Aesthetic Materialism

    To translate into language these people can understand: capitalism, especially in its later phases, by marketizing everything, results in a low-trust society, which in turn undermines the conditions that make capitalism possible.    

  Quite often, Nietzsche and Heidegger are put in the same breath, as though they were "on the same side," so to speak, and this "side" is often referred to as "existentialism" or some other silly name. I think this is a completely wrongheaded way of thinking about things. Not only does this kind of categorical thinking misunderstand Nietzsche, as I have argued before, but it also causes one to completely misunderstand Heidegger. Because Heidegger, by my reckoning, is not at all "on the same side" as Nietzsche - on the contrary, his entire philosophical project is an attempt to overcome Nietzsche. Heidegger, by my reckoning, is a person who was brought up Catholic, and seriously considered joining the priesthood, and was even attended a Jesuit seminary, but then converted to Protestantism around the time he married Elfride (nee Petri), who was Protestant (apparently, they had two ceremonies, one Catholic, one Protestant, to appease both families....

  Heidegger's entire argument can be effectively summarized: I know you are, but what am I? Heidegger spent his career thinking about Being, attempting to ask - or even formulate - the question of Being.  Most people would call this work metaphysics, and would call a person who spends most of their lives thinking about such things a metaphysician.  But Heidegger rejects the label, and flips it back on his (supposed) accusers.    "You're the metaphysicians!" he shouts.  "You're doing metaphysics - not me!  I'm the only one around here who's trying to think non-metaphysically!"  Heidegger attempts to evade the "metaphysician" label by redefining metaphysics such that metaphysicians are those people who, for instance, (1) only conceive of beings and never question Being itself, (2) think Being in terms of a highest being (onto-theology), (3) fail to maintain the ontological difference between beings and Being, and so on.   Do not fall for ...

The central insight of Christian theology - which is shared by many sufficiently deep religious traditions - is that "revealed preference" is not to be trusted.  "Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." The behaviorist model of humanity - any behaviorist model - is incomplete.  As depth psychologists will tell you, humans have depth.  There is an inward dimension to humans.  Many religious traditions refer to this stubborn remainder that cannot be easily assimilated to behaviorist models as the "soul".  The flattening of humanity, the reduction of humanity to its outward actions, should be considered the gravest injury.  The reduction of humans to their "revealed preferences" is, in a word, evil .  And it is the root of many other evils.

  No serious philosopher, indeed no reasonably intelligent person who has given the matter sustained thought, believes that knowledge consists of nothing but justified, true beliefs.  It's wrong on all counts.  For something to be knowledge, it doesn't need to be justified.  Furthermore, it doesn't even need to be true.  But most importantly, it doesn't even have to be a belief.   Let's take each of these, one at a time. Justification Does knowledge need to be justified?  Of course not.  The idea that knowledge has to be justified is silly on its face. For one thing, this leads to a logical regress, which could potentially be infinite.  Let's say that you want to know a potential piece of knowledge- call it "A".  But in order to know "A," according to this theory, you have to justify it - you can call the justification "B".  But this justification would also be a piece of potential knowledge.  So in order to know "A," yo...