Given the German historical experience of the 20th. Century, it remains provocative for German thinkers to choose the sort of language and imagery Sloterdijk uses in "Regeln für den Menschenpark"(another good example is the debate following Walser's Auschwitz speech in in 1998). Of course, it can be pointed out that Sloterdijk is taking his language and imagery from Heidegger, Nietschze and Plato. In particular, the piece must be read - as is its specific, stated intention - as a critical dialogue with Heidegger, in particular his "Letter to Humanism."
I do not read "Menschenpark" as a rejection of humanism, but rather as a challenge to humanism to face up to uncomfortable problems and contradictions raised by the humanist project and some of its fundamental (often unquestioned) axioms. Ongoing dialectic between the appolonian and the dionysian, Plato in continuous, critical dialogue with Nietschze. Dualism not rejected but - as some kind of horizon/ border (transcendental?) experience - overcome; the eternal Holy Grail of German philosophy :-). In this journey/pilgrimage/adventure, threads will fray all the time - but frayed threads also have the propensity to caress rather than whip ;-). The essay is also a challenge to honestly face up to issues emerging from scientific developments - especially the Pandora's box of genetic biology. A final thought; Sloterdijk is deeply influenced by Osho - and one of Bhagwan's major characteristics is his role as provocative intellectual gadfly. Francis On 4 Apr., 15:17, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Well I guess what I meant was if it is as provocative as is his > allusions to eugenics, bypass of humanistic views for the taming of > species. I personally agree with much of Slaterdijk's views and think > all else is simply a humanist's pipe dream. The beast merely sits in > the lair until certain stimuli create the impetus for the beast to > pounce. What appears to be the taming is merely a camouflage created > by social civilities when in all actuality we are only achieving > change through through procreative process which is just another > eugenic method. People that are discerning in mate selection are > essentially making a genetic selection and of course it is personal > choice not forced. > I disagree with his rejection of dualism while at the same time reason > that it may all just be a conjuring of humanity which remains > enigmatic. The critics are most likely all up in arms about what has > been a taboo subject that he has taken out of the closet and laid out > for all to re-examine. The dark days of Nazism blew it all out of > proportion but the fact is that if there were not that association, > the ethical debate may not be so heated. Its the fear issue all over > again. > > On Apr 3, 5:46 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Oh no, rivalry has this male-darwinistic twang to it, which I admire > > for its impressive show effect that leaves no traces in no time > > through the other ear. You see, the real trouble is that there is > > always people who don’t understand how to get the animal out. What do > > you think how many lion fights accompanied by loud hard rock music I > > had to go through and often only survived because I ate up my son, ha? > > Beat boxing is not any simpler, Slip Disc. But yes, in order to milk > > the animal, you must feed it until it’s grown up. 102 words, at your > > command! > > > On 3 Apr., 05:34, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Do you think it rivals Sloterdijk's "Rules for the Human Zoo" > > > speech? I thought it was interesting and I have to agree that > > > humans have failed in trying to tame the animal within. Some people > > > more so than others display the beast, such as the ear biting boxer > > > Mike Tyson or Dahmer's obsession with cannibalism. Many examples are > > > available for examination. We have I guess succeeded, on some levels, > > > in extricating ourselves from the beast but considering that we, as a > > > species, still engage in war efforts, genocide and other atrocities, > > > it is profoundly apparent that we are still living in the dark. What > > > is your opinion in 100 words or more? lol > > > > On Apr 2, 9:49 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > For those of you who don’t want to wait fort he entire English > > > > translation, I’ll give you the key words to Peter Sloterdijk’s essay > > > > “YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR LIFE. ON THE TECHNIQUE OF THE HUMAN DOCTRINE” > > > > just recently published by Suhrkamp. > > > > > The content tags would be: training, vertical tension, excessive > > > > demands, immunization, structure of co-immunity, scientology > > > > > The name tags being: Rilke, Nietzsche, Kant, Foucault, Kafka, Hubbard > > > > > Or:http://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/literatur/Peter-Sloterdijk;art138,2... > > > > ;http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/3/135127 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
