The Freud fray in France | 50 comments (50 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: The Freud fray in France (4.00 / 6)

Nietzsche is hard to read, especially in translation, and even harder to understand. IMO, what one gets 'out of' Nietzsche is what one brings to the reading; what one comes out with is what one went in with.

In my reading Nietzsche is an exponent of The Free Spirit specifically an Intellectually Free Spirit who is willing, eager, to take their own thoughts as seriously and at the same level as the recognized Greats: Plato, Descartes, Kant, etc. This is profoundly at variance with the typical German-style scholarship, call it, which painstakingly compares what A Great wrote and then who said what about this and that following what other people have written leaving no time, or energy ... the 'space,' as it were ... to say anything for or about ones self.

For isn't one's deepest thoughts what one IS?

Nietzsche is superb for freeing the roots of oneself creating the space To Be, intellectually.

However, once getting at the wellsprings of one's cognitive-emotional ontology one can get stuck there, entrapped (and it is a trap) by the blinding light of one's own brilliance. As Robert Graves put it:

He found a formula for drawing comic rabbits:
This formula for drawing comic rabbits paid.
Till in the end he could not change the tragic habits
This formula for drawing comic rabbits made.

The elites that das monde refers to and the pathological Nietzscheans behind TBG's comment have, in my opinion, found the formula (Nietzsche) for drawing comic rabbits. And there they sit, unwilling to challenge The Greatest Great of Them All: themselves. In Nietzsche's terminology, they pass from the burdened camel to the lion roaring in the desert and never move forward to the child - where one becomes the artist of oneself, intellectually and emotionally - which then, slowly, turns into a burdened camel ... and the cycle continues.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Thu Sep 23rd, 2010 at 12:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (4.00 / 2)

Randians talk about freedom also, a lot. Their freedom is obviously facile - but they think to know all of it, they could feel quite enlightened.

Nietzsche's work looks more complicated than that, I agree. He might have been more ironic than serious. But if reading him apparently vibes with so many fools (be it unwittingly), who gets his real message? Nietzsche looks like one of those writers that is seldom actually read, but often "knowingly" talked about. Like with Adam Smith (for example), you are told what he wrote often. And even if you don't feel agreeing with him, his wisdom might be around you in many ways. It's like with Darwin's theory of evolution: the majority of Americans say to reject it, but they conform to a refined Social Darwinism faithfully.

by das monde on Thu Sep 23rd, 2010 at 10:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (none / 1)

It's like with Darwin's theory of evolution: the majority of Americans say to reject it, but they conform to a refined Social Darwinism faithfully.

Ironically, the origin of Creationism in the US can be traced to a reaction to the perceived link between the social Darwinism of the German elites and the horror of WWI. In fact, social Darwinism was antithetical to Christian values and this was used to launch a new attack on Darwinian Evolution at a time when Evolution had already been generally accepted.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 04:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (none / 1)

What we may perceive as Social Darwinism may be, for its believers, the logical extension of the Calvinist work ethic.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 04:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (4.00 / 2)

Right. But Calvinist rationalizations can go so far that they are indistinguishable from Randian - and perhaps Nietzschean and some other. The far-away overlapping gives occasions for mutual confirmations - and lazy human mind likes confirmations.

If you look at it from the philosophical demand side of "self-made" elites, then Calvinism, Rand, pop-Nietzsche, pop-Darwin all make good justification sense (and utility). You don't have to accept them all publicly and with all implications.

Whatever justification you openly choose as most comprehensive, you can rationalize far beyond actual applications. A few examples of getting rich through hard work will close your eyes to egregiously easy capture of wealth and many hard works unawarded. Is it hard to say, how valuable is investment risk, even if the same risks are awarded like in a lottery or the roulette game? It only gets better if a social system is more tilted towards winner-takes-all games and rewards.

by das monde on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 05:00:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (4.00 / 2)

Ironically, the origin of Creationism in the US can be traced to a reaction to the perceived link between the social Darwinism of the German elites and the horror of WWI.

That depends on what you mean by "the origin of Creationism in the US."

Creationism has always been around, in greater or lesser strength. Like the Catholic neurosis about homosexuality, it is probably originally one of those religious schisms that got entrenched in the popular consciousness because it coincided with a bitter political conflict and became a proxy for distinguishing one of the sides (the discovery of the theory of evolution is roughly contemporary with the American civil war and with the emergence of what is usually called "modern" culture).

If we are talking about contemporary Creationism, it's even simpler: Contemporary Creationism is around because a handful of extremely wealthy members of the American Taliban paid for it. No Scaife, no Ahmanson, no Rushdooney, and Creationism would today be a fringe sect with no power outside crazy Millenialist cults. (And when I call these people the American Taliban, I'm not kidding. Scaife is a Murdoch en miniature, and only marginally less toxic, while Ahmanson and Rushdooney are - were, in the latter case - unreconstructed theocrats that make the House of Saud look sane by comparison.)

It is true that the whole Social Darwinism shtick is one of the propaganda lines the Creationists use. But it is neither the core of their moral outrage at modern biology, nor of their political project. The central philosophical point of contention is that they are against "materialism." Evolution is just the particular angle of attack chosen - the eventual philosophical objective, as laid out in the Wedge Document, is to roll back the entire Enlightenment project. Politically, it's even simpler: Creationism is a FUD operation run by intellectual prostitutes and useful idiots and funded by robber barons who want to roll back the whole irritating "democracy" fad and restore their rightful place in society as feudal lords.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 07:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (none / 1)

I'm not sure I agree with this. It would make sense to talk about the historical precedents of creationism, but a movement called as such emerged only in the early 20th century, and then had a continuous history from failed Presidential candidate Bryan and the Scopes Trial through pressure on schoolbooks (which began in earnest after the creationists' victory in the Scopes Trial) and Morris to the 'research institutes' funded by those nasty billionaires. Also, contemporary creationism is not only these 'research institutions', but loads of local churches trying to exert political pressure, in particular via schoolboards, and I fear those would exist without the billionaires (even if the movement would be much more fringe without the fake scientists).

Here is a quote from William Jennings Bryan - Wikipedia

Bryan opposed the theory of evolution for two reasons. First, he believed that what he considered a materialistic account of the descent of man through evolution undermined the Bible. Second, he saw neo-Darwinism or Social Darwinism as a great evil force in the world promoting hatred and conflicts, especially the World War.^[28]
In his famous Chautauqua lecture, "The Prince of Peace," Bryan warned the theory of evolution could undermine the foundations of morality. However, he concluded, "While I do not accept the Darwinian theory I shall not quarrel with you about it."
One book Bryan read at this time convinced him that neo-Darwinism (emphasizing the struggle of the races) had undermined morality in Germany.^[29] Bryan was heavily influenced by Vernon Kellogg's 1917 book, Headquarters Nights: A Record of Conversations and Experiences at the Headquarters of the German Army in Belgium and France, which asserted (on the basis of a conversation with a reserve officer named Professor von Flussen) that German intellectuals were social Darwinists totally committed to might-makes-right.^[30]

Historically, one should also distinguish Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists, even if the Intelligent Design trick brought the two camps together.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 03:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (4.00 / 2)

On the origin of the 'research institutes' themselves, those pre-dated the billionaires, too:

Creationism in the United States: IV. The Aftermath of Epperson v. Arkansas

In 1970, prompted by the California State Board of Education's inclusion of creation and evolution as historical scientific theories, the Creation Science Research Center was formed by Nell Segraves, Kelly Segraves, and Henry Morris. Soon thereafter, Morris' Creation Research Society produced a high school biology textbook titled Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity. That book, which promoted the biblical story of creation and declared that "There is no way to support the doctrine of evolution," was offered to teachers interested in a "balanced treatment" of studies of origins. The use of Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity in public schools was subsequently declared unconstitutional because it violated the separation of church and state (see discussion in Moore 1998d).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 04:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (4.00 / 2)

I'll start taking the Literal Bible Crowd seriously when they turn in their cars for ones whose engines were designed and built according to the inerrant Biblical Pi = 3.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 04:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (4.00 / 2)

Oh, we had one. My dad prayed for it and that was what he got. It never ran properly. </childhood memory>

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 04:37:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Freud fray in France (4.00 / 2)

I think we've all had cars that required divine intervention to get from here to there & back again.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 06:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nietzche shows us how to think (none / 1)

in new ways, that's what I like about him. Of course, he was rather full of himself and of his own cleverness, especially in his later works. But no matter. He's definitely a Useful Thinker.

The tragic thing is that so many people see Nietzche / anyone else as Masters of Thought, i.e. they refuse to learn anything from his demonstration about how to think for themselves, but attempt to follow rules that they imagine the thinker has established.

Freud and Marx suffer (retrospectively) from this too. Though Freud, as a great rule-maker, probably deserves it.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Sep 24th, 2010 at 08:00:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Freud fray in France | 50 comments (50 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Fiscal and Organizational Capacity of States and Sovereignty

Rail News Blogging #25

Pentecost steam

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

Newspeak to English pocket dictionary

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Europe and the Mongol...

Quantifying Utopia: A UBI Calculator for the USA

Simple Solar Principles

Recent Diaries

Rail News Blogging #25

Fiscal and Organizational Capacity of States and Sovereignty

Pentecost steam

Simple Solar Principles

Quantifying Utopia: A UBI Calculator for the USA

Newspeak to English pocket dictionary

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Europe and the Mongol...

Rail News Blogging #24

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

The Brussels Consensus: economic disaster in EU candidate...

Origins of German Neo-Austerianism

Ferguson hates on Keynes

Dionysian revels: Nice, May Day 2013:

Anglo Or Not, It's A Disease

The UK and the Euro

Free Energy: Solar and Dynamo LED Keychain Lights

Kruganomics 101

Gold

Corporate Profits and Aggregate Demand

VC Investment: Then and Now

Occasional Series