Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Is The Superman Supra-historical?

Expand Messages
  • sauwelios
    ... I think this question must be seen in the context of your earlier question re. Strauss: considering the following: Strauss considered his Schmitt
    Message 1 of 52 , May 20, 2008
      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Williams
      <visionsofglory14@...> wrote:
      >
      > Have you read The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt?
      >

      I think this question must be seen in the context of your earlier
      question re. Strauss: considering the following:

      "Strauss considered his Schmitt interpretation indicative of *the*
      decisive turn in his career, signaling his condemnation of
      liberalism's "self-destruction of reason." According to Strauss,
      Schmitt unsuccessfully attempted to recapture the centrality of
      politics against its liberal devaluation. Both Schmitt and Strauss
      despised this denigration of politics as creating "a world of fun, a
      world devoid of seriousness." A ground for their contempt is cited by
      Chaninah Maschler: "The astonishingly vivid rhetoric of the essay on
      Schmitt gives even an innocent American an *experience* of the appel
      of nazi ideology for someone who is made to feel that life is
      contemptible without whole-souled dedication, but who can no longer
      take religion seriously.""
      [Harry Neumann, Liberalism, Introduction.]

      "Neumann is the only one of Leo Strauss's students who, like Strauss,
      marked the turning point in his career from his reading of Carl
      Schmitt's *Concept of the Political*. Although Neumann turned one way,
      and Strauss another, there are resemblances that transcend this
      difference in direction. Both are characterized by the greatest moral
      earnestness. The Jewish contempt for "Epicureanism," of which Strauss
      speaks in his autobiographical preface -- and which is crucial for
      understanding Strauss and his entire enterprise -- is also at the root
      of Neumann's contempt for modern liberalism. Like Strauss, Neumann
      sees modern Epicureanism as Epicureanism come out of the closet,
      demanding that all politics be in the service of its demands.
      Epicureanism in the ancient world was unpolitical and anti-political.
      In the modern world it is the most virulent form of sectarian and
      ideological politics."
      [ibid., Foreword by Harry Jaffa.]

      The difference in direction between Neumann and Strauss is the
      following. Strauss despised liberalism for its liberalisation from
      politics, reverting to orthodox Judaism as a serious religion.
      Neumann, on the other hand, saw liberalism and politics much as
      Nietzsche saw Reason and Christianity, respectively: as mutually
      laming each other. Neumann despised modern "liberalism" for its
      inconsistency (and despised politics less and less as it became more
      consistent -- even though he saw consistent politics as a more radical
      flight from the truth than inconsistent politics!). The reason he
      despised modern so-called "liberalism" more than illiberal politics is
      that to him the mendaciousness of "liberal" politics was so much more
      obvious! For "political liberalism" is a contradictio in adjecto. To
      politicise liberalism is to illiberalise it! Political "liberalism"
      essentially makes it its serious task to create "a world of fun, a
      world devoid of seriousness"...

      "Nietzsche might have left it at this "joyful science" for which
      nothing is worth taking seriously. In that case, he would have
      accepted Schopenhauer's atheism while rejecting those elements
      responsible for Schopenhauer's universal compassion in favor of
      universal ridicule of men ensnared by common sense's illusions.
      Nietzsche's strong moral-political needs, his aristocratic conscience,
      prevented acceptance of this joyful (nihilist) science."
      [ibid., "Nietzsche", Part I.]

      If the Übermensch is such a "joyful scientist", then to incite others
      to become and/or create such joyful scientists is to illiberalise
      joyful science and thereby make it serious.
    • moodylawless
      The point is that science is not as objective, neutral and value- free as it would like to think. The same claims were made by historicism in Nietzsche s day
      Message 52 of 52 , May 30, 2008
        The point is that science is not as objective, neutral and 'value-
        free' as it would like to think.

        The same claims were made by historicism in Nietzsche's day - hence
        the importance of Use and Abuse which goes beyond his critique of
        history to a critique of knowledge in general.

        The mysticism of the past was the science of its day.
        And today's science will be the mysticism of the future.

        Marxism makes the mistake of debunking other theories while
        forgetting that it too is just another theory.

        To quote Nietzsche - 'life is in love with the lie'.

        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "ubermensch1975"
        <ubermensch1975@...> wrote:

        > I was thinking the contrary- that it is mysticism that (with its
        > origins in platonic systems) assumed that reason existed a priori,
        and
        > that it could be interpreted as if it were cryptic and accessible
        only
        > to those "elected" by God to know it. Science, on the other hand, is
        > posterior to experience- it is deductive, inductive, but makes no
        > inference based solely on assumption.
        >
        > If you are interested I can give you a link to a site owned by an
        > extraordinary thinker, mathematician, and Marxist "philosopher"
        > (although she abhors that title). The work she has been developing
        for
        > the last ten years is an immense critique of Hegel's "Dialectical
        > materialism". That aside, she also provides a wonderful archeology
        of
        > "ruling class ideas", as she calls them, explaining how mysticism,
        > metaphysics, and theology was invented by the ruling classes with no
        > other intention than subordinating the working classes.
        >
        > They lied to us, guys.
        >
        > I would post the link but I know Sauwelios hates Marxist
        thought....so
        > I won't litter at his site.
        >
        > Make no mistake....I have nothing against mythology, metaphor, and
        the
        > esoteric in general....if it is proper and in the right company.
        >
        > BTW, Sauwelios, this yahoo format sucks balls. Can't you get a real
        > site, man?
        >
        > Let's all pitch in to pay for it. You people are good...but with my
        > help you could be the best. Allow us one year and we will own the
        > internet.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.