[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 57 KB, 318x460, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4806410 No.4806410[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Who is you favorite National Socialist philosopher and why is it Heidegger?

>> No.4806413

>>4806410
there aren't really that many choices

i dont think this will be controversial at all

>> No.4806418

>>4806410
I like Neitzche better.

>> No.4806422

>>4806418
Was waiting for that one.
Also, not funny

>> No.4806426

Karl Marx

>> No.4806427

>>4806418
Sarah Palin.
Spongebob.

>> No.4806428

>>4806426
lel

>> No.4806437

James Connolly.

>> No.4806439

>>4806410
Frege was best.

>> No.4806440 [DELETED] 

>>4806410
inb4 liberal babbies collectively clench their anuses so hard it causes a space-time rift

>> No.4806442

>>4806410
Not really a philosopher but Knut Hamsun dseserves some props as well

>> No.4806447

Otto Weininger

>> No.4806448

William Morris

>> No.4806450

Bertrand Russell claimed Rousseau lead directly to Hitler in his philosophical history. So Rousseau then.

>> No.4806451
File: 3.41 MB, 4080x2232, 1368087784660.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4806451

>>4806410
Not many philosophers where in the Party but Heidegger is great along with pic related

>> No.4806453

>>4806427
>Spongebob
That hit me right in the giggles.

>> No.4806457

Douglas Young

>> No.4806471

>>4806450
I would argue that Schopenhaur contributed more to Hitler's philosophy than Rousseau

>> No.4806472
File: 29 KB, 380x250, 1395942686001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4806472

>>4806451
>he keeps posting it
you could at least fix the spelling errors

>> No.4806476

>>4806440
I've never heard a liberal attack Heidegger with an argument grounded in liberalism. Only analytic fedoras attack him, because he had the balls to do a rigorous critique of modern technology (that is supposed to lead us to the promised land/rapture e.g. The singularity) and by doing that is a heretic. They are just New world garbage, not 'liberals'.

>> No.4806483

>>4806450
>Bertrand Russell

Why are the British generally so beta? They don't have guns, they're pretty much living in 1984, Laurie Penny is their prime minister, and then they have people like Russell who sat around like a pansy drinking tea (and is even known for his 'teapot' lol) interpreting master philosophers in the most beta way possible.

>> No.4806485

because Heidegger wrote some really cool stuff

...is this a trick question

>> No.4806486

>>4806483
I blame Hume

>> No.4806487

>>4806451
>confusing Nazism with aristocracy

you truly are a kid

>> No.4806488

>>4806471
>I would argue
>doesn't provide an argument
Kill yourself

>> No.4806489

>>4806450
I'm not that familiar with Rousseau but he doesn't seem like the kind of dude to advocate for strong central governments, imperialism, and genocide.

>> No.4806497

>>4806487
>>confusing Nazism with aristocracy
>you truly are a kid

>implying National Socialism isn't Aryan aristocracy
you are truly a pleb

>> No.4806500

>>4806488
HE said he would he didnt say WHEN
nananananana

>> No.4806502

>>4806489
No, not at all, that's why you don't understand him.

>> No.4806503

>>4806488
The primacy of the human Will is a key element in Hitlerian thought.

For example, Hitler authored the title to Leni Riefenstahl's film masterpiece, Triumph of the Will (Triumph des Willens).

Schopenhauer, by the way, is referenced twice in Mein Kampf. One of the references quotes Schopenhauer's famous dictum that the Jew is "the great master of lying." Nietzsche, the other great philosophic apostle of the Will, is not mentioned at all, although the phrase "the Will to Power (Wille zur Macht)" is attibuted to him and often associated with Hitler. It is possible that Nietzche's influence on Hitler has been overstated by historians, and that of Schopenhauer understated.

>> No.4806505

>>4806483
It's a good question. What's crazy is they don't realize how beta they are. It's like a part of their brain has been removed.

>> No.4806509

>>4806476
Please tell us more

>> No.4806511

hitler had no philosophy
sorry to hurt your nazi feels but he was a pleb
>but he read schopenhauer during ww1
>he read langbehn and nietzsche and julian apostata and chamberlain and...
doesnt matter. never met a pleb with patrician book shelves before? he couldnt even understand basic perspective in his shitty postcards even though he "read hundreds of books about art". action talks louder than words and he left a giant shitstain. rosenberg was the only nazi philosopher with ambitions and hitler made fun of him like an insecure redneck. of course hitler's entourage would treat him like a great thinker, thats basic minionmode.

>> No.4806512

Gotta be Carl Schmitt.

>> No.4806513

>>4806503
>It is possible that Nietzche's influence on Hitler has been overstated by historians, and that of Schopenhauer understated.
I feel this too, especially considering Nietzsche's pro-Semetic comments were considered more abnormal by contemporaries, and his dislike of national power structures.

>> No.4806516

>>4806503
Your argument assumes Hitler's understanding of the Will was equivalent to Schopenhauer's conception.

But anyway, Schopenhauer would have agreed with the title "Triumph of the Will" but because the Will always triumphs, that's his whole point. This is a kind of neutral statement when you think about it, though, because according to Schopy, the Will always triumphs, whether it's Hitler's will or the Will of a great shark.

>> No.4806517

>>4806450
Russell's philosophical history sucks and nobody takes it seriously. His analysis on definite descriptions is neat, but most of his other stuff is dead wrong.

>> No.4806525

>>4806511
This is a good point. Many people talk about this as if reading or owning a book were the equivalent of using the author's brain to fuel our body. People are prone to misinterpretation, especially when it comes to art school rejects.

>> No.4806529

>>4806516
Heh, I repeated myself here. I'm a little drunk. Basically my point is that according to Schopy you can't go out there and *try* to assert your Will, I don't think. You don't have a choice.

>> No.4806534

>>4806516
>because according to Schopy, the Will always triumphs
And this isn't a good thing, he would add, which differentiates him from Hitler even more. You don't even need Schopenhauer to link some philosopher with Hitler when there's already Hegel.

>> No.4806548

>>4806511
>>4806525
If Hitler revived and could read all the shit that's been written against him I'm think the people making fun of his rejection from art school would be the one to hurt him the most.

>> No.4806549

>>4806534
>tfw hegel created hitler, stalin and freud

>> No.4806560

>>4806549
>freud
Ripping off Shopenhauer and Nietzsche constitutes like 80% of his theory.

>> No.4806565

>>4806560
>Shopenhauer
Forgib me Schopy. I typo'd

>> No.4806569

>>4806503
You're an idiot.
Schopenhauer's Will is the unity of all living things. It cannot seek power, because there is nothing outside of life that one can conquer. Schopenhauer's views are peaceful and surrendering. Nothing in there to spur violence.

Nietzsche's Will to Power is the desire of individual objects to overcome one another. It continually seeks power in testing itself against others. Nietzsche's views are aggressive and conquering. Everything in there spurs violence.

>> No.4806570

Why does Heidegger catch so much shit for being a Nazi, when Carl "let's fucking burn more jewish books" Scmitt gets off without any real criticism and is cited widely within law and philosophy?

>> No.4806574

>>4806560
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism

>> No.4806582

>>4806569
>Nietzsche's views are aggressive and conquering. Everything in there spurs violence.

Nietzsche is working off the Heraclitean idea of polemos. This has the connotations of war and strife but can also be read as a playful, joyous phenomenon.

Nietzsche strives for man to be the dancing star star, the playful, innocent creating child.

The violence of the lion gives way to the creating force of the child.

>> No.4806583

>>4806570
Well, I think it's because Carl was always honest about his views. There's no "hidden propaganda" danger on his works.

>> No.4806585

>>4806548
What exactly is Hitler's relation to art history? I don't get the impression that he was principally behind the Degenerate Art exhibit

>> No.4806598

>>4806583
Heidegger's nationalistic emphasis on thought belonging to the soil that produced it isn't veiled at all, neither is it the slightest controversial from an existentialist point of view.

>> No.4808429

>>4806582
This.
However, the child-phase was in Zarathustra's case close to death (the phase where one creates a new soul).

>> No.4808464

>>4806570
Schmitt is cited and discussed nowhere near as widely as Heidegger, and very rarely discussed in contexts where its possible to actually divorce his arguments from the fact that he was a literal Nazi.

So, like, you can have some purely philosophical argument and invoke Heidegger without really knowing that he was a Nazi. And I think that really bothers people. Where if you're talking about Schmitt, it's about politics and everyone understands that he was a Nazi. And in my experience there's usually an unspoken codicil or an attitude when discussing Schmitt, of "Yes we know this dude was evil and we're only entertaining his ideas here because they're historically relevant, or important critiques, or whatever." He doesn't get off scot free. The difference between him and Heidegger is that everyone knows Schmitt was a Nazi so it's not controversial, whereas Heidegger is more ambiguous (both in terms of how much of a Nazi he was and how that tied into his thought) and so more controversial.

>> No.4808522

>>4808464
>we know this dude was evil
What kind of people do you associate with who would stoop that low in a discussion about philosophers?

>> No.4809831
File: 24 KB, 250x298, a225a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4809831

>> No.4809848

>>4806497
National Socialism is populist as fuck. It hasn't much to do with actual aristocracy, it's demagoguery masquerading as elitism.

>> No.4809885

>>4806450
Bertrand Russell is reddit tier.

>> No.4809962

>>4806503
>Hitlerian

Why do people do this? Why do people add "ian" or "ism" after every word?

4chanian
Newfagism
Shitpostian

>> No.4810009
File: 309 KB, 923x1360, 1907166939.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4810009

>>4809848


incidentally, evola actually wrote a book on this very subject.

>> No.4811170

Barack Obama