Precisely on that day Pupi’s (Adolfo Rotblat) trial occurs, a trial in which I did not take part. When we arrived, Massetti, who was our boss, informs us that he was going to be executed. I ask him why. And he tells me that Pupi wasn’t well, that his betrayal was only a matter of time, that he was behaving strange, making noise with pots and so on; that he was out of his mind. I also though he was in a bad state, but didn’t see him as a danger to us. The he says: “Well, it’s gonna be you who shoots him in the forehead”. I say I’m not going to shoot anyone and then my brother tells me to shut up. My brother was there and also Canelo, a guy who is in Cuba now. So the execution was made. I wasn’t there because I went out with the new guys (who didn’t know anything about this), I took them for a walk through the mountain range. When I arrived, things had happen, but everything kept going. I think some faces had changed. (Jouvé) And the second one: And in that camp, one of the boys, one of the former bankers, who I don’t know how could be on the mountains due to his lack of skills, I think he hadn’t ever been out of the office before, he broke down…I think everyone felt bad about he breaking down (…) So, well, a trial is done against him, the banker boy (Bernardo Groswald). That trial ends in an execution. We were there when they shot him. I couldn’t believe it. I think it was a crime, because he was crushed, he seemed like a psychiatric patient. I believe we are all responsible in a way, because we all were involved in that, in making the revolution. (Jouvé) A month after the publication of Jouvé’s testimony (that is, December 2004), Oscar Del Barco (Argentinian philosopher, poet and former member of the communist party) writes a letter in response to Jouve’s interview. In the letter (entitled “No Matarás” (‘Thou Shall not Kill’)), Del Barco confronts revolutionary politics and discuss the two executions mentioned by Jouvé pointing at the way in which left-wing and guerrilla movement politics worked (and still do). He appeals (in a secular way, he remarks) to this negative injunction “No matarás” in order to show how revolutionary politics operates within the same logic as the system they are trying to overthrow, in this fragment …show more content…
For Heidegger, human essence is not human being but Being, and so far philosophy has blocked the question about Being. In this sense, he interrogates the use of the word humanism by Sartre and other philosophers, for they have not been true to the essence of Being; and curiously enough, instead of abandoning the term he asks whether it should be preserved and even appropriates it for moments, claiming for “a ‘humanism’ that contradicts all previous humanism –although in no way advocates the inhuman…” (“Letter on ‘Humanism’ 263). Here, although he expresses his reluctance in using the term, Heidegger seems more worried about defining it correctly than about abandoning it. He claims that the metaphysical register under which humanism operates “thinks of the human being on the basis of animalitas and does not think in the direction of his humanitas.” (“Letter on ‘Humanism’ 246-7). It is clear that Heidegger believes that, paradoxically, despite exalting the human being, humanism does not pose the human high enough. He seems to be more humanist than