an entirely new spiritual and philosophical world.

Nonetheless, admirers of Heidegger persist in finding reasons to ignore his inconvenient beliefs. Now that the Black Notebooks, which contain explicit references to Jews, make his anti-Semitism undeniable, apologists assert, correctly, that Heidegger disavowed any condemnation of Jews based on their biological race:

But this is hardly exculpatory. On the contrary, [Heidegger’s comments on Jews] bring anti-Semitism into the central precincts of his thought. For Heidegger, the “uprooting of beings from Being,” [which he blames on the Jews], was the metaphysical curse of the modern world, the source of the nihilism that afflicted humanity. . . .

Heidegger is a writer who cultivates a mystique of complexity; this is part of what attracted me to him because it makes reading him feel like an arduous quest that promises high rewards. And it is quite true that with such a subtle and profound thinker, Nazism and anti-Semitism will take subtle and “profound” forms. But this does not mean that our judgment on them is not, in the end, simple. The most important thing we have to learn from Heidegger today is how the allure of profundity and authenticity can lead to the destruction of ethics and of thought itself.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.