Out-Nietzscheing Nietzsche

Here's a take that's even more Nietzschean than Nietzsche himself (I don't believe this, really; I'm just playing in the sandbox):

"Philosophers" literally means "lovers of wisdom."  However, this is merely the P.R. of philosophers, their "good conscience" - but I repeat myself.  Lovers of wisdom?  Nay, I call them haters of wisdom.  Philosophy was the way that people like Socrates vented their ressentiment and envy against those who were above them, the wise, the sophists.  (For one thing, Socrates hated the sophists for being wise enough to make some money off of their wisdom.)  ...Or, even above the sophists, there is a fundamental ressentiment against the most wise of all: the sages, like the military general Pittacus of Mytilene, or the ancient enemies of the philosophers, the poets.  

Given his basic biological constitution, the philosopher can never actually be wise.  Wisdom requires experience, which requires action - precisely, it requires time spent in the rough-and-tumble, in the trenches of the battle for power.  This can either come directly, through one's own experience, or vicariously, as received wisdom from another person.  Rather than accepting wisdom and gratefully incorporating it into his life, like a bitter loser, the philosopher has nothing better to do with his time than to poke holes in the victories of the wise.  The philosopher is like the insufferable, scientistic, carping sniveler who talks through a movie pointing out all of its plot holes, implausibilities, violations of some aesthetic rule, and physical impossibilities - in an attempt to defend himself and others from being moved by it.  At best, the philosopher smashes wisdom.  Or, perhaps you would prefer that I put it this way: a philosopher is a warrior, who bravely guards against all received wisdom, analyzes it, takes it apart, disassembles it, sifts it, scrutinizes it, and if the philosopher deems it necessary, rejects it. 

To learn philosophy means: to learn hate.  But it is a specific kind of hate, not a hot wrathful hate that would immediately take revenge, settle scores and return the playing field to a more level position.  No, it is a cold, dry hate, that savors its hatred, and wants it to last a long, long time - eternity, even - so that instead of lashing out in an energetic burst, it holds itself back - restrains itself, expends no energy, releases nothing, reveals nothing, shrinks into itself, becomes invisible, intangible, even to itself, blends into the background.  Philosophy is a kind of camouflage.  Philosophy is a camouflage so effective that even it does not know it is there.  Philosophy could not become reality, so instead, it became a mystery.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more