It’s impossible to not immediately return to that study I found yesterday

Marcuse’s “proto-Marxist reading of Hegel” in Hegel’s Ontology “hardly escaped Heidegger’s acute knowledge of and sense for the history of philosophy.”

Heidegger rejected his dissertation. Why? Who is the REAL Hegel?

First I’ve heard of the following (((probably “for reasons”))) – ain’t correspondence great?

in their bitter exchange after the war, Heidegger replied to Marcuse’s inquiries about his Nazism by listing anticommunism among his main motives.

Anyone else go through a stage where they were mindblown by Marcuse? In retrospect I can see why he would appeal to the youth. (Just a sidenote- wasn’t it proved that Marcuse was literally a CIA plant?)

It was this dissertation of his that ended up getting him invited into the Adorno circle.

Imagine- you’re a gulag guard and you pass a cell where someone is mumbling about these things – what do you do?

Just trying to piece this dispute together

Heidegger’s sensitivity to alienation—a theme central to Marcuse as well

Who has a monopoly on the interpretation of Hegelian ideas? That would be Marx and his followers, within ZOG.

I bet their next disagreement I note will resonate with you even more than “alienation”- that is anxiety. It’s, among other things, a question of what the nature of anxiety is and what to do about it. After Heidegger joined the National Socialists Marcuse began interpreting Heidegger’s interpretation of anxiety as “reactionary” and “oppressive”.

Here is Marcuse in that Hegel dissertation

In ‘experiencing fear of the lord’ in the course of its struggle unto life and death, the slave ‘has been fearful [Angst], not of this or that particular thing or just at odd moments, but its whole being has been seized with Angst.’

Sounds like a universal human experience. What are the stakes involved in siding with either the Marxist or Heideggerian understanding of it?

I don’t know how lost in fantasyland people are so I’ll note for the hundredth time that Marx today is thoroughly enmeshed in “the system”. He is kosher, he is praised by professors. Put differently, it is establishmentarian to speak favorably of Marx, and it is establishmentarian to speak unfavorably of Heidegger. What are the stakes of this?

Between the two, who understood Hegel better? Or if you want to distance from appeal to authority, between the two who understood anxiety better?

We’re getting into a light subject here

the question “What is the human being?” was present in Marcuse’s debate with Heidegger

To be blunt with you, when I see the average person who champions Marx I have serious doubts whether they know what the human being is, and I have serious doubts whether they are a human being themselves. You want me to be honest or not?

They are “materialists” alright, in perhaps both the philosophical AND pejorative sense in one. Consistently.

What do you think about this when you’re a gulag guard twirling your key chain and you hear someone in a cell mumbling about this? You probably never ask yourself these lofty questions, mindless guard. So that is why I give you the experience of being in MY cell while I am outside looking at you instead. A lowly animal in there that deserves to be in there, and you know it.

What is the human being? Like I’d ask YOU.

Ask an American, they might as well be responding by mooing like a cow or grunting like a pig.

Anyway, not to sound hateful like Bloy. I think Heidegger is right about standing reserve. This is what being a human is to people- extracting resources. A woman is three holes and a man is something that extracts resources for those three holes. A woman is about as sentient as a bowling ball and a man is about as sentient as a bowler.

“Look into my eyes and tell me that, I’m a human being!” -laughter from the shadows of the cell-

Do I ever make you feel anxious?

What is the solution to that anxiety?

It seems that “lies” are the frequent solution of choice.

Yeah, about standing reserve though. Whenever a shill or a milquetoast “person” speaks just translate their words into “Give me money give me money give me money.” There’s no actual substance, only a request for resources. That’s what “Truth” is to them, that which can extract resources.

Let’s continue with the genealogy of the history of western philosophy.

Heidegger’s 1932 letter… called attention to communism’s philosophical debt to Hegel

So we get to a broader question beyond “Who understood Hegel the best?” — it’s rather “Who understood the history of philosophy the best?” and Heidegger tends to read Hegel and Marx through Kant.


the heart of Heidegger’s narrative of “history of being,” which held that the instrumental mind-set of Western modernity was a consequence of certain ontological choices

Just think about these things without any philosophical jargon, like a normal person. WHY wonder about the nature of the human being? WHY meditate on “Being” itself? There IS NO why, you do it because you do it. There’s no instrumentality here. Try to do that, try to answer the question of the nature of the human being without attempting to extract resources.

Heidegger (fluent in ancient Greek) retranslated Aristotle’s famous saying in a way that I think casts light on what I’m talking about here. He changed “All men by nature desire to know” to “The care for seeing is essential to man’s being.”

This flies in the face of “praxis” (to note one of the most obvious implications). First, do you even CARE to SEE? Before you partake in praxis have you first cared to see what being is?

Again, the innumerable obnoxious Marx-fans I’ve had the misfortune of experiencing for years consistently have given me the impression that they act without meditating on what the nature of the human being is. Just one person’s anecdotal report.

I’ve written about this theme before- Marxists tend to be blind to their roots in Kant. The question of what a being is is not something that should be asked as a means to an end. It is a question that is an end in itself. When you ask it as a means to an end that’s how you end up with Woke Capital. You end up offering answers that appease the majority, and the majority is always vulgar.

I bet in your heart of hearts if you answered that question without caring what anyone thinks of your answer YOU WOULD BE HATED. Your reputation points would go down, it would cause your “social credit score” to decrease.

Many people on the right are natural Kantians that don’t care about any of that, and have in fact formed their own “Kantian social credit score” which does seem healthier than the herd-appeasement extraction tactics of the typical liberal vulgarian.

“How can I read this very post of Wagner’s as a means to an end??” Yes you little cretin, I know that’s what you’re wondering.

Just try your best to answer the question, you don’t have to tell anyone who might decrease your social credit score over it.

“LIVE LAUGH LOVE!!” Okay, live for what, laugh about what, love what, and why?

Those questions will cause, in a sensitive person, anxiety. That means you’re alive. The answers to those questions will also cause anxiety, anxiety that will manifest as political attitudes. Thus, it is important to contemplate them free from the demands of the questionable arbiters of the social credit score. Because otherwise you will be carrying out political projects in service of those questionable arbiters.

Virtually any cause you can think of on the left is designed to extract resources via herd-appeasement. The situation is similar on the populist right. That’s why many rightists remind me of a black woman.

In question is what Jünger called the “aristocratic right” – this goes back to Kant.

In my opinion–or at least when I personally reflect on the question of what the human being is, and ask the question as an end in itself–ONE of the answers is that it is a being that strives to make the current brahmins look as vulgar as the herd in the future. My anxiety is about the future being “full-herd” rather than “post-herd”. And of course my social credit score will not be increasing for this answer, nor will it be increasing for the solutions I offer.

So many will read this and think “Yes, I know perfectly what you mean” and in the next breath continue appeasing the herd.

And that itself is another answer to what the nature of the human being is. It’s a being one can expect the worst from. It’s a being that doesn’t understand its own being and doesn’t want to, it’s a being that itself is a means to an end among other creatures that are also means to an end.

“Appeasing the herd is what the nature of the human being is!” Yeah, I know that’s NOT what it is. And yet you will continue to “be” that way anyway. Hence- subhuman.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: