Aesthetic Materialism

  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...

posted on facebook, July 19, 2013 One thing that I find interesting is the old saying, "The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing." For a long time when I heard this, I thought it was a reproach (actually I think the first time I heard this phrase was in reference to the Soviet Union, of all things, and their - to the speaker - incoherent foreign policy), usually meaning that a group of people was badly organized. It looks like the "idiom finder" of thefreedictionary.com agrees with this interpretation, since they use, as an example of correct usage, "It was evident that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing when we planned our potluck dinner party, since everyone brought dessert and no one brought a main dish."    But if you go back to the origin of this phrase, it's Jesus speaking, in Matthew, Chapter 6: "...when thou doest alms (works), let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." It's...

 Posted on facebook, June 10, 2013 If you think Old Testament religion, with its emphasis on law (or more accurately, on the covenant), its violence, its mysogyny, its ethnocentrism, etc., is "wrong," then you haven't fully realized Jesus's "Judge not" in all its radicality. Judge not. Do not judge. Have no judgment. Maybe the Old Testament is right; maybe it is wrong; do not judge it to be either.   Ayn Rand called this a "moral blank check," and thought it was absolutely morally bankrupt. She wished to replace it with a new motto: "Judge, and prepare to be judged." If you think she's wrong, then you haven't fully realized Jesus's "Judge not" in all its radicality. Judge not. Do not judge what is right and wrong. Don't even try.    And when the Westboro Baptist Church seems to be judging people, saying "God Hates Fags" and so on, if this seems like hypocrisy to you, don't judge. Don't...