Latent idea of free will in modern thought

Even in viewpoints that ostensibly oppose the existence of free will, there is inevitably a latent premise of free will.  This is unavoidable as all thought rely on language; and through language the implication of free will creeps into most propositions. Words like "I" invariable engenders questions of free will. "I" by cultural precedent and practical considerations always indicate the existence of a free individual. Therefore, any argument against free will that relies on natural languages will have holes in them. But this doesn't disprove free will. Lack of evidence against is never evidence for. The lack of free will is something that has to be felt. But then again that same man feels free will too. 

An objective yardstick to genius.

What separates the genius of a child taking his first step from the genius of a Mozart is hardly a step in a million.

A case to arouse opinions on morality

Heidegger's tryst with Nazism is surely enough for all his opinions to be invalidated. A man who associated with something as grossly inhumane as Nazism is surely unfit to theorize about humanity.

An alternate perspective the above fact about heidegger will surely arouse moralistic opinions in almost all; from the stoics to the most objective materialists.  It is this: that Nazism far from being inhumane is the most humane.  Humane, maybe not in the traditional sense of being compassionate, but in a more literal sense of representing the essence of humanism. From the traditional sense of the word we have such usages as, "the boy treated the dog humanely by feeding it", and the negative, "boy treated the dog in humanely by hurting it." But we now know having tasted the fruit of right and wrong that is scientific enlightenment, that this traditional usage is outdated. Cruelty is as human as kindness. So it could be said, "humanely tortured"  as we used to say, "humanely treated". So it cannot be held against heidegger that he as inhumane. He was just justhumane.