Still appreciating tips from Gadamer
Scheler was one of his favorite opponents, the one who had understood him the best. So when he lost Scheler, he lost more than the rest of us—in his own perception… Scheler was one, the only one, I would say—we all could not judge ourselves with reference to [Heidegger]—but Scheler, well, he could
Scheler is that one with the book on ressentiment. He died early, he fell off the map, no one really has heard of him today.
The text of his that H particularly admired was Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik so I’m going to go into some details about that. The genre it’s in is the phenomenology of ethics. Do people believe in that these days, ethics? I don’t think they do. Void-worship is their first-nature (aka intuitive relativism). And I personally find phenomenology to be a convincing way of going about things. It directs you to your own experience, and there isn’t much arguing with your own experience. He also has a book on the phenomenology of sympathy (or love) that some might be interested in. We have experiences and we don’t really know what they are. Only rare people have the self-reflectiveness that is able to articulate them, and Scheler is one of them.
Just a basic example of this field, from Levinas- the face of the other. When you see someone’s face how do you feel? All ethics is contained in that. It’s not the same as when you’re alone. When you make eye-contact with someone, all the objective moral feelings are there, even if it’s a stranger.
Look who Scheler is taking on here
even in these sections of criticism it was always my assumption that Kant’s ethics, and not the ethics of any other modern philosopher, represents the most perfect we have in the area of philosophical ethics— although not in the form of a Weltanschauung or a consciousness of faith, but rather in the form of strict scientific insight.
So H must have thought he perfected Kant even further. H actually dedicated his 1929 Kant book to Scheler, so we might expect a double-perfectioning with that.
It’s kind of important when you’re not a nihilist, this idea of ethics. I know that’s a strange notion for many nihilists out there who scoff at the word. Well you’re just a jew if you do that. Anyone who is a minion of the demiurge doesn’t care about ethics, so don’t even pretend. I see right through you, dirt that would receive punishment in an ideal world. If you’re a demiurge-minion you belong in prison, gypsy.
I’ve reached these conclusions because I’m similar to Scheler and have tried to perfect Kant’s system myself.
Just because billions of people would be in prison doesn’t mean they don’t belong there. All the niggers KNOW who they are. Imagine if we were actually making eye-contact, they’d really know then.
In fact, part of the reason they visit here is because they WANT to be judged, because they still contain a spark of life that hates their demiurge-minion side. See, we’re really doing phenomenology right now. Of course, if you’re too acute about psychological states the self-deception will begin, so best to be “light” about what you see there. I’d call it the male version of a witch in many cases, a being that isn’t opposed to dabbling in evil. This is “normal” so you probably don’t recognize it.
They don’t really have control, so you can’t blame them
I strongly oppose any current of a time which, as the British philosopher Herbert Spencer said in his last hours, would finally lead to the fact that “man can no longer do what he wills to do but only what he has been told to do.”
They’re in shackles on the egregore’s plantation. They don’t “will” anything, an external will works through them.
I have to skip over some things in Scheler because I know corrupt people will not be able to hear them, however essential they might be. This is my version of rhetoric you could say- do many people inform you about their rhetoric? Well I’m bound by Kantian lessons to do so. cough cough Don’t talk to the demons about God, oops I said it.
Once again, you have to attend to your own experience. My first experiences with God I thought of in Buddhist terms and not with the word “God” at all. You probably noticed I like to examine what grounds what. God precedes ethics. For Levinas in fact, what you see in someone’s face is God. I only invite you to rethink your own experiences.
I don’t expect to convince many people in 2022 US, just really talking to H enthusiasts who already are aware. He thought so highly of Scheler and no one knows him today.
Some people trace the malaise to Descartes, and I can see that. Everyperson Doubts Everything now. There’s nothing to doubt, everything is real, you and I are having a talk here and now. Doubt what? France is just a mental illness factory ever since him. They should try a national revival and go back to Montaigne who wasn’t so detached from reality, being more grounded in the realism of the ancients.
Talking to the US, talking to jewry, talking to France, might as well be talking to obelisks of rottenness. Best to just avoid them finally teetering over onto you.
H is right that phronesis is conscience. And no one has that.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a school where we talked about these things without worrying about jews plotting to ruin your life and starve you to death for it?
Plausible deniability, that’s not real goy. Submit to the kikes or else. What you believe is the truth. You don’t belong in prison for being part of their scheme.
Hypnosis few can venture beyond.
my concern is not every little flourish of the work of the “historical Kant,” but rather the idea of a formal ethics as such, for which Kant’s ethics is only an example — although the greatest, most compelling, and most rigorous of all.
What were they up to in… Atlantis, anyway?
Ask the people with no conscience, I bet they have the best answer for you.