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
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
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.