Love and Desire

The Philosophy of Art & Aesthetics.

Moderator: e_dog


Post by perezoso » January 29th, 2005, 9:12 pm

N's thought is outmoded. His heroism, however moving to college boys and would-be travis bickles, is narcissistic and for the most part irrelevant. His criticisms of Kant are somewhat shallow and nothing like worked-out arguments--simply taking Kant to task for his "system" --though never really addressing the meat of the Critique or the imperative. Perhaps Kant is a massive dull mental architecture but N.'s savage denial is rude and irrational. Kant was a peacenik really, more so than Hegel ever was, and behind all of his phenomena and noumena, a priori's and transcendental idealism, he was quite the skeptic--the lutherans did not approve of him nor did papists.

N's violent anti-liberal perspective cannot be ignored. Nor can his connections to the nazis--brought out effectively in Shirer's Rise And Fall of the 3rd Reich. Nor can his anti-rationalism. I am entertained when reading his attacks on Xtianity, on women, on the middle classes, on reality itself, but he seems more like a critic than philosopher. Eloquence and "gonzo" misanthropy don't prove anything--and some humans still do value proof. Russell's mockery of N.'s ideas in his History Of Western Philosophy ( which is, yes, flawed) are as to the point, witty and cutting as anything N. ever wrote.

Post Reply

Return to “The Anti-Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest