Thursday, January 21, 2010

Basman v. Basman

1. See:

2. In the matter of

Itzik Basman


Muni Basman

Judgment of the Court

Late in 2009, Muni Basman, Itzik Basman and Aviva Basman enjoyed a lovely dinner at a restaurant on College St. During the meal, Muni mentioned a book or article arguing that Heidegger's theories should not be considered philosophy because his ideas are offensive. Itzik doubted that such a book/article existed and challenged Muni to produce evidence in support. Itzik bet Muni $100 that he could not produce such evidence. Muni accepted the wager. I was asked to judge the sufficiency of the evidence.

In December 2009, after I settled the question of the debate, Muni submitted a review of Emmanuel Faye's book, “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy,” written by Patricia Cohen of the New York Times online books section (

Shortly thereafter, Itzik suggested that we should read Faye's book directly.

Itzik also argued that Faye disputed Heidegger's legitimacy as a philosopher because his ideas do not amount to philosophy, that they are nothing more than "high falutin hate speech", and not because they were offensive per se. In addition to relying on Ms Cohen's review, Itzik provided a lengthy article by Carlin Romano, a critic for The Review in support of his theory.

Having considered Ms Cohen's article, Mr. Romano's article and Itzik submissions, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there exists a book arguing that Heidegger's theories should not be considered philosophy because his ideas are offensive.

For the purpose of this wager, I am satisfied that I can rely on both reviews of Faye's book, which both come from reputable sources. Both of the book reviews have persuaded me that Faye's questioning of Heidegger's legitimacy as a philospher is inextricably linked to Heidegger's offensive views as a Nazi.

As such, the Court Orders that Muni Basman has won the wager.

Itzik Basman is ordered to pay Muni $100.00 forthwith.

The Honourable Justice Aviva Basman

1 comment:

  1. The time for appealing is over. But were I to appeal it would be because the best evidence is comprised by reading Faye's book, not accounts of it.