Aesthetic Materialism

    Another true, correct interpretation of Nietzsche is to see him as a Christian.  This is not my interpretation, but I have to admit, it works.... In my earlier essay, I traced a path through Nietzsche's thought that involved a sudden reversal - as I put it there, a "liberating, delightful punchline that explodes the entire shaggy dog story of Nietzsche's thought."  I went on: "Moreover, I believe that Nietzsche intended for his reader to have this experience, but also chose not to speak or write of it directly, merely hinting at it, more through what is left unwritten than that which is written, so that the reader could have the opportunity to come to this conclusion on her own. [...] Maybe Nietzsche knew that this experience cannot be had directly through reading - that it is in some sense transcendent, beyond the written page, unspeakable, ineffable, beyond language - that one must have it on one's own, in some ways against the reading." ...

The main problem with liberalism is that it makes people stupid. The paradox of liberalism is that, although one could summarize liberalism as philosophy metastasized into practical politics, there have actually been very few liberal philosophers.  The philosopher uses the Socratic method - rather than imposing his will on his opponents or students (but I repeat myself: for a philosopher, students are the enemy ) and forcing them to accept his ideology, the philosopher gently asks his students questions.  The philosopher does not force anyone with any political persuasion to leave the conversation; the philosopher accepts every interlocutor, accepts everything, every idea, and dives into it as deeply as possible, and indeed has already considered every position they could possibly have, even more deeply than they themselves, who hold these positions, have considered them.  A philosopher like Socrates does this even at the risk of his own life, at the hands of those who wo...

What if, in the future, there were no genders... there were just 2 options: (1) "dressing up, looking nice, making an effort" - which would probably involve putting on some make-up, doing your hair, wearing flashy clothes and uncomfortable shoes, perhaps with elevated heels, etc... VS. (2) a more practical, comfortable, slackerish look: shirt, pants, sneakers, maybe a sweater if you're cold. (Originally posted to facebook, March 13, 2018)

  Certain Marxists sometimes make the following argument against anarchism: anarchists and Marxists both seek the same goal - a stateless, classless society - but they just have two different means of attaining this goal.  These Marxists acknowledge that there must be an intermediate period in which a state (or, "semi-state" as Lenin put it) is necessary, after which the state will "wither away".  But, they say, anarchists, in their foolish idealism, wish to jump straight to the final stage without going through this necessary intermediate step, as though one could wave a magic wand and have the world change into a magical place that is exactly whatever one desired. This is a strawman argument, and not even a well-constructed one.  When Marxists make this kind of argument, they are usually arguing against imaginary anarchists, rather than real, flesh-and-blood anarchists.  Or in some cases, the people who make this argument may be people who identify as Marxists...