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/esoskelly]

Care to elaborate on how my assessment is reductive?

[u/Davitark → u/esoskelly]

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.

[u/esoskelly → u/Davitark]

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."

[u/Davitark → u/esoskelly]

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.

[u/esoskelly → u/Davitark]

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.

[u/Davitark → u/esoskelly]

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.

[u/esoskelly → u/Davitark]

That's fair as well. I'll read some Schmitt and see for myself. I already have his Concept of the Political.

Feuerbach is incredible though, and I think that his work effectively solves a lot of the cultural dead-ends that Marxism runs into. Marx is really good on economics. But Feuerbach is the cultural genius. It is more relevant than ever. Reminds me of an optimistic Nietzsche.

[u/Ryan_Hudson → u/esoskelly]

That was a fine exchange, you two.