I'm now thinking the Existentialism is European Libertarianism (Or
Libertarianism is American Existentialism) They share Individualism as
their essential quality. They apothesis "The" Individual. They
fetishize uniqueness. They emphasize our differences rather than our
commonalities and unities. Thus, they are , obviously, modern
bourgeois philo, resonating with the great mass of alienated
individuals; and importantly from the point of view of the ruling
class, they theoretically affirm the atomization, division and
spintering into a "thousand ( a billion) points of light" the Working
Class.
However, Libertarians have the logical sense to be anti-philosophical,
and avoid Kierkegard's criticism.
As hinted at in Kierkegard's statement, the assertion "The" Individual
is logically contradictory. There is no typical individual, by
definition of "individual". There is no General Individual.
Nietszche is a real piece of work. He is the champion of the ruling
classes of all times ( See Geneology of Morals). He criticizes
"slaves" for resenting their masters. I kid you not. Nietszche is a
kind of anti-Marx, as I say, championing oppressor classes over
oppressed classses _all down through history_. Ubermensch/Supermen are
his imagined new master class. Those who Will to Power rule and should
rule. Hitler had the right one when he posed with Nietszche's bust, as
much as Nietszche fans try to play it that Hitler didn't understand
him or whatever. "Game knows game". Nietszche , philosopher of _all_
ruling classes in general. Yukko !
An individual person, for Kierkegaard, is a particular that no
abstract formula or definition can ever capture. Including the
individual in “the public” (or “the crowd” or “the herd”) or subsuming
a human being as simply a member of a species is a reduction of the
true meaning of life for individuals. What philosophy or politics try
to do is to categorize and pigeonhole individuals by group
characteristics instead of individual differences. For Kierkegaard,
those differences are what make us who we are.
Kierkegaard’s critique of the modern age, therefore, is about the
loss of what it means to be an individual. Modern society contributes
to this dissolution of what it means to be an individual. Through its
production of the false idol of “the public”, it diverts attention
away from individuals to a mass public that loses itself in
abstractions, communal dreams, and fantasies. It is helped in this
task by the media and the mass production of products to keep it
distracted.
Although Kierkegaard attacked “the public”, he is supportive of communities:
“In community, the individual is, crucial as the prior condition
for forming a community. … Every individual in the community
guarantees the community; the public is a chimera, numerality is
everything…”
– Søren Kierkegaard, Journals
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
