Almost Everyone vs. The Whole Thing

In the survey of modern philosophy that comprises the first essay of Leo Strauss’s final collection of essays, at a key moment the author refers to Hegel:

[Hegel’s] system of philosophy, the final philosophy, the perfect solution of all philosophic problems belongs to the moment when mankind has solved in principle its political problem by establishing the post-revolutionary state, the first state to recognize the equal dignity of every human being as such.  This absolute peak of history, being the end of history, is at the same time the beginning of the final decline.  In this respect Spengler has merely brought out the ultimate conclusion of Hegel’s thought.  No wonder therefore that almost everyone rebelled against Hegel.

Strauss seems to be cribbing from the writings of his one-time correspondent Alexandre Kojève, compressing what would appear to be the grandest intellectual claims conceivable into a handful of dispensable, and dispensed-with, sentences.  The name “Spengler” seems to be a danger signal:  of the “world-historical” abyss.  The seeming tribute to a body of work – substantial enough to inspire, or require, two centuries of rebellion – is left on the level of implication at best.

Strauss’s topic in this essay is Husserl’s pursuit of “philosophy as rigorous science.”  Here, Strauss might have called on Hegel directly, and it is a defect in Strauss’s discussion that, by the time he reaches Husserl, he has already placed Hegel beyond convenient recall, having summarily dismissed and demoted him – Spenglerized him with loose talk, a vaguely comical summary, and intimations of doom.  What Hegel might have said if he had not been detained by the rebels (sent to detention by his students) is that it makes no sense to ask whether philosophy can also be thought of as “rigorous” in the same way that the “hard” sciences are.  From this perspective, the question is itself non-scientific.  Within Hegelian thinking any “ultimate conclusion” of the sort Strauss and Husserl seek to validate as a possibility of philosophy could only be simultaneously false, a beginning point as well as an endpoint, and only one result among others, holding the place of particular ultimacy.

Strauss is less interested in such complications – which some writers file under the tab “Hegelian logic” – than in the rebellions, especially his own, but his flight from Hegel merely prepares the way for a recapitulation.  In this sense, Strauss is indeed like “almost everyone” else, and most like almost everyone else when he quietly resorts to an Hegelianism in extremisSo, unable despite valiant effort to resolve the struggle between Athens and Jerusalem, reason and faith, to his own satisfaction, Strauss tentatively affirms something resembling a dialectical relationship – “productive tension” – between the two.  In the essay that concludes Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, Strauss approaches the same “tension,” but from its tragically, decisively non-productive converse.  His elegiac treatment of the work of Hermann Cohen never acknowledges Cohen’s complex engagement with Hegel, or notes the obvious debt that  Cohen’s “idealization” of Judaism in Religion of Reason (1919) owes to Hegel’s Christian theology.  Nor does Strauss, this time, attempt a rescue, even by a dialectical sleight-of-hand.  He knows that we should be grateful for Cohen’s life and work, but cannot say why, since words fail him before what the 20th Century made of Cohen’s Judaic universalism.  The professor in detention yearns to lend a hand:  He always said that “the Owl of Minerva flies at dusk”:  The fullest articulation of an idea comes at the end of its epoch.  In the costs of its subsequent negation, its historical vivisection, we learn its worth.

Cheap Optimism and Brain-Rotting Obscurity

When Strauss proceeds from the observation that the Hegelian “absolute peak” is “at the same time the beginning of the final decline,” he cannot mean as much as he seems to want to mean.  He conjures an image of philosophical-historical progress as a linear progression in two dimensions, time and altitude.  The image is at best conventional, and otherwise metaphorical.  If it is any sense accurate, it would be accurate from some position other than the peak to which it refers.

As that suppressed discussion on the relationship between philosophy and science makes clear, a “peak” of philosophy or history, the philosophical peak of history or the historical peak of philosophy, could not be, would not in the most critical respects even be “like,” a simple physical magnitude, an elevation above sea level to a vanishing point.  It is not an intellectual Mt. Everest, to be reached once and left behind by philosophical mountain-climbers.  This “absolute peak” could as justifiably be seen as an infinite depth, or an infinite expansion, or an infant’s first step.  “Decline,” as in “final decline,” is also a metaphor.   The final decline could likewise be seen also as a final ascent, and, indeed, the latter was Hegel’s emphasis – captured in the notion that all of history, the catastrophes as well as the triumphs, can be seen as advancing the (obviously unfinished) higher self-knowledge of a universal subject.  For this reason the most powerful political-philosophical rebellions against Hegel, from Schopenhauer to Marx and Nietzsche, and in different ways down to this day, picture him as a Polyanna or Pangloss  – with the further demerit of sometimes being hard to follow:  “cheap optimism” joined to “brain-rotting obscurity,” in the words of Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer may have correctly characterized the uses to which Hegel was put, may even have lent himself to being put, by conservative forces in German and especially Prussian (eventually German imperial) society, but that fact may have more to do with that society, or with society in general, than with Hegelian thought in particular.  If so, it would hardly count as the first or the last time that a political class made dubious claims on the reputation of some  respected figure.  We can still ask how the authentic understanding of something brain-rottingly obscure could ever come cheaply.  How would we even know except after expensive effort?  A cheap optimism could only be a feature of an inappropriately superficial reading of the esoteric text, and the same could be said for a cheap pessimism.

“Almost everyone” should have known better, but almost everyone repeats Schopenhauer’s error.  Thus, Nietzsche adopted Schopenhauer’s position early on, and, though at a later point he reversed himself on Schopenhauer, he never attempted (or was able to attempt) a serious re-consideration of Hegel.  Given this prologue, it is no surprise that many of Nietzsche’s most famous utterances – “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger,” “the unbounded yes to all that is and was,” “God is dead” – read like melodramatic Hegel, dialectics as fireworks, phenomenology for people who, like the near-blind seer on the path to madness, may lack the constitution for it.  Earlier, even Schopenhauer himself, in his old age, had been seized by the idea, and found the will, to amend and re-interpret his most important work to a less “one-sided” (we could say to a more dialectical) effect.

Marx’s rebellion, which Strauss examines in some detail, appears initially to be of a wholly different character than either Nietzsche’s or Strauss’s own:  Marx never underrated Hegel, but thought him in need of fundamental correction.  Yet the substitution of “proletariat” for “universal subject,” whatever its uses or justifications, came with a nearly remainderless displacement of Hegel’s vision of the state – thought too close to the existent Prussian state – in favor of utopian abstractions.  Future tyrants improvised a new content in place of what had been subtracted, stitching together bits of Marx with progressively larger pieces of power politics, eventually producing Hegelian culture-states emptied of Hegelian premises, totalized structures that tended to persist long after whatever sanity and functionality “withered away.” Meanwhile, the  implacable critics of Marx have tended to blame Hegel, too, insisting that the children of Marx must have been carrying a gene inherited from his philosophical father.

If we look at any of these and subsequent would-be rebellions more closely, we can almost without exception return to Hegel’s major philosophical writings and find at least the outlines and arguably the essence of whatever position already considered, synthesized, and integrated.  This claim may seem a large one, but it would be so only for those, mostly likely part of that main group of almost everyone, who enter into the discussion with fixed notions about the purposes and possibilities of philosophy, and therefore of the proper goals for an ambitious thinker.

The Whole Thing

The fundamental precepts of Hegel’s mature work are not, or should not be, difficult – which is not to say that they can be cheaply absorbed or applied (or have any necessary bearing on attitudes of optimism or pessimism).  Any educated person should be able to read the “Preface” to the Phenomenology of Spirit with minimal danger of cerebral deterioration, and with enough comprehension at least to estimate what Strauss and the others are rebelling against or, as often, merely pretending to rebel against.

For Hegel, we read in the Preface, the “True is the whole [, and] the whole is nothing other than the essence consummating itself through its development.”  And: “The true shape in which truth exists can only be the scientific system of such truth.”   And:  “[E]verything turns on grasping and expressing the True, not only as Substance, but equally as Subject.”  And:  “The True is… the Bacchanalian revel in which no member is not drunk…”  And:

[K]nowledge is only actual, and can only be expounded, as Science or as system… [A] so-called basic proposition or principle of philosophy, if true, is also false, just because it is only a principle.

In all of these statements, as throughout the Preface, as all the more in the main text (itself also a kind of preface), and in all of Hegel’s mature works, nothing is more obvious than the writer’s relative disinterest in whatever reductive end point or “ultimate conclusion,” whatever equation or thesis we might imagine him or ourselves setting out to prove or disprove or rebel against.  If he has a “main point,” it is that the main point is not a “point” (or “peak”), just as the only doctrine he cared to refute was the popular doctrine of refutability:  He wants the whole as a whole, inclusive of its parts, taken separately on their own and also taken as parts, and he wants this whole inclusive of the wanting, of the grasping itself, and of the dynamic movement between grasping and letting go, between assertion and refutation, acceptance and rebellion.  What in Hegel’s terms qualifies as “absolute” cannot therefore be the same as implied colloquially by a word like “perfect.”  The perfect would be an end, but what Hegel calls “Absolute” (Knowledge, Science, Idea), though it will be elucidated at whatever sequential or physical endpoint of whatever explication, reveals all endings, and in a strong sense itself, to be mere moments:  We do not get to such an ending, have not really gotten to it at all whether or not we have closed the book, until we are ready to understand how it has been with us all along, from the beginning and from before the beginning.

We can comprehend these statements as something other than riddles or sophistries, cheap and brain-rotting, to the precise extent that we investigate “the scientific system of such truth,” though we may find ourselves wondering if even the word “system,” given its numerous Information Age resonances, is too pictorial, too one-sidedly objective and pseudo-concrete, for what Hegel wants to think, for how he wants us to think, for how he wants us to recognize we think…   The famous obscurity of much of the Phenomenology derives from a resistance to refutation as a mode of argument, but also from a refusal to be sidetracked.  Hegel is determined not to take a semblance for the thing in itself.  He largely refrains even from naming the philosophers or philosophical or religious schools he criticizes, as though the proper name is also too much an invitation to prejudice, or, alternatively, to the assumption that a thought can somehow be un-thought, buried forever under some gravestone and chiseled epitaph.  (We are reminded throughout Hegel’s work, as we are reminded daily, that even the worst idea of all, of the death of ideas, is immortal.)

If, however, we understand that we are dealing with metaphors, then we can re-consider them in a systematic mode, for merely illustrative purposes:  To extend the “peak” metaphor, for instance, we can say that we are interested in the whole “mountain”; in whatever “peak” because it unifies the mountain as much as because it stands above; in the mountain as part of a whole mountain “range”; in the “air” and “sky” that are “set off” and “touched” by the peak and its mountain and the range; in everything and every not-thing beyond the “landscape”;  in the “seeing”; in what the one who “looks” brings to seeing; in the “trail” that seemed to lead “upward,” but takes the traveler “away,” or in many “directions” at once, or back to the same “place.”

Hegel’s explication can be thought of as the “final” philosophy only as all-inclusive philosophical methodology.  The philosopher, equally meta-philosopher, surveys and connects possible and inevitable philosophies, and demonstrates that this unity-in-multiplicity will always arise from within, as it is implied by, any particular observation submitted to philosophy. The interdependent and relatively autonomous moving parts of the truly “scientific” (absolute-scientific, as opposed to empirical-scientific) system will and must be each in its own aspect, on its own terms, all-encompassing.  The “historicist insight” which Strauss identifies with Hegel is itself one of those incomplete universals (“members” or “rebels”) complete in itself, and as such subsumed within its own larger implication (“the revel”):  not merely that all philosophies and worldviews are contingent, though they must be, but that no philosophy, however seemingly novel, will be independent of any and all of the others.  From this perspective – a “perspective on perspectives,” naturally – if Hegel’s thought “leads” to Spengler, it also leads to Marx and Kojève, to Heidegger and to Strauss… and, not incidentally, to this blogger and to you, the reader.

From Schopenhauer through Strauss and beyond, the rebels fail to grasp Hegel’s thought on its own terms, or, if they grasp it at all, they soon discard or conceal it.  This claim may also seem like a large one, but the most ambitious and unlikely claim of all, it turns out, is not the claim of a complete or comprehensive philosophy, but the claim that the Hegelian is precluded from making:  to have created a new philosophy, to have stepped philosophy beyond philosophy’s own shadow.  Any authentic and successful rebellion – in political, philosophical, or political-philosophical states – must arise from within.  It is the rebellion that must complete what it opposes, and that must therefore also seek its own failure, and it must originate, as Hegel affirmed but the Platonic philosopher may not, in the substance as well as the subject, in the world as well as in the idea – and that is also why the world completes Hegel, but defeats almost everyone else.

Posted in Books, Featured, History, Philosophy Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

44 comments on “Almost Everyone vs. The Whole Thing

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. As I reported early on in my ZC career, encounterig Hegel in college, I would, with alarming frequency to my girlfriend, now wife, throw the book across the room in exasperation. Why? Because he seemed to say everything, he seemed to say nothing. He wanted to have it both ways.

    One way to do this was to use words with defintions that were both unique to him and that shifted.

    [K]nowledge is only actual, and can only be expounded, as Science or as system… [A] so-called basic proposition or principle of philosophy, if true, is also false, just because it is only a principle.

    And where is the telological History in all this?

    Now what I find interesting in your account is the word “almost”.

    If we look at any of these and subsequent would-be rebellions more closely, we can almost without exception return to Hegel’s major philosophical writings and find at least the outlines and arguably the essence of whatever position already considered, synthesized, and integrated.

    and that is also why the world completes Hegel, but defeats almost everyone else.

    To be honest, I suspicious of my coherence here. If it’s false, it must be true too.

  2. And where is the telological History in all this?

    All around us, becoming, presumably – providing our starting point.

    Now what I find interesting in your account is the word “almost”.

    Well, it’s Strauss’s “almost” first. My position is that Hegel’s philosophy – or perhaps more precisely any particular moment of his philosophy – implies its own supersession, but as simultaneously a matter of thought and a matter of history. He was aware of “his” philosophy as historicizable, in other words, but he also knew that he was not in a position, by definition, to step outside of his own/its historicity. Loosely speaking, as in his lectures on the philosophy of world history, he was content to understand the philosophy he described as a product of the age, as the latest and greatest and furthest product of the latest and greatest and furthest.

  3. @ fuster:
    Thank you.

    On Cohen I was going on Strauss’s depiction and some other secondary material. I’m looking forward to the arrival of a copy of Religion of Reason (full title: Religion of Reason: Out of the Sources of Judaism). If it’s even 1/2 as interesting as Strauss makes it out to be, I’m going to guilt-trip youse guys into taking it up also.

  4. There is a problem, that even Fukuyama, missed about Hegel, or maybe it was poorly explained, Marxism was just one of the deviations from the liberal democratic model, that it took root first and really only
    in authoritarian feudal states, and then in smaller ‘takeoff’ stage nations like Cuba, and Nicaragua, is the irony;

  5. @ George Jochnowitz:
    The soft-tissue of every ass should be recognized for its energetic sensitivity. In yoga, that recognition is called mulabandha. Oh, and thanks to CK, I think I almost get it now. The “whole” thing is almost really working for me I think. Seriously.

  6. @ Scott Miller:
    Thank you. You put it much more positively than I could have. I would have wanted to say that it’s no great feat to reason from an asshole to the absolute, but with some assholes it’s just not worth the effort. And that would have been very wrong of me, or anyway not very hatha yoga.

  7. @ bob:
    I agree that the essay is well done, but I find typical of the syndrome I addressed above the extent to which the Hegel in the piece, Norton’s Hegel, is merely and entirely Strauss’s Hegel, and how Strauss’s Hegel is not even Kojève’s Hegel, but Strauss’s Kojève’s Hegel, which is also Strauss’s Kojève’s Marx’s Hegel – and beyond that, how much of the critique is aimed at Historicism, presented as a response to Hegel (radicalized but also reduced). None of these Hegels speaks to me as Hegel’s Hegel, or anyway as my Hegel.

    I also find it interesting what a nuisance Nietzsche managed to make of himself. We continue to treat Nietzsche as though he a) was a philosopher (he was rather poorly educated in philosophy), b) had a consistent position – the totality of his work is incoherent, and such coherency as he has is mostly the one imposed on him by others, including by his demented sister and other proto-Nazis, and the Nazis themselves including Heidegger.

  8. and your student’s exasperation, bob – hurling the book across the room – is a reflexive version of Marx’s reaction: Marx said it’s not the job of philosophers to describe the world, but to change it. So he rushes the Owl of Minerva into flight at dawn instead of dusk, and chaos, destruction, and dreadful reversals and dire revelations ensue. It’s comforting to think that we could understand our world before we set out to change it, but it’s comforting only if we pre-suppose that the understanding is one that must somehow suit us or our abilities.

    But Hegel didn’t say that philosophy had no role in the world – and Strauss’s summary, as quoted in the Norton essay, of Hegel as quietist is a little absurd. What Hegel didn’t give any indication of was that philosophy was capable all by itself of conceiving a wholly different and better world (jumping beyond its own shadow). Nor did he opt for Strauss’s preferred non-solution solution. He preferred to measure progress beyond the ancients and pointing in directions. Kojève squares the circle via Hegel by saying that philosophy does change the world as the world changes philosophy, but that these changes may occur on much broader historical horizons than the life and thought of a single revolutionary or revolutionary movement, or even of a world-historical nation or individual.

    It’s frustrating to the would-be “superman” to remain just another adult among billions of others, especially when his imagination seems so wonderfully unlimited, but it’s not Hegel’s fault that an honest confrontation with the world and history reveals a more limited range of action and different possibilities than one might have begun with. So if you throw the book across the room, it may be because you were assuming that the True would suit your pre-conceived preferences, like the young sci-fi reader thinking about a career in physics upset about the fact that the speed of light is a fundamental constant, and hurling his Einstein across the room.

    Each and every drunk at the Bacchanalian revel got drunk for a reason, good or bad, likely emotional and inevitably contingent – that’s historicism – and it goes for the historicist, too. The true is still the revel, not the drunken speeches old and new guests give before they pass out.

  9. @ CK MacLeod:

    The multiplicity of Hegels alone should be proof enough for the existence of parallel universes.

    This “would-be superman”…yes I was young and at times full of myself. But your characterization seems harsh and evasive to me. Hegel is famously obscure (as you allude to), and known for his ideosyncratic and shifting terminology. None of which I knew at the time.

  10. @ bob:
    I think it’s more accurate that parts of Hegel, especially of the Phenomenology (though not all of it, and certainly not the Preface), seem very difficult, though I don’t know what else we should expect of someone trying to re-construct, explicate, circumscribe the possibilities of all thought starting from the simplest phenomena. Most of his work that I’ve encountered is much easier. It’s also easy to find stuff to disagree with. I’m obviously a fan, but I don’t consider him infallible or anywhere near.

    In this context, throwing the book across the room is pretty harsh and obviously evasive. But the “would-be superman” was aimed less at you personally than at Nietzsche, and secondarily at all of the ambitious thinkers, and typically young people (I was one, too), who set out to be first or best or most right, to make a name in part by bringing down someone else’s.

  11. CK MacLeod wrote:

    For the revelation to stand as a revelation, the universe revealed in the revelation can no longer be the same as the universe prior to the revelation. To say otherwise would be to say that the revelation was insignificant, and thus no revelation at all.

    That’s what Ken Wilber told his fellow Buddhists. He told them Buddha’s revelations needed updating and when they got pissed, he explained it just that way.
    Also–love your use of the Karamazov brothers to explain the whole “polyvocalic” universe. Great word “polyvocalic.”

  12. Scott Miller wrote:

    For the revelation to stand as a revelation, the universe revealed in the revelation can no longer be the same as the universe prior to the revelation.

    Does that sentence work as well if you substitute universe fro revelation and also revelation for universe?

    (polyvocalic sounds lovely but looks rather ungainly in the middle.)

  13. @ fuster:
    It does for me, but only if I substitute you for me, and me for you.

    Why don’t you write it out the way think it should go?

    (I’m still not 100% sure about certain issues of diction.)

  14. fuster wrote:

    (polyvocalic sounds lovely but looks rather ungainly in the middle.)

    It’s not alone – like an aging opera singer still playing romantic leads…

    Please feel free to add a dash and see if it swings. I read the book several centuries ago, and it would have been a translation from Russian anyway.

  15. @ CK MacLeod: Actually, I was again impressed with your take on the Big Dos. My old Latvian librarian girlfriend used to say stuff along that line.

    As to the polyvocal…it’s the yv that tips my jar.

    I’d try pitching polyphonic at you, but your word is precise.

  16. Haven’t really gotten into Doestoeyevsky, much, did get through ‘War and Piece’ Resurrection, and the Cossacks series

  17. @ fuster:
    Don’t have access to the original Russian, or even to the English translation I read. It’s possible that Bakhtin was playing with the Russian word for speaking/storytelling, which I was given to understand featured a lot in Russian lit crit… the way that a “character” is defined in a work of literature as a way of speaking or narrating, or we might say processing the world…

    Poly-vocal vs. mono-logical is already an unclean opposition. Poly-logical almost works, but might connote something different from what is intended, since there really are different formal logical systems. Polyphonic refers to sounds, and specifically to music, of course. Other possibilities come to mind… Eventually we’d end up pulling out a Greek dictionary…

  18. @ CK MacLeod:

    Yeah it’s pretty hard to access that bob at this point enough to be sure what was going on. I do remember at one point shouting “He wants to tel me what color socks to wear!”

    Some version of Buddhist emptiness is pretty inevitable if you think about things enough and at least suspend some version of god from the picture. It’s what happens next that tells the tale.

    One version of Buddhist mutiplicities/whole is in the Flower Ornament Sutra. It’s influential in Chan/Zen but not Tibetan Buddhism. this article provides an nteresting summary

  19. @ miguel cervantes:
    Dostoevsky knew how to write clearly and capture the attention of his readers, unlike authors who fly around in ever-decreasing circles.

    @ bob:
    He DID want to tell you what color socks to wear, as do all thinkers who don’t understand that facts are beautiful, that argument is a way to explore reality, and who look forward to the “perfect” time when people will all people will think alike.

  20. @ George Jochnowitz:

    I gotta say George, your agreement with me on this gives me pause. Your habit for sweeping generalizations, or sweeping satire or whatever it is, strikes me as quite disrespectful of facts and arguments. So please, make your own case.

  21. I just want to point out how important this early CK point was and is…
    CK MacLeod wrote:

    So he rushes the Owl of Minerva into flight at dawn instead of dusk, and chaos, destruction, and dreadful reversals and dire revelations ensue. It’s comforting to think that we could understand our world before we set out to change it, but it’s comforting only if we pre-suppose that the understanding is one that must somehow suit us or our abilities.

    We make the mistake when we look to philosophy (philosophers) and revelation (mystics) for comfort. There is what yogis refer to as “Shiva” type energy to real philosophy and revelation. It is destructive, not comforting.

  22. @ CK MacLeod:
    Nicely stated. But at this point, since it has come back up one more time, and you only went half way there, I have to defend Nietzsche. I have read accounts of at least one yogi-type (I can’t remember which one) who met him face to face, saw a kind of “aura” around him, and felt he was “realized” on some level and that was despite how much N was suffering from the physical afflictions you mention. Also, I think Nietzsche’s prescriptions as Zarathustra speaks to spiritual realization, especially in connection with non-theism, and are hugely underrated as yogic philosophy. They get to the point of dynamic dualism. So if he was a “nuisance,” I think he would be a good one if people hadn’t misapplied his philosophies so egregiously and failed to see the yogic connection. Oh, and actually, one yogi did. His name was Sri Aurobindo. He was educated at Oxford and used N’s Overman-Superman idea in connection with “Supra-consciousness.”

  23. @ Scott Miller:
    I think that Nietzsche “was a destiny,” to use Nietzsche’s phrase, but possibly not a philosopher. The pathos of much of his life, even before the full onset of madness, makes his theories of the Uebermensch look like psychological compensation, while descriptions of his madness often read like parodies of his intellectual flamboyance, compensation or equalization of a different type. That barely scratches the surface of the ironies that surround Nietzsche’s life and work.

  24. To use Nietzsche’s own words…
    “With [Thus Spoke Zarathustra] I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made to it so far. This book, with a voice bridging centuries, is not only the highest book there is, the book that is truly characterized by the air of the heights—the whole fact of man lies beneath it at a tremendous distance—it is also the deepest, born out of the innermost wealth of truth, an inexhaustible well to which no pail descends without coming up again filled with gold and goodness.”

  25. @ Scott Miller:
    There’s none in the copy of the original text I have. My exclamation point was a reaction to the statement – well-chosen by you, I thought, since it’s both ludicrous and sublime, pitched right on the edge of madness. It’s typical of what a contradictory creature Nietzsche was that a few lines later (in the preface to Ecce Homo) he’s quoting himself to the effect that “it’s the quietest words that bring storms – thoughts that alight on dove’s feet steer the world.” He had no trouble “philosophizing with a hammer” and then claiming to be the gentlest, subtlest fellow in the world, laying a gift or challenge before all mankind but writing only for the few, etc.

  26. @ CK MacLeod:
    Yes, I knew the point was your point. Didn’t mean to imply that it was really missing.
    I also think his nuisance-ness also has to do with our expectations. If he had been “religious,” we would expect him to be crazy. Hearing the voice of God makes people crazy. I like the fact that he heard the voice, called it by a different name, didn’t use any “crutch,” and went crazy (I think as a result of doing it the hard way). That’s why the easy way is the easy way. A mystic named Andrew Harvey says something funny when people say things like “faith in God is a crutch.” He says, “Oh, no, it’s not just a crutch, it’s the whole damn hospital.” So I admire N for doing it the hard way. Without the hospital, witnessing a horse being beaten pushed his love soaked heart over the edge. He still hugged the horse, but lost his mind. I think there was a lot of love there–too much for someone who didn’t have what even Buddhist teachers like Jack Kornfield refer to as “back-up.”

  27. @ Scott Miller:
    I returned the biography to the library a week or so ago, but I think the horse-hug happened well after the symptoms, or at least the heavy foreshadowing, of the full onset of madness had appeared. The WILL TO POWER project had already collapsed: It had been conceived of as the major work that would put him on the level of Hegel and Kant, but it was both ill-conceived and entirely beyond his powers. His biographer Young interprets it as a tribute to his integrity that, once he had thought WtP through to its self-contradictions and inadequacies, he junked it. It was the demented sister and the Nazis who summoned it from the grave and, with the complicity of others who should have known better, turned it and selected accompanying notes into the Nietzsche that most people knew for most of the 20th C. But there were vexing problems with his finished works as well – his pathological anti-feminism, his ultra-conservative views on the structure of the ideal society, the template for a very peculiar kind of manic anti-semitism that would eventually serve purposes diametrically opposed to his personal views about and conduct toward the Jews: The failings of WtP didn’t emerge from the vacuum.

    I think Nietzsche appeals to us on the basis of that Hegelian fallacy I mentioned. Whether or not we dream of being “great,” we all want to believe that we can leap beyond our limitations and inadequacies and seize the brilliant answers anyway. In that sense, he’s symptomatic of some of the same ills of modernity that he criticized. And he’s also the image of the pretentious teenager, self-help charlatan, fanatical auto-didact, New Age huckster, charismatic pseudo-prophet – and the particular form of his madness, self-humiliation joined to delusions of grandeur and disintegration of personality, also speak to that. It says, “this madness can take on many guises, and lurks behind all the lies of singular fame and renown.”

  28. @ CK MacLeod:
    All that can be true and there can still be the other side. Again, the Zarathustra prescriptions connect with higher consciousness. “Leaping beyond our limitations” brings up a whole long spiritual debate that, again, goes to the idea of “Revealed Knowledge.” I wrote 800 pages on that subject. I called it “A Prelude to Yogic Radical Discourse.” In a nut-shell, it’s equally connected to charlatanism for us to claim that our limitations are real and have the power to keep us from leaping. That belief makes way for the spiritual “middle-man” who stands before Nietzsche’s bridge and tells people they can’t cross unless he teaches them how. Business. N spoke to the alternative. He did so without back-up, and while his physical-mental afflictions certainly built to a final breakdown, the horse moment represents something on a spirit level. I know he was flawed. Even his best Zarathustra revelations are flawed. That’s why I rewrote them in a crazed leap beyond my limitations. Perhaps I’ll post the re-write someday.

  29. @ Scott Miller:
    Potentially very distracting. Let me just say that you’re completely wrong, I mean right, no wrong…

    One question is sanity-testing. I didn’t say that we couldn’t leap beyond our limitations. I did suggest that it was a common wish to do so. The Nietzschean madness is losing the ability to tell whether you have truly done some major leaping or have merely convinced yourself that you have – or are merely attempting to assert yourself into being convinced… – or testing to see if you assert just a little bit longer it will become true – or hoping that if you continue asserting it will become true again – or no longer concerned about the connection between your assertions or any assertions and a supposed truth – or… or…

    I can say, “Look, here, I’ve brought about world peace and all the world worships the Tsar with good reason!” If I’m sufficiently committed to the notion, there will be nothing you can say that disproves it, and your disagreement will simply be proof that you lack the ability to see the truth that wise visionaries like me, the Great Tsar, possess.

    I think that an Hegelian angle would be to execute the leap beyond in comprehending the limitations as they must be to the extent they must be, as simultaneously subjective and substantial, as simultaneously personal and communal (society = association of fellow sanity-testers)… but these are just cribbed notes on that very distracting discussion…

  30. Well, I told you some time ago that I have always found expositions of Hegel’s thought to be fascinating and this post would be another example. I’ve only ever read two or three books on Hegel. One of the things I took from the Rosen book–which this post reinforces–is that reality is dynamic but philosophic discourse is static and Hegel aspired to craft a discourse that would adequate the real, that would be mindful of being’s motion, the so-called Hegelian dialectical logic. Rosen’s expositions of Hegel’s logic were too difficult for me, I’m afraid, but I acknowledge that the problem (the dynamism of being or the whole) which gives rise to Hegel’s logic is genuine and thus that said logic may indeed be appropriate. Also, your suggestion that philosophy is necessarily more than philosophies or schools of philosophy is one that I’m inclined to embrace.

    So Hegel is an open issue for me, I have an open mind to his writings and I intend one day to embark on as serious a study of his works as my limited intelligence will permit. Your expression above that any educated person ought to be able to understand the preface to the Phenomenology suggests that I ought to read it without further delay.

    I must say, however, that I’m infinitely more attracted to bureaucratic monarchy than I am to liberal democracy. I fully realize that it can only ever be an armchair thing for me–but strictly in the privacy of my own mind, liberal social democracy (and thus “left” Hegelianism) will never do.

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Almost Everyone vs. The Whole Thing"
  1. […] Hegel as philosophical father of the political fathers, other than the intrinsic difficulty (“the brain-rotting obscurity”) of Hegel’s writing, would be his expressed uncertainty regarding the American future and his […]

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Related Posts:

Noted & Quoted


President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics.

The allegations, if true, would appear to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics, even as US-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million (£8 million) annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP.

Comment →

The texts, posted on a darknet website run by a hacktivist collective, appear to show Manafort’s family fretting about the ethics, safety and consequences of his work for Yanukovych. And they reveal that Manafort’s two daughters regarded their father’s emergence as a key player on Trump’s presidential campaign with a mixture of pride and embarrassment.

In one exchange, daughter Jessica Manafort writes “Im not a trump supporter but i am still proud of dad tho. He is the best at what he does.” Her sister Andrea Manafort responded by referring to their father’s relationship with Trump as “The most dangerous friendship in America,” while in another exchange she called them “a perfect pair” of “power-hungry egomaniacs,” and asserted “the only reason my dad is doing this campaign is for sport. He likes the challenge. It's like an egomaniac's chess game. There's no money motivation.”

By contrast, the Manafort daughters and their mother seemed much more unsettled about Paul Manafort’s work as a political consultant for Yanukovych’s Russia-backed Party of Regions, which is a subject of renewed interest among investigators probing possible links between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

In one March 2015 exchange that appears to be between the two sisters, Andrea Manafort seems to suggest that their father bore some responsibility for the deaths of protesters at the hands of police loyal to Yanukovych during a monthslong uprising that started in late 2013.

“Don't fool yourself,” Andrea Manafort wrote. “That money we have is blood money.”

Comment →

If there's anything mitigating the bad news for the White House here, it is that Comey may have also sent subtle signals that the matters under investigation are not principally about the personal conduct of Trump himself. While this is speculation, I do not believe that if Comey had, say, validated large swaths of the Steele dossier or found significant Trump-Russia financial entanglements of a compromising variety, he would have said even as much as he said today. I also don't think he would have announced the scope of the investigation as about the relationship "between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government" or "coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts"; these words suggest one step of removal from investigating the President himself. If the latter were the case, I suspect Comey wouldn't have used words suggestive of the Flynn-Manafort-Page cabal.

But that's reading a lot into a relatively small number of tea leaves. What is clear is that this was a very bad day for the President. In it, we learned that there is an open-ended Russia investigation with no timetable for completion, one that's going hang over Trump's head for a long time, and one to which the FBI director is entirely committed.

Comment →

State of the Discussion

Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Yeah, I read C's comments as trying to do a variety of things at the same time, having the effect of making interpretation more difficult. Any [. . .]
Benjamin Wittes: How to Read What Comey Said Today – Lawfare
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Sure, so why do they have "work Phones" they take home? Even if they don't have fate of the world responsibilities, who they work [. . .]
Isenstadt and Vogel: Paranoia seizes Trump’s White House – POLITICO

Support This Site?