tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post1520404028142113834..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Nazi Philosophers: Plato, Fichte, Nietzsche, HeideggerLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-74419931580450014752014-05-23T05:36:08.100+01:002014-05-23T05:36:08.100+01:00Heidegger was smarter than this post and the comme...Heidegger was smarter than this post and the commenters here give him credit for. In fact, from the formulations being made here of a new doctrine of Darwinian metaphysics -- i.e. being, reality, reason, man, and ethics all as determined on the basis of Darwinian suppositions -- Heidegger's admonition to thinkers to keep open the question of being is a pointed antidote to any new dogmatism. Heidegger, as well as Kant on Heidegger's reading of him, are suspicious of the ability of reason in general to disclose and determine what it means to be, Darwinian reason or otherwise.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-53011882587515455072012-04-11T13:24:59.721+01:002012-04-11T13:24:59.721+01:00A few points: Heidegger detested metaphysics, Niet...A few points: Heidegger detested metaphysics, Nietzsche detested Socrates and his influence (see Twilight of the Idols; Nietzsche's entire philosophy is based around the idea that the christian-platonic ideals and utopias are destructive for humanity, leads to nihilism and we would do better to become to Overman and do as we see fit with the world as opposed to longing after an unattainable society. Perhaps the reason you're confusing yourself is the same reason why the Nazis thought they way they did (or rather justified themselves, half-heartedly) and that is a basic misunderstanding of deep, complex philosophy - especially that of Nietzsche. One glimpse at the word uebermensch and you assume it's utopian...jeezo.<br /><br />These philosophic contradictions picked up by 'Nazi' philosophers could perhaps be explained by the Marxian understanding of historical dialecticism. The economic base in Germany changed and as the rest of the society and culture changed - the thought changed as well. The world determines thought, in other words, and as their world changed so did their thoughts. Rather than some sudden appraisal of The Republic which I think you also grossly misunderstand.Morgan Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01394138665235781925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-37509826008766306932010-07-13T08:10:06.938+01:002010-07-13T08:10:06.938+01:00The Nazi trend is sentimental rather than intellec...The Nazi trend is sentimental rather than intellectual and its expression can be found in aesthetics rather than inphilosophical theories.<br /><br />However, Heidegger's style reflects an aesthete's priorities and gives you the goosepimples if you read him in German.<br /><br />However, Heidegger's ostentatious lack of interest in Germany's Nazi past is in itself nauseating.anagastohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12173541768886884924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-67313696153059620242010-05-05T13:51:41.935+01:002010-05-05T13:51:41.935+01:00I think, John Wild's distinguished study "...I think, John Wild's distinguished study "Plato's Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law" gives us much more truths about Plato than this article. <br />this interpretation of Plato reminds me Karl Popper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-85236535626955006492010-01-30T10:34:07.768+00:002010-01-30T10:34:07.768+00:00Woops. Must be a Freudian slip . . . a repressed ...Woops. Must be a Freudian slip . . . a repressed memory of a 1970s soft-porn movie?Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-11438811840547222932010-01-30T05:19:56.436+00:002010-01-30T05:19:56.436+00:00That's Emmanuel Faye. Emmanuelle Faye would be...That's <i>Emmanuel</i> Faye. Emmanuelle Faye would be a woman.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12837045975155986763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-679816259612039522010-01-11T20:50:55.528+00:002010-01-11T20:50:55.528+00:00Searle recently criticized Heidegger as an idealis...Searle recently criticized Heidegger as an idealist and your comments have reinforced the sense in which Searle meant it. Heidegger did not posit the existence of ideals as did Plato and Kant; rather he posited a non existent "Dasein" as an ideal. Heidegger then capitalizes dasein and uses it as a moun predicating attributes to it as if it had identity like an existent. He uses it as if it were an ideal like "God". As such Searle is right in his criticism. Lawson is correct in recognizing that it is an act of will to affirm a non existent as the basis of a philolosphy and build an academic career out of "Nothing". But that is what transcendentalists do.<br /><br />What I do not understand is how, the opposite view, that instead an transcendentalist origin of ethics a Socratic process can produce an ethics or a politics. Socrates had the advantage of a verbal polis in which by avoiding participation he could avoid ever having to take the affirmative, and lying on his couch just question those who presumed to know in order to act. <br /><br />Idealism and socratic dialogue are both anathema to Darwin. Darwin understood that by showing man had a natural evolution there was no longer any basis for any transcendentalism especially christianity. He also understood the epistemology of induction and reasoning from facts to reach abstract conclusions. He did not arrive at the concept of natural selection by a questioning process designed to confront a student with their own contradictions. If you apply the deductive and inductive powers of reason, as did Darwin, you can arrive at facts from observation which are the basis of higher level abstractions. Using this process there is only one way to arrive at ethics. Ethics begins with a precise definition of human nature based on man's origin as an animal and his evolved power of reason. The basis of ethics is man must act to eat and the selection of which if any act will best promote his survival, qua man, is only determinable by his personal use of reason. <br /><br />Biologically his mind has only the ability to contract and release muscles as his means of survival. The ability to contract and release muscles is necessarily volitional and based on the decision by the mind of which muscles for which purpose should instructions be issued. <br /><br />Volitional muscles presuppose and depend on mental free will. This is man's Darwinian evolved nature. No ethics which does not begin with man as having volition and free will to enable the selection of the actions appropriate for ones own life can claim any Darwinian basis. <br /><br />It is only 150 years since the publishing of "The Origin" and hard to over throw 2500 years in a few generations but it is happening.<br /><br /> See<br />Smith, Tara; Viable Values, ,(Rowan and Littlefield, 2000Oxford, UK)<br />Pierson and Trout, What is consciousness for? 2005Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15502649918044953470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-13972015330240080562010-01-05T19:51:13.603+00:002010-01-05T19:51:13.603+00:00In response to Paul,
I agree republics can surviv...In response to Paul,<br /><br />I agree republics can survive within a "proper institutional framework." The problem is, stresses on the system can often undermine the best institutions and lead to the rise of things like Caesaresque "Dictators for Life."<br /><br />Obviously, the American Republic has not come to that point, though there may well be questions as to whether or not Lincoln did not act in a quasi-Caesar like fashion in order to maintain the Republic.<br /><br />Additionally, while I agree Machiavelli was a supporter of republics, he did understand that the need to establish such orders may require more "Princely" actions. <br /><br />I would argue, that all human institutions are inherently frail. That frailty may not be immediately exposed, indeed it may be well hidden for generations as certain stresses remain subacute. However, the tensions within man lead to explosions that can overturn the best laid "rational" plans.Greg R. Lawsonhttp://www.gregrlawson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-81848403967021196912010-01-05T18:34:18.282+00:002010-01-05T18:34:18.282+00:00Being an American and having read Machiavelli'...Being an American and having read Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, as well as a good portion of the Federalist Papers, I've never really understood Nietzsche's fear of liberal democracy, especially given his high praise for Machiavelli in BGE. However, democracies whose laws don't take their inspiration from Machiavelli might be dangerous enough to Socratic Philosophy to warrant an attempt at Platonic Political Metaphysics to correct them. But obviously Heidigger didn't see it that way.<br /><br />Also, as for Mr. Lawson's assertion that "order cannot be constantly questioned and remain 'orderly,'" I think that the history of both the Roman and American Republics proves that within a proper institutional framework, order can be constantly questioned without jeopordizing a practicable political order.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918578746540002029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-49487550690445092612010-01-02T16:08:20.887+00:002010-01-02T16:08:20.887+00:00This is a fascinating read. I think you raise a g...This is a fascinating read. I think you raise a great point about philosophers seeking metapyhsical certainty and the problems inherent in that as it relates to the embrace and perpetuation of political power based upon such certainties.<br /><br />However, if the philosophical quest is essentially the Socratic quest for "Truth" through ceaseless examination, it raises a question as to philosophy's ability to facilitate a practicable political order. After all, order cannot be constantly questioned and remain "orderly." To some extent one could argue this was the reason Socrates was forced to drink the hemlock, though I am aware there were also concerns over the authoritarian efforts of some of his students such as Alcibiades.<br /><br />At the end of the day, political order must have a foundation and man's longing for transcendence offers a foundation that gives man the "meaning" to endure what could seem to be the capriciousness of "nature" cut loose from purpose.<br /><br />This is a form of idealism, perhaps, even Germanic romanticism, yet it does seem to be an antidote to the trivialization of existence by post-modern relativism.<br /><br />The tension between the quest for "Truth", philosophically speaking, and the need for a grounded order is real, dangerous, yet ultimately essential.Greg R. Lawsonhttp://www.gregrlawson.comnoreply@blogger.com