Are Nietzsche and Heidegger too Dangerous to Read?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- The Pill Pod is joined by Professor Ronald Beiner, author of Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right (Link: amzn.to/33JC7DR). According to Beiner, the intellectual left has too uncritically accepted Nietzsche and Heidegger, who are extolled by modern fascists, and thus we are compelled to engage more rigorously with their illiberal philosophies.
Check out www.patreon.com/plasticpills to support the Pill Pod and dose up on exclusive episodes.
No author is too dangerous to read. The only people who say they are dangerous to read, are dangerous people.
"Nietzsche's orientation, as he himself insisted once more in Ecce Homo, was fundamentally anti-political" ('The Portable Nietzsche', Kaufmann, 1954, p.15).
To add to this specifically antipolitical, not apolitical
I read this book. I enjoyed it, but Beiners perspective is a bit of Heidegger / Nietzsche for me, but not for thee. There is a limitless amount of perspectives to extract from both minds and apply to new unknown contexts. I find advocating policing how they can be used and by whom is kind of insane. The dissident right are in R&D mode clearly, so it’s only natural they return here, but so are many feminists / xenofeminists / l accelerationists etc… (who isn’t engaging in their own personal Will to Power) are doing this too. Most of the right seem to be drifting more towards Kant / Bergson / Girard now, will the same rules apply when this is more common knowledge. As philosophers drift in / out trend (think deleuze right now) anybody can reterritorialze an idea to suit their personal goals, so where will this end? FYI I’m not any kind of conservative etc…
Foucault put Heidegger’s critiques of subjectivity / cartesian rationalism - but in theories of power / knowledge / discourse.
Lacan exploited Heidegger’s concepts of temporality, throwness, language and the ‘real’ into psychoanalysis.
Deleuze took on Heidegger’s conceptual strategies, rather than it’s particular concern of being.
Nm, didn’t finish the podcast prior to posting. Listening to the part where they start discussing liberalism now.
This is more of a milquetoast response from someone who consumes both the dissident right and breadtube content. From a normie optical lens, wouldn’t the approach to advocating policing of how these philosophical ideas are used just turn into a Red Scare-to-Brown Scare narrative where ideologues argue over which side accrued the higher body count. The end winner just being the status-quo Neo-liberal or Pinker-esque rationalist types?
36:30 The question about Nietschze not talking about politics but about art.
It's the same.
Nietschze thinks modern art sucks because it's flattened and has become banal because of equality and liberalism.
"fascism what it's it's anti-religious in general anyway"
In what universe? In which history book? Spain, Japan, Italy, all massivly into spiritualism. All their philosophers, Burke, Herder, Carlyle, Renan, Maurras, Sorel, Jung, ... Where does this idea come from?
“Where does that idea come from” from the mind of a demented leftist. As you point out, they were massively into spirituality and the occult
I side with Pills's criticism on this one. The author responded by calling it a common reading of Nietzsche whereas his real project was deeply political and imperialist. I am not convinced by this argument. If anything, Nietzsche was closer to an anarchist than a statist. The traces of this can be found find in Untimely Meditations already, as well as folloing Human, All Too Human and Daybreak. Nietzsche's politics are superficial compared to his other endeavours alright, but pushing him into this imperialist direction is a bit of an overstretch.
An intense discussion, I enjoyed it. The Nietzsche of The Gay Science/ Human All Too Human seems to be a completely different beast to his later raging books. I think these are my fave Nietzches as he is witty, full of contradiction and he is harder to pin down. He does the 'War is great'/ 'anybody who fights in a war is an idiot' kinda chic. The later books do become more problematical but his fire is so intense, you just have to read on. Just a few observations from a non-philosopher (I did my studies in archaeological sciences lol)
Problematic for who? Leftists?
I really wonder how this dude has a professor position. All this sounded like was baseless fearmongering. He couldn't even define fascism and danced around it when asked, and he obviously misinterpreted Nietzsche. Shame, this topic seemed like it would be really interesting
I'm highly critical of the notion that the Nietzschean project being the destruction of egalitarian society. Although that critique is there and is prominent I find skepticism and the critique of philosophies of ''form'', ''essence'' and ''otherworldliness'' to be much more prominent. I find the combination of Plato combined with Judeo-Christian worldview to be the original enemy of Nietzsche and not the Jewish by itself.
The destruction of otherworldliness (Platonism) and Christianity (Semitic mode of thought in general) goes hand in hand with Nietzsches critique of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism didn’t grow out of a vacuum; it’s the culminationof judeo-Christianity with the advent of Protestantism on the one and and the enlightenment on the other (separation of church and state = the democratization of statehood). Saying that Nietzsche wasn’t vehemently anti-egalitarian is like saying Plato was an sophist and an relativist.
Wow. That guy really wants Nietzsche to be political hey
The gross misreading of Nietzsche by this guy is disturbing
I wish the moderators had put more pressure on the guest to define what he considers Fascism. Real Fascism existed only in Italy. Hitler was an ethno-national socialist and stated he did not like Italian Fascism. Franco was not a Fascist nor was he an ethno-national socialist. Unfortunately, too many people want to throw the term Fascism around to identify conservatives or people they disagree with politically. It is intellectually dishonest. Fascists are totalitarians but not all Totalitarians are Fascists. The ethno-national socialists in Germany at that time were truly evil, and must be identified as such. But to mislabel them or mislabel others as being one dilutes the ethno-national socialists historical accountability and their inherent evil.
I don't think it matters how many words you string together to obfuscate the fact of the matter or what Hitler thought he was when he was in power, Hitler behaved like a fascist by definition so that's what he was and that's what the vast majority of academics educated on the topic consider him to be. To dispute that is suspect to say the least for several reasons.
This guy is a modern-day chicken little...
@@TylerRein"behaved like a fascist by definition" by what definition? That's the point of the comment. There is not one definition; it has become a catch-all term that ultimately means nothing besides "bad"
I hate the equivalence between “equality” and the left. Liberty. Liberty is what all leftists are concerned with, and I’m alarmed that we’ve allowed this mathematical phrase to infiltrate our vocabulary. What is political “equality?” I don’t want gay and straight people to be “equal”. I want them to have the LIBERTY to love who they love.
In this way, I think a lot of Nietzsches ideas can absolutely be adapted to leftist thought, as many of the underlying sentiments handily lends themselves to liberty, even if Nietzsche himself went to the opposite conclusion.
TLDR, stop using the fucking word “equality.”