Home
Portal
Latest images
Search
Register
Log in
there are some misanthropes who, even though recognizing the joke that the world has become, are nonetheless of a lower type even than those whom have made the world the joke that it is and are held in contempt therefore. this type of misanthrope gets his revenge vicariously through the active nihilist. he can't do anything about what he believes is the problem, himself, so he pretends he has something to do, through the proxy of ideas, with the heroic effort made by the active nihilist to destroy; if he hasn't the opportunity to destroy himself, he thinks his encouragement for those who do, affords him some kind of credit for whatever is done. this manner of disingenuous cowardice makes him even more contemptible than the former type; those who don't understand the joke that the world has become can't be accosted for remaining passively subsumed by it, and are therefore free from blame. but those who do, and choose to do nothing but incessantly complain about it, earn a double serving of contempt from the nihilist.
if one had to narrow it down, there would be three types. those who make things happen, those who watch what happens, and those who don't know what happens. the last type characterizes most- those ordinary people who pass through life with that kind of placid happiness only someone who is content and therefore oblivious to all the conflict around them, can experience. the second type is the most contemptible, because they know what's going on... but they don't participate... instead they watch and cheer on those who do participate. they want to have something to do with all the action around them, but don't have the balls to get in the game themselves. the next best thing then, is to become a cheerleader. this way they convince themselves that because they were so encouraging, they can get some credit for the win. but the win doesn't belong to them. they have nothing to do with it. their only contribution is the insignificant noise they've made in the background.
there are a lot of philosophers and thinkers like this. they like to think of themselves as 'subversive', 'seditious', as 'rebels' against the current establishments of thought. the make a lot of noise... which they call a 'critique' of some inconsequential philosophy... which is only another kind of noise.
there are a few ways in which marx hit the bullseye. one way was his descriptive historical materialism (but certianly not his prescriptive approach to the problems it yielded), and another was this quip: philosophers have only hitherto interpreted the world. the point is to change it.
that single insight calls into question so many idle and impotent self proclaimed 'philosophers' as to almost require a level four quarantine to contain them all and shut them up.
speaking of the sudden and profound appearance of marx; the lesson the zeitgeist was to teach with marx was not that communism is a solution. rather it was to provide an opportunity to re-frame the question so that the problem disappeared; marxism was the last error about human nature. there were only a few who garnered this message clearly from the zeitgeist, among whom was the most important, ... or at least most influential... max stirner.
... and recently there has been some talk about a new understanding of nietzsche's attitude toward anarchism. one could call the ubermensch neither slave nor master? of course... for two reasons. well for three. politics is underneath him. there is nobody left in the world for him to lead (ergo, the herd; what does the politics of herding matter to the ubermensch?). only his own eternal recurrence is worthy of his concern. hegel was wrong, but right. the end of the transcendental dialectic of history is neither transcendent nor does it finalize at the stage of the absolute spirit. it is immanent, worldly and of the body... pertains only to the individual subject who improves himself through struggle, and forever recurs.
what prevents any final social solidarity, and therefore any purpose for politics, is first the ontological inequality of all things (things literally can't be equal), and second, the result of the first; unequal trials, tribulations, obstacles, and anything else that builds one's constitution through the unequal conflicts they face in life... often enough, ironically, as a result of somebody else's bullshit (second proof of inequality). you end up with an unequal ranking of types through attrition... and would need a dynanometer to establish those ranks. that being the case, there are only relatively and temporarily stable cases of 'we' or 'us'... but there is always the case of 'i".
the extent of the ubermensch's social involvement (he is essentially anti-social, for obvious reasons) exists in the asking of the only two questions worth any of his attention in the discourse of human beings; "what can you do that's fantastic?" and "can you prevent your incompetence, nonsense and bullshit from becoming my problem?"
everything else is noise. superficial chatter.
if one had to narrow it down, there would be three types. those who make things happen, those who watch what happens, and those who don't know what happens. the last type characterizes most- those ordinary people who pass through life with that kind of placid happiness only someone who is content and therefore oblivious to all the conflict around them, can experience. the second type is the most contemptible, because they know what's going on... but they don't participate... instead they watch and cheer on those who do participate. they want to have something to do with all the action around them, but don't have the balls to get in the game themselves. the next best thing then, is to become a cheerleader. this way they convince themselves that because they were so encouraging, they can get some credit for the win. but the win doesn't belong to them. they have nothing to do with it. their only contribution is the insignificant noise they've made in the background.
there are a lot of philosophers and thinkers like this. they like to think of themselves as 'subversive', 'seditious', as 'rebels' against the current establishments of thought. the make a lot of noise... which they call a 'critique' of some inconsequential philosophy... which is only another kind of noise.
there are a few ways in which marx hit the bullseye. one way was his descriptive historical materialism (but certianly not his prescriptive approach to the problems it yielded), and another was this quip: philosophers have only hitherto interpreted the world. the point is to change it.
that single insight calls into question so many idle and impotent self proclaimed 'philosophers' as to almost require a level four quarantine to contain them all and shut them up.
speaking of the sudden and profound appearance of marx; the lesson the zeitgeist was to teach with marx was not that communism is a solution. rather it was to provide an opportunity to re-frame the question so that the problem disappeared; marxism was the last error about human nature. there were only a few who garnered this message clearly from the zeitgeist, among whom was the most important, ... or at least most influential... max stirner.
... and recently there has been some talk about a new understanding of nietzsche's attitude toward anarchism. one could call the ubermensch neither slave nor master? of course... for two reasons. well for three. politics is underneath him. there is nobody left in the world for him to lead (ergo, the herd; what does the politics of herding matter to the ubermensch?). only his own eternal recurrence is worthy of his concern. hegel was wrong, but right. the end of the transcendental dialectic of history is neither transcendent nor does it finalize at the stage of the absolute spirit. it is immanent, worldly and of the body... pertains only to the individual subject who improves himself through struggle, and forever recurs.
what prevents any final social solidarity, and therefore any purpose for politics, is first the ontological inequality of all things (things literally can't be equal), and second, the result of the first; unequal trials, tribulations, obstacles, and anything else that builds one's constitution through the unequal conflicts they face in life... often enough, ironically, as a result of somebody else's bullshit (second proof of inequality). you end up with an unequal ranking of types through attrition... and would need a dynanometer to establish those ranks. that being the case, there are only relatively and temporarily stable cases of 'we' or 'us'... but there is always the case of 'i".
the extent of the ubermensch's social involvement (he is essentially anti-social, for obvious reasons) exists in the asking of the only two questions worth any of his attention in the discourse of human beings; "what can you do that's fantastic?" and "can you prevent your incompetence, nonsense and bullshit from becoming my problem?"
everything else is noise. superficial chatter.
