I wrote about the perils of being public with mental illness in a new Methods of Madness entry (link in bio). A 🧵in summary:
Last week I said something out of line on here that I should not have said and regret. I apologized for my unacceptable behavior and logged off.
1/8
@megynkelly
@jonfavs
I call them like I see them, same as you. You’re out of touch if you think that we can have healing in a nation where half the country have supported a white supremacist authoritarian for 4 years. Top Rs aren’t accepting the results of the election. Go fix that.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Walter Kaufmann popularized Nietzsche for English-speaking audiences in large part by presenting him as an individualist philosopher of self-improvement, which neutralizes what is dangerous and disruptive in his thought. 1/13
I’m all for “Nietzsche is not a nazi” readings, but turning Nietzsche into some kind of philosopher of self-improvement has been a disaster for the human race.
I consider myself a Nietzschean Liberal. That means that I believe that some lives are more valuable than others, and also that democratic capitalism has proved to be the best system for achieving greatness. This involves five main beliefs.
Everybody likes mysticism. It has the benefits of religion (a sense of cosmic meaning) and none of the drawbacks (subordination to traditional authority); and all the benefits of modernity (individual subjectivity) without any of the drawbacks (a sense of cosmic meaninglessness).
Ah yes, the famous prefaces from 1900, the year Nietzsche died and 11 years after his collapse. Please, tell me more about how closely you’ve read Nietzsche you fucking Nazi clown.
Kant says: always treat others as ends in themselves, never merely as means.
Zarathustra says: treat *yourself* only as the means (to a higher goal), never as an end in itself (Man is something to be overcome).
What’s funniest about this list to me is that virtually all of these are guaranteed to be the bestsellers at your local Barnes & Noble, yet he presents them as if they’re dangerous and subversive. It’s just a boring reiteration of mass culture.
25 books that should be on every school curriculum but aren't:
Fiction:
1. The Brothers Karamazov - Fyodor Dostoevsky
2. 1984 - George Orwell
3. Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
4. The Lord of the Rings - J. R. R. Tolkien
5. Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
6. Atlas Shrugged - Ayn
my hot take is i don’t think anybody should be dating until their shit is together. eating healthy, working out regularly, having a morning routine, a spiritual practice, a therapist, financial discipline. things like that have to come first.
One reason I’m skeptical of right-wing readings of Nietzsche that emphasize hierarchy and strength is that they almost always fail to distinguish among the different ways in which hierarchy functions in Nietzsche’s thought. A brief 🧵on Nietzsche’s inegalitarianism. 1/15
Here’s a sneak peek of my review of chapter 2 of Daniel Tutt’s Nietzsche book. Though I won’t focus on it in the text, I’m attaching a table to the end of the entry picking apart each individual citation from the chapter. I’ll let readers judge this for themselves.
sure, Nietzsche's whole entire thing is affirming the necessity of cruel and violent subjugation of those deemed lesser for the sake of producing a stronger, more vital, finally free being. and that might sound like fascism. but what if he's actually an extremely subtle leftist?
Harari’s position involves an erroneous form of all-or-nothing that is unfortunately quite common - either there has to be some final objective fact of the matter (usually physical or biological) or we’re left with a mere subjective fiction. 1/
Embarrassing confession: the first work of philosophy I read in its entirety was Sartre’s Being and Nothingness and I still kind of think it’s underappreciated.
I remain convinced that scientists trying to debunk the idea of free will would be much better off studying the history of Christian theological debates throughout the Middle Ages than trying to find scientific evidence for or against a fundamentally incoherent concept.
@puredemosonly
Not yet, I only recently became aware of his existence and made the connection that Costin was *that guy* I went to grad school with who never showed up to any department events and repeatedly trolled the department listserv complaining about anything diversity-related.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that the right wing revival of Nietzsche, and the left reaction to the same, are together likely to render Nietzsche totally unintelligible to an entire generation of readers.
To me the best argument for having proficiency in multiple languages isn’t really accuracy of translation but more Wittgenstein’s point that our own grammar is too familiar for us to see it perspicuously. It’s hard to see grammar perspicuously without learning another language.
academics who speak and read multiple languages are so obsessed with saying u can’t engage with ideas properly without speaking and reading multiple languages. funny
“Hegel forgot what Kierkegaard remembered when Kierkegaard said that the tragedy of the speculative philosopher is that he must turn aside from his place as a spectator of time and eternity in order to sneeze.”
-MacIntyre, Marxism and Christianity
The four great political thinkers of the 20th century are Arendt, Foucault, Rawls, and Hayek. Deal with it however you want - I am no fan of Hayek - but that’s the way it is.
I’m appalled to learn of Nina Power’s direct neo-nazi affiliations and I just want to say I’m happy to have held back from publishing my interview with her and to have kept a distance from Compact. I know that Compact publishes a very wide range of authors but I have been
Thanks everyone for getting me to 5,000 followers! As promised, I will now reveal the secret meaning of Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence. Seriously though, let’s talk about one of the most bizarre and oft-dismissed parts of N’s thought: his cosmological proofs of the ER.
A 🧵 1/24
Isn’t Nietzsche an elitist who values greatness or genius over the common man? I defend a version of Nietzschean moral perfectionism that I’d argue is not only compatible with political commitments to democracy and equality, but actually required by them.
A 🧵 1/17
Right Nietzscheans, particularly the return to the ancients types that clog this site, would benefit from a careful rereading of the first untimely meditation, on David Strauss and the cultural philistine. 1/
The morality of resentment at its finest from Peterson here - good and evil determined entirely by hatred of the perceived enemy, and complete inability to affirm values without first triangulating that enemy.
Shapiro’s nonsense rarely surprises me but this is just so incredibly nihilistic. Capitalism has destroyed nearly every source of purpose other than selling yourself into exploitation until you die, so forcing the elderly to work is good! Last Man energy is off the charts here.
“Discover the errors of the ego! Realize egoism as error! Certainly do not construe altruism as the opposite! That would be love of the other reputed individuals! No! Get *beyond* ‘me’ and ‘you’! Perceive cosmically!”
-Nietzsche, 1881 fragment
In the early stages of writing this book on Nietzsche’s madness, I’ve been doing a lot of research into the impossible diagnostic question: did Nietzsche have syphilis, and if not, what caused his breakdown?
A 🧵on some interesting tidbits I’ve learned so far.
1/15
18 started college
18 smoked first joint
22 graduated college
22 started PhD
23 smoked more weed
26 married
28 went insane
31 finished PhD
33 went insane again
35 completed the system of German Idealism
Feeling pretty good relative to the rest of you tbh
I’ll play
19 married
21 started community college
24 first kid, graduated cc, started uni
27 second kid
28 graduated uni, started MA
30 finished MA, started PhD
36 finished PhD, started VAP
42 moved to T-T
44 tenured
I’ll be 47 tomorrow
All right, it’s time to talk about the elephant in the room, and the elephant is Domenico Losurdo’s Nietzsche: The Aristocratic Rebel. Hopefully the first in a🧵series picking apart the book’s arguments, I’ll start w/ an overview and Losurdo’s reading of The Birth of Tragedy.
1/
The last 36 hours have been an object lesson in Arendt’s warning about the dangers of collectively refusing to exercise political judgment in unprecedented circumstances and choosing to deny reality instead.
The shell game that Peterson plays with theological concepts here is instructive for understanding Zarathustra’s “last men”. He cynically affirms dead theological concepts, not because he believes them, but because there’s nothing else, and he’s too empty to invent anything new.
Excellent interview with Wendy Brown (one of the best political theorists alive) on Max Weber that includes a brilliant explanation of the problem of nihilism and its political import today. Weber, of course, owed a great deal to Nietzsche.
Nietzsche’s preoccupation with life-affirmation makes more sense when viewed in the context of his lifelong experience with bipolarity. One reason that a number of interpreters (e.g. Cybulska, Young) have suggested bipolar disorder as the most likely diagnosis is the presence 1/
I really need to start collecting examples of ableist assholes trying to discredit Nietzsche’s philosophy because he was a madman. If anyone has other good examples send them my way, but this one sets a pretty high bar.
It’s essential to Nietzsche’s thought that the human urge to deny our all-too-human condition, out of shame and disgust, runs so deep that simply repudiating that urge would alone precipitate a radical transformation in culture. This is the revolutionary potential of amor fati.
Wild how much of what is currently called “panpsychism” can be found in early Nietzsche: “The difficult thing is not the awakening of sensation, but that of consciousness in the world. However, it is still explicable if everything has sensation.” (notebooks 1872-1873)
What Heidegger reached circuitously and mystically Wittgenstein reached instinctively and intuitively. A lesson in the greatness of 20th century philosophers.
20th century philosophy would have been much better if analytic philosophers had used a broader range of games in their analyses of rules than just chess and baseball.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant:
"I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly."
Apparently there’s a rapidly spreading case of brain worms going around that makes you forget that Jan 6 rioters were armed to the teeth with assault rifles, killed police officers, planned to lynch the Vice President, and tried to overturn a legitimate election.
There’s a lesson to be learned about how to read philosophy in Nietzsche’s comment in Dawn 195 that “the only possible critique of morality” must grow out of “a brave a rigorous attempt to *live* in this or that morality”. Too often students read philosophy in one of two ways: 1/
Summary of the evening: the “Hegelian left” are mad at me for pointing out that using “retard” as a slur means you’re probably a eugenicist piece of shit.
Obviously this is detestable, but it’s also telling. It seems to me that capitalists being this cynical and open about exploitation is a sign of significant weakness, or at least overconfidence, in the ideological apparatus capital deploys to legitimize itself.
Gurner Group founder Tim Gurner tells the Financial Review Property Summit workers have become "arrogant" since COVID and "We've got to kill that attitude."
I am begging people like this to read literally anything on external world skepticism. The simulation argument doesn’t add anything! It’s just Descartes with a different set of metaphors!
@iCirithPVP
@Liv_Agar
Lmao I’m not 100% certain but I’m pretty sure there is something in his unpublished fragments about this, yes. Nietzsche bought into all sorts of crackpot science when trying to cure his various ailments (e.g. his diet was not far off of ridiculous “carnivore” diets today lol)
THIS LIFE AS YOU NOW LIVE IT AND HAVE LIVED IT YOU WILL HAVE TO LIVE ONCE AGAIN AND INNUMERABLE TIMES AGAIN THE ETERNAL HOURGLASS OF EXISTENCE IS TURNED OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN AND YOU WITH IT SPECK OF DUST
This is very important to understand. Foucault himself would not have approved of the Critical Social Justice (woke) movement which he would have seen as an example of what he warned of - a reconstitution of oppressive power dynamics. He wanted to deconstruct, not reconstruct.
The funny thing about Twitter Hegelians is that they never actually answer any objection you raise. They just say “you’ve clearly misread Hegel”. The assumption being: If you have read Hegel well, you must realize he is correct, QED.
Cicero once said: “I’d rather be wrong with Plato than be right with those men.” Maybe I’m wrong to see potential resources for left politics in Nietzsche. But I’d rather be wrong than keep this kind of company.
An observation I have come to understand about the various groups that the left has named the "patriotic socialists". They see themselves as fighting the racist alt-Right (Fuentes, for example). So while the left see them as irredeemably racist and reactionary, they see
I’m late in responding to this, but: a few scattered thoughts on the problem of romanticizing madness and whether Anti-Oedipus is guilty of doing so.
I don’t think that D&G romanticize schizophrenia. That said, I believe them when they insist it’s not just a metaphor. 1/
It was really weird, but one of the effects of Anti-Oedipus was it romanticized schizophrenia. I take this story as a negative proof of that very problem. I can only hope that this is going away now for younger people but I don't know.
Active and reactive forces - a 🧵 on Nietzsche, Deleuze, and the art of interpretation.
Deleuze centers his interpretation of Nietzsche around the distinction between active and reactive forces. What does this distinction mean, and why is the idea force so important? 1/23
To follow up our Deleuze reading group, I hope
@DevinGoure
can revisit this:
Deleuze's view of active/reactive forces shows how deeply enmeshed we are in reactive forces. How can differing interpretations of the same situation elicit or express either active or reactive forces?
Nietzsche on delusion, or How to Invert Hegel Without Really Trying - a 🧵
Nietzsche’s notebooks from 1870-1871, which work through ideas that would appear in Birth of Tragedy, focus on the concept of “delusion” (Wahnvorstellung). What is a delusion, for Nietzsche?
1/
Really? My intuition is the exact opposite: it’s hard for me to imagine genuinely emancipatory political praxis that doesn’t also involve an ethical/spiritual transformation on the part of participants.
If your political project demands that participants do some sort of moral/quasi-spiritual "work" on themselves, what you've got going is something other than a political project.
Probably not. In his final years of lucidity Nietzsche became obsessed with the idea that he had Polish ancestry, a supposition he based on some information about the origins of his last name. But to my knowledge there was no concrete evidence for this. 1/
@iCirithPVP
@Liv_Agar
Sue Prideaux on Nietzsche’s belief in quackery: “He read medical and physiological texts voraciously and yet, for all the miracle cures he tried…it was the one area in which he suspended his analytical rigor. He was as credulous as a newspaper reader believing in horoscopes.”
Whenever I’m asked “but didn’t Nietzsche oppose egalitarianism?” I’m taken aback by the crude and monolithic picture of egalitarianism that’s usually being presupposed. As if political theorists hadn’t spent the better part of the 20th century debating “equality of what?”
“The basic flaw in Nietzsche’s analysis relating to the “slave morality” of ChristIans is that it bears no resemblance to anything that actually happened in history. Nietzsche simply accepts the lazy prejudices of Enlightenment figures like Gibbon in assuming that Christianity
Is there a critical theorist who compares the fetishism of commodities in Marx with Kant’s point in the 3rd Critique that aesthetic judgments present subjective responses “as if” they’re properties of objects? I feel like this must be in Adorno somewhere but I can’t remember.
Stupid comments about motivations and consequences aside, it can’t be overstated how central it is to Jordan Peterson’s worldview that social justice activists are hypocrites who aren’t really motivated by moral considerations and are just virtue-signaling for elite status. 1/
I'm thinking of Odin who gave an eye to gain wisdom. It reminds me that great philosophical insights do demand a price of sorts. Sometimes the price is very high. It may not always be apparent in the work, but once you read biographies of philosophers, it becomes clear.
I’m sure it’s been said before, but the worst thing about trying to do academic work outside of academia is not having library access and trying to figure out how to get the books you need on a limited budget.
My review of the first chapter of
@DanielTutt
's How to Read Like a Parasite: Why the Left Got High on Nietzsche is now up on my s*bstack, Methods of Madness. It's somewhat lengthy, but I try to cover the overall argument of the book and intimate my main objections.
Link in bio.