The Tea Party - A Simple Observation

A recent article by the professor of the philosophical department at the laughable New School in New York City proclaimed that the "Tea Party" is nihilist.
This is not only an impotent attack on the Tea Party, but a cruel form of academic elitism.

The Tea Party is many things, but certainly (and I'd wager the author knows this) not nihilist.

This impotent philosophy professor would imagine that those on the right are severely paranoid, delusional, and disgruntled to the point of violence- but in fact, the opposite is true.

This impotent philosophy professor would have us believe via a mistaken interpretation of Hegel that Thesis Antithesis Synthesis is somehow political- it is not. In fact, Thesis Antithesis Synthesis is nothing more than the Holy Trinity applied to Methodology.

The Tea Party is simply right.

They espouse the virtues of state and local government- of individualism- of patriotism.

These are all in dire need in America's great moment of disaster.

"I say to you friends that we must not succumb to the threat of terror that faces us within our borders."

-Ronald Reagan

How this could be construed as nihilism is, to me, beyond belief. That the author would resort to such crude polemics astounds me. Even one cursory reading of hegel and the history of the Nazi party would show that this is, in fact, insidious socialism within academia (ideology).

When it comes to a representative of education distorting so grossly the beliefs of these humble people in the New York Times- Ugh.

And to do so in the name of Philosophical inquiry?

Ugh.

There ARE still 'Old Hegelians' out there who view calling someone who is very obviously devout a 'non-believer' with nothing but contempt.

Read 'Bernsteins' article here.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/hegel/

Nietzsche Was A Conservative

Nietzsche Was A Conservative....

"To keep open house on ones heart is liberal, but it is merely liberal."

-Nietzsche

Nietzsche, I will make the bold case, was not only a conservative individualist, but- in fact, a Lutheran Theologian.

This may seem nonsensical to those who remember Nietzsche as the man who said that God was dead, and we killed him. This has been a banner for the Atheist movement as well as, to a certain extent, the Anarchist movement.

But what must be seen is the sense in which Nietzsche was an Ultra-Reformist.

He said that the notion that we are 'all' sinners is a falsity, and this means that he is commenting, in some sense, on Christian truths- and this, in some sense at very least, makes him in kind with the Reformationist movement.

Furthermore, Nietzsche was the son of a Lutheran Minister- and it is an old adage that one is inherently of the Religion of their parents; and this means that Nietzsche, in some way, more than likely had a Lutheran outlook- even if he was in large part reacting against it.

The idea that Nietzsche was a harsh reformist must be taken as Highly debatable, and any ardent Atheist should start by dealing with the notion of the Passions in Nietzsche's philosophy. The Passions play a large role, and it is dealt with as Superior to Logic and Reason (a departure from Hegel, but at the same time a Theological agreement), and Nietzsche treats the passions as a Female.

What if one viewed the Truth as a woman?

I'll leave you with that- but it should be noted that Nietzsche was undoubtedly two things- an Individualist, and a Conservative.

What Makes America Great?

Even the question "What makes America great?" is rife with patriotism- so perhaps the more important question is, "What does it mean to be a patriot?". Well, that's relatively simple- It means to be one who loves their country. What does it mean to say, "I love my country."?

Loving ones country is inherently moral- Disliking ones country is inherently moral- Even not particularly caring is inherently moral.

The question, it seems to me, is "Do I have the morals of a slave, or the morals of a master?".

Well, I've often said "No one is more enslaved than he who does not realize that he is a slave."- This raises the question, "How can one be a master?". Are we all slaves? Certainly not. Is it important to be a Master? Certainly so.

So the statement that no one is more enslaved than he who does not realize that he is a slave leads immediately to an important philosophical point- and it is the distinction between what is kno0wn as 'Lower Immediacy', 'Mediation', and 'Higher Immediacy'.

'Lower Immediacy' is the morals of the slave- the morals of a child. One characteristic of 'Lower Immediacy' is that it is unthinking, non-reflective or pre-reflective- where one follows only ones immediate instinctual drive. Interestingly enough, this is true for 'Higher Immediacy' as well (the morals of the master).

The difference between lower and higher immediacy is the crucial (and oft forgotton) notion of 'Mediation'. Mediation is reflective, characterized by deep rumination of the most basic phenomena of consciousness. This phenomena, in mediation, is carefully examined and, indeed, judged as either warranted or unwarranted- 'on the money' or 'off the mark'- and even more important- what is discovered is how to 'control' ones emotional drives. Certainly it would be difficult to examine the 'subconscious' in this way- but an intuitive understanding of the 'pre-reflective'. One must go through this process of 'Mediation' as Absolute and necessary to reaching higher immediacy.

Once one has gone through mediation (most often, but not exclusively, done in academia), one reaches Higher Immediacy which, like lower immediacy, is non reflective and basically intuitive. Take the example of 'Zen and the Art of Archery'. The 'Master' archer does not have to 'think' at all about how to shoot an arrow- all he does is draw the bow- aim- and let go. He does not 'think' or 'reflect'- the bow and arrow are 'extensions' of his body- it's almost a merely physical process without the involvement of conscious 'mind' as such. The reason why the archer is capable of this type of mastery is he has long ago gone through the process of 'mediation' of his art, craft, and preconscious drives.

This is how one becomes a master- but one must first realize that one is a slave (and this is where I depart from Hegel), and often times, a slave to ideology.

So I return to politics by saying one cannot be a slave to ideology and be a master of any kind. Love of country and state is much like this. Patriotism is much like this. Mature love is much like this.

I Digress... Thanks for reading folks.