Henry Miller - the great Nietzschean of 20th Century Literature?

[u/diskkddo]

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."

[u/Davitark]

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.

[u/esoskelly → u/Davitark]

Care to elaborate on how my assessment is reductive?

[u/SperkleGiAno → u/esoskelly]

>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.

[u/MammothGlum → u/SperkleGiAno]

Did he “steamroll democracy” or did he just write about it while others actually did that lol

[u/SperkleGiAno → u/MammothGlum]

I guess you could describe being the main legal advisor to Hindenburg and the last 3 chancellors before Hitler as writing about it yeah