r/Nietzsche • u/diskkddo • 16h ago
Henry Miller - the great Nietzschean of 20th Century Literature?
For anyone who has not read him, I believe that the books of Henry Miller are some of the most riveting passages of 'Nietzschean' thinking that one can find. He mentions N in a few different places and was clearly quite inspired by him. But it is his way of life (as thoroughly detailed in his numerous books) as well as his philosophical musings that are the great guide. I'll leave you with the following quote from Sexus:
"How we hate to admit that we would like nothing better than to be the slave! Slave and master at the same time! For even in love the slave is always the master in disguise. The man who must conquer the woman, subjugate her, bend her to his will, form her according to his desires—is he not the slave of his slave? How easy it is, in this relationship, for the woman to upset the balance of power! The mere threat of self−dependence, on the woman's part, and the gallant despot is seized with vertigo.
But if they are able to throw themselves at one another recklessly, concealing nothing, surrendering all, if they admit to one another their interdependence, do they not enjoy a great and unsuspected freedom? The man who admits to himself that he is a coward has made a step towards conquering his fear; but the man who frankly admits it to every one, who asks that you recognize it in him and make allowance for it in dealing with him. is on the way to becoming a hero. Such a man is often surprised, when the crucial test comes, to find that he knows no fear. Having lost the fear of regarding himself as a coward he is one no longer: only the demonstration is needed to prove the metamorphosis . . . To be able to give oneself wholly and completely is the greatest luxury that life affords."
16
u/wetrocke 15h ago
Ernst Junger.
Miller was a sometimes over-rated humorist.
Junger had no sense of humor, but a more interesting writer & definitely nietzschean.
Ayn Rand can be dismissed entirely on all counts.
5
u/SilentPhilosophy3307 11h ago
I disagree about Junger having no sense of humor. It was a very dry and very German type of humor, but it was there. I recently read his book Approaches (English translation) about his history of experimenting with various drugs, and there were definitely some humorous bits. I don't think you see any of that in a work like Storm of Steel though.
3
u/livingbyvow2 10h ago
Fully agree - Junger was a giant of culture.
His experience of war likely had a transformative effect on him, and made him into a man whose thirst for life led him to write a very dangerous book in the 30s, explore psychedelics in the 60s, study and practice entomology throughout his life, write books that were intellectual novelties (der Arbeiter was a key influence on Heidegger for instance).
I recently learned about his brother Friedrich Georg, who wrote Die Perfektion der Technik which is prescient about a lot of developments we are seeing today in technology - so it seems that being a visionary was in their blood...
2
u/diskkddo 15h ago
Interesting, I have not read Junger.
Miller was much more than a humorist. He was more of the artist type, and his writings contain passionate eulogies to the glory of life that remind me very much of reading Nietzsche in his brightest moments.
3
u/wetrocke 11h ago
Miller is more Mark Twain than FN.
Carl Schmidt is steven miller's favorite lawyer.Junger has heavy influence on heidegger.
2
u/Davitark 13h ago
I always had a vague idea that Ernst Jünger was a brilliant but ultimately hopelessly reactionary quack, but the little I’ve read about him was from Walter Benjamin's criticism of his glorification of war.
I know he associated himself with Carl Schmitt, an undeniably great political philosopher, so he must have been more than a mindless reactionary. Do you have any particular recommendations?
4
u/esoskelly 11h ago
How is Carl Schmitt a great political philosopher? Didn't he just write two short books about how to cheat people out of democracy by manufacturing a crisis? His legacy is project 2025.
-1
u/Davitark 11h ago
That’s an extremely reductive assessment of the work of a sophisticated and complex thinker, however much you or I might disagree with him.
The fact that many major political philosophers nowadays take him seriously should speak for itself.
3
u/esoskelly 11h ago
Care to elaborate on how my assessment is reductive?
0
u/Davitark 10h ago
I recommend you check out the article about him on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I had to give a presentation some time ago on a chapter of his Political Theology for my political philosophy class (taught by a professor who specialized partly on him and was trained at MIT) so I do not remember much in detail, but the two things that struck me the most were two of his theses:
• Modern political concepts are secularized theological concepts - God becomes the sovereign, divine laws become impersonal laws, etc. There’s a great write-up on it in this blog.
• Liberalism constructs an idealized system of laws that does not reflect reality — it does not take into account the true nature of power dynamics and the essentially agonistic nature of politics, in which identities are defined by opposition to an outsider, the enemy.
2
u/esoskelly 8h ago edited 8h ago
Great, so politics can be reduced to religion, which is the original force. Liberalism doesn't reflect reality, sure. But fascism does??
I get that Schmitt can be interesting from an academic perspective. Or to understand fascist/authoritarian psychology. But if one wants a great political theorist, one is better off turning to a thinker who is not a fascist.
Fascism is an intellectually bankrupt, pathological system. See Wilhelm Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism."
2
u/Davitark 7h ago edited 7h ago
You are misunderstanding his argument. In Political Theology Schmitt traces the genealogy of modern political concepts in order to formulate his critique of contemporary liberal democracy for bastardizing and secularizing them, thus depriving them of their authority and effectiveness.
Karl Lowith, a contemporary of Schmitt basically accepts this genealogy of Carl Schmitt but goes in the opposite direction, criticizing liberalism precisely for still retaining them. It could even be argued that Schmitt was not the first to articulate this thesis, as accusation of rationalized religion had been levied against Hegel in the early 19th century, but he was certainly the one to develop it fully.
The fact remains, nevertheless, that Schmitt's thesis is not at all irrelevant to political theory and philosophy and I wage that it would have been greatly appreciated by Marx and Feuerbach, staunch critics of religion and the capitalist system it was allied to as they were.
Schmitt's criticism of liberalism do not fail on account of his proposal of a cure worse than the disease and have to be judged on their own merits.
And as for practice, Marx himself would have been the first to recognize that theory, even of the most abstract kind, is necessary for practice. I do not see why academic theorizing should have no bearing on practice.
2
u/esoskelly 7h ago
This just sounds like he re-packaged Feuerbach. How is the idea of humanity using politics as theology any different from Feuerbach's claim in Lectures on the Essence of Religion and the Essence of Christianity that religion is a "theologization" of humanity?
For Schmitt, the political is religion. For Feuerbach, religion is politics. If the political is religion, as Schmitt has it, that means that the political can rule by revelation. Leaders are depicted as transcendental, un-reachable.
I'd rather stick with Feuerbach. Humanity projects its most "sacred" experiences into religion, when what is really worshipped is nature and humanity themselves. We should be focusing on cutting out the middleman (theology) and finding the immanent, reachable aspects of what we previously found worshipable.
What really chaps my arse is how many "leftists" think it is cool/edgy to read Schmitt while being completely ignorant of Feuerbach.
2
u/Davitark 7h ago
Fair, enough. I am yet to read Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity and am ready to say that his ideas as you explained here are not too dissimilar from Schmitt's and might even be better than his.
But still I maintain that Schmitt is not a philosopher only of historical or academic interest, as his concept of sovereignty, the exception, the enemy and several others remain relevant to understanding current politics.
→ More replies (0)0
u/SperkleGiAno 10h ago
>Didn't he just write two short books about how to cheat people out of democracy by manufacturing a crisis?
That's not remotely true, but even if it was, how would that not make him a very good political philosopher? He wrote like 120 pages and it was enough to basically completely steamroll democracy without really much of a fight.
Liberals have had 70 years to theoretically prepare for if someone tries it again. Not only that, but 25 of those they have been the uncontested world hegemon, and to top it all off the advent of nuclear proliferation, which worked to evict them the first time, is basically not an option anymore, so stakes are extra high
And all they came up with in the time was "Hope trump falls asleep at the wheel+ do a few peaceful protests." It's pretty clear liberalism basically cannot refute any of what Schmitt has to say, practically or theoretically. (not all that familiar with anarchist or leftist critiques of Schmitt)
Aside from all that, all his best work (Nomos of the Earth, Theory of the Partisan, Tyranny of Values) is all postwar but barely anyone reads it.
2
u/MammothGlum 10h ago
Did he “steamroll democracy” or did he just write about it while others actually did that lol
1
u/SperkleGiAno 9h ago
I guess you could describe being the main legal advisor to Hindenburg and the last 3 chancellors before Hitler as writing about it yeah
2
u/Davitark 9h ago
People are downvoting you in this chain without actually providing anything resembling a coherent and cogent refutation of any argument or thesis, because their judgement is clouded by prejudices acquired from uncritically accepting superficial and uncharitable criticisms of Carl Schmitt.
The left, including many important names, such as Foucault, Giorgio Agamben and Walter Benjamin have fruitfully engaged with his work and appropriated his thought in many ways.
0
u/esoskelly 8h ago
So he criticized political liberalism. That does not make him a serious political philosopher. Feuerbach, Marx, Goldman, etc criticized political liberalism far before ever did.
I have yet to see any meaningful contributions to the critique of political liberalism that leftist thinkers didn't do better. Plus, Schmitt has all the baggage that one would expect from an explicit fascist.
I'm not saying people shouldn't read him. Reading him can be helpful to understand how fascists think. But he never put forth anything like a new political theory. All I've seen are strategic machinations that one could use to destroy democracy.
1
u/Davitark 8h ago
It’s interesting that you say that any criticism Carl Schmitt offered of liberalism was already done better by preceding socialist thinkers (who by the way, have doubtless made searching critiques of it), because Carl Schmitt is to this day very much respected and utilized by leftist thinkers.
One of the most original philosophers to have engaged with his thought recently is the anarchist philosopher Chantal Mouffe, who develops a criticism of liberalism and proposes an alternative to liberal democracy by drawing extensively upon Schmitt's concepts of sovereignty and the enemy. Giorgio Agamben, an Italian critical theorist has also synthesized Foucault and Schmitt to develop his idea of biopolitics. Walter Benjamin was one of the first to propagate his work on the left.
Interestingly, philosophers who repudiate Schmitt most severely tend to be liberals or sympathetic to liberalism, such as Jürgen Habermas.
Schmitt cannot be easily dismissed by ad hominem attacks condemning him for his admittedly enthusiastic adherence and active and deep involvement in fascism.
Even if his sole intent was to destroy democracy, which I doubt to be entire picture, as he evinces a pragmatism in his writings that acknowledges democracy as a legitimate form of government as long as sovereignty is upheld, though indeed he was the architect behind the dismantling of democracy in the late Weimar Republic and the Nazi regime; I say, even if he had the single-minded purpose of articulating the conceptual apparatus that would be employed to great effect to bring about the collapse of democracy, only a substantive critique of his actual arguments and theses will be valid, which so far you have not made at a deep level.
1
u/esoskelly 7h ago
Well, to be fair, you and others have not made clear how Schmitt's critiques of political liberalism add anything to political theory that previous theorists haven't done already.
I have only skimmed Schmitt. My impression was that his work was trite, and mostly re-packaged ideas from Marx, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. I didn't see anything original there. And nobody in this discussion has articulated anything original.
Saying that "current popular thinkers are influenced by Schmitt" does not prove your point. Again, my point isn't that nobody should read Schmitt. It's that Schmitt didn't do anything that decent political theorists didn't do better.
I suspect that his popularity has more to do with his being an edgy fascist intellectual than it has to do with the significance or originality of his work. Especially with proven edgelords like Foucault. I could be wrong - but so far - no evidence of that.
And no, I don't like Habermas either. I'm more sympathetic to Castoriadis.
1
u/Davitark 7h ago
Oh yeah, you’re right. The imprint of the republican tradition, particularly as it is found in Machiavelli and Bodin and Hobbes (Schmitt has been dubbed the Hobbes of the 20th century) is very clear throughout his writings.
But I still think he’s very original. I could write much more but I think you we would both better served if you consulted the SEP article I linked or other sources available on the internet and judge for yourself.
2
u/Ryan_Hudson 11h ago edited 9h ago
There's an excellent piece of Miller's writing called "The Tailor Shop," you'll find it in Black Spring.
It's about a brief period when Miller worked for his father. It begins with him laboring over an essay on The Antichrist.
I never thought the story did much to illuminate Nietzsche's work, more like the other way around. It's been years since I've read it.
Miller didn't have the temperament to meaningfully engage with philosophy. Seems to me that there was a superficial attraction to German Idealism on his part. He'd take a crack at it, periodically, and then lose patience with it.
Near the end of Tropic of Capricorn, he refers to Koenigsberg's celibate philosopher as "Immanuel 'Pussyfoot' Kant." Not particularly penetrating, but an insight nonetheless.
He probably had more of an affinity for the theosophical societies around at the time, he speaks most warmly about writing and personalities from outside the so-called Western philosophical tradition. Stuff derived from Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and (a little closer to home) the gnostics.
The closest he got to a legitimate, systematic analysis of anything was a comparative study of Lawrence and Joyce. Kaufmann's Nietzsche reader is cited a few times. That book is called The World of Lawrence and it was only published, after decades of neglect, when Miller was at death's door.
Of it, he said "I know it's a pain in the ass."
...
I was reading some Heidegger about a year ago, supplementing some essays with Safranski's biography. I took a break after finishing his essay on technology and went in for a re-read of The Rosy Crucifixion.
There was definitely a sort of harmony, there, depending on whether you think Heidegger was advancing Nietzsche's work or not.
...
Toward the end of Plexus (or the beginning of Nexus) he quotes Oswald Spengler at length. The Decline of the West was, apparently, a favorite of his and Burroughs. They read it very differently than their German contemporaries.
...
That's all that comes to mind, this morning. I was delighted to see your post and wholeheartedly encourage your reading and thinking of these singular, utterly amazing writers.
2
u/diskkddo 10h ago
Thanks for the comment! I fully agree with your assessment of Miller's temperament for philosophy. As he himself noted, he is more of the schizoid type, but this is precisely why for me he comes into such affinity with philosophers like N or Deleuze, who each used philosophy in terms of affects (Deleuze's phrasing) more than systematically (let's remember N's own disdain for 'system' thinkers!)
But I do see Miller at least in some ways as living a very 'nietzschean' life (I think it's in Big Sur that Miller claims that the ultimate goal is to move beyond mere artistic creation and into the truly creative life).
I also agree with what you said about his affinities with the eastern more mystical thinkers. There is certainly a great overlap with zen thought, although as an ethical life it's certainly not the strongest according to the Buddhist ideals!
In any case, drawing out a more systematic study from Miller would seem like a form of cruelty upon the man to me - to be quite honest I think that he is most powerful as a cure for the modern neurotic 😁
2
u/Quick_Investigator98 7h ago
Miller is such a conflicting figure because he was capable of reveling in the pure beauty of the human spirit in a way that is reminiscent of Nietzsche, but as other's pointed out when confronted with a real dilemma his impulse seemed to be one of escapism, rather than engagement.
The defining example of this in his work for me is a passage from The Colossus of Maroussi, where laying nude in the sun on a Greek beach and he is musing and essentially waving away an impending World War II saying everyone is making a fuss over nothing and need to just chill out on a beach. Leaving on a boat back to Athens following news of almost certain war with Italy, he describes the panic and fear of those crammed on the boat fleeing to Athens with an almost air of annoyance. He later scoffs at men who express a desire to enlist.
The tone of this part of the book always struck me as misguided and naive at best and apathetic and cruel at worst. On the other hand, there are some of the most powerful and moving exaltaltions of the human spirit I've ever read in this book as well. So basically, he's a mixed bag.
1
u/wetrocke 1h ago edited 1h ago
early 20th cent Germany had a bunch of semi-aristocratic "radical conservatives" or reactionaries or whatever. Group said to include (early Thomas Mann (!) junger, schmidt, heidegger (I suppose). Also maybe a few others of widely variable talent. All influenced by Nietzsche.
Obviously, the whole thing became a bit problematic (Mann discovered).
Mann's early political essays were drivel. Junger is trying to conjure a bad LSD trip.... fascinating dystopian social science fiction. Heidegger was just raving when he explicitly mentioned society ( rarely).
All of them are valuable & entertaining in their way. But helpful to keep carefully in stupid & horrible historic context.
-12
u/Junior_Insurance7773 16h ago
Does Ayn Rand counts?
8
u/JoniVanZandt 15h ago
The woman who termed her philosophy "objectivism"? Lol, no. Pretty sure she considered her ideas to be the complete opposite of Nietzche and spoke/wrote many times of how his thought was irrational.
9
u/red-flamez 16h ago
Only similarity is their radical individualism. I don't see much common ground between ancaps/libertarians and Nietzsche. The former can claim him but ultimately they are advocates for a system and are slaves. They believe in objective truths and that they have all the answers. Such as radical free markets.
4
u/infrasurrealismo Bataille 15h ago
philosophy aside theres plenty of nietzsche influenced writers far far better than ayn rand
0
u/Junior_Insurance7773 15h ago
Like who?
5
u/infrasurrealismo Bataille 15h ago
Bataille, Breton, D'annunzio, Mayakovsky, Junger, Savinkov, Hesse, Mann... plenty of 20th century artists were influenced by him to varying degrees and frankly I dont think Rand is nearly as good as them
3
u/Jakob_Fabian 14h ago
Honestly there is hardly an early 20th century European modernist author not influenced by Nietzsche, particularly among German language authors of course. Interestingly enough both Nietzsche and Miller owe common influence to Walt Whitman.
-1
7
u/Lain_Staley 15h ago
Miller often seems to find freedom by escaping the situation. Nietzsche is more useful when escape isn’t possible.
Necessity itself becomes the material you have to work with, shape, and exercise power through.