A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!
NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives
NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail
Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged
OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

 Monday, November 30, 2009

The Culture of Hatred

By Greg Perkins @ 8:00 AM

The Objectivism Seminar is working through Dr. Leonard Peikoff's all-too-topical book, The Ominous Parallels. In it, he explores what gave rise to to the fascist, totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany -- and analyzes whether and how a fascist, totalitarian regime could emerge here in America.

Our focus this week was Chapter 10, "The Culture of Hatred" -- a reference to the rise of Nihilism in the German culture. Topics we discussed included:
  • We explored how "the first truly modern culture" in the world emerged, more accepting of contemporary-everything: the "Weimar culture," shaped by the "free spirits" of the German Republic, the the avant garde in the humanities, sciences, commentary, journalism, and so on. A key question to answeris: what is "modernity" is in this sense? What principle unites Kaiser, Kandinsky, Schoenberg, Mann, Barth, Freud, Heisenberg?
  • Touring the culture, Peikoff started with literature ("art is the barometer of a culture, and literature is the barometer of art"). The prominent philosophical novel by Thomas Mann (The Magic Mountain) was characterized by a contemporary as the "saga of the Weimar Republic." "To a country and in a decade swept by hysteria, perishing from uncertainty, torn by political crisis, financial collapse, violence in the streets, and terror of the future -- to that country, in that decade, its leading philosophical novelist offered as his contribution to sanity and freedom the smiling assurance that there are no answers, no absolutes, no values, no hope." It was a hit that resonated with the culture.
  • Turning to poetry like that of Rainer Maria Rilke, a Christian mystic admired across the board, as well as Kafka, Peikoff finds them offering "nightmare projections of nameless ciphers paralyzed by a sinister, unknowable reality."
  • Turning to the philosophy of Existentialism and Martin Heidegger, it underscores existence being unintelligible, reason invalid, man a helpless "Dasein" -- a creature engulfed by "das Nichts" (nothingness), in terror of the supreme fact of his life: death and doomed by nature to "angst," estrangement, futility. Heidegger's works rejected any systematic defense of his ideas and were praised as the "intellectual counterpart of modern painting."
  • In contrast to Heidegger's rejection of religion and God, the avant-garde theologians tried to reconceive these in modern terms -- "Avant-garde religion, in short, consists in ditching one's mind, prostrating oneself in the muck, and screaming for mercy."
  • Next was the new psychology with the psychoanalysis of Freud. In the name of science it leaves us "Caught in the middle between these forces -- between a psychopathic hippie screaming: satisfaction now! and a jungle chieftain intoning: tribal obedience! -- sentenced by nature to ineradicable conflict, guilt, anxiety, and neurosis is man, i.e., man's mind, his reason or "ego," the faculty which is able to grasp reality, and which exists primarily to mediate between the clashing demands of the psyche's two irrational masters." More generally, the "new science -- like the new philosophy, the new theology, the new art -- becomes instead a vehicle of the willful, the arbitrary, the subjective."
  • Finally, touching on sociology, political science, education, art historians, social commentators, philosophers… and even physics and math, we find everywhere that "The notion of 'reason enthroned' disappears into myth, and the rational man collapses…"
  • In sum, we find that what is new and distinctive across the board is Nihilism: hatred of values and of their root, reason -- this, Peikoff contends, is the essential that underlies, generates, and defines "Weimar culture."
  • How Peikoff traces Nihilism as a cultural force back to Kant's philosophy.
  • How this new culture compares and contrasts with other eras of mysticism -- and how Peikoff's framing of it in this book relates to the way he is framing similar phenomena in his new DIM Hypothesis work (forthcoming).
Peikoff summarized the results, social and political:

In the orgy which was the cultural atmosphere of the Weimar Republic, the Germans could not work to resolve their differences. Disintegrated by factionalism, traumatized by crisis, and pumped full of the defiant rejection of reason, in every form and from all sides, the Germans felt not calm, but hysteria; not confidence in regard to others, but the inability to communicate with them; not hope, but despair; not the desire for solutions to their problems, but the need for scapegoats; and, as a result, not goodwill, but fury, blind fury at their enemies, real or imagined.

Nihilism in Germany worked to exacerbate economic and political resentments by undermining the only weapon that could have dealt with them. The intellectuals wanted to destroy values; the public shaped by this trend ended up wanting to destroy men.

The social corollary of "Weimar culture" was a country animated, and torn apart, by hatred, seething in groups trained to be impervious to reason.

The political corollary was the same country put back together by Hitler.


If this sounds interesting, you can listen in on the podcast -- just download the session's MP3 directly, or listen to it with the little player on the right, or subscribe to the podcast series over on the Seminar's TalkShoe page. And if you have something to ask or add, please do pick up the book and join the discussion! We meet at 8:00pm Mountain on Mondays, for about an hour.

Labels: , , ,

Share |
   E-mail Greg Perkins     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)

  Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

 Comments

Monday, November 30, 2009 at 15:02:04 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: PeterG

The huge shift in sense of life before and after WWI is described in the intro to The Romantic Manifesto. I guess the same thing could happen in the US for the same basic reasons, will happen even, unless a heavy enough cultural counterweight is introduced in time in the US.

Thanks for this series of discussions, great listening.


Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 10:03:06 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Mike Hardy
E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu

I stared at "ads Nichts" for maybe ten whole seconds, wondering what it was supposed to mean, before I realized it was just a typo.


Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 5:37:44 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Neil Parille
E-mail: neilparille(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

Greg,

I enjoy listening to this series, though I'm not a fan of Peikoff's book for some of the reasons I mention here:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2009/04/taking-ideas-s ...

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2009/02/taking-ideas-s ...

In addition, in this chapter Peikoff doesn't understand Godel's incompleteness theorem. And if there are uncaused events on the quantum level as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle suggests, then isn't it Peikoff's philosophy that has to change? I found particularly galling Peikoff's sneer at Cassirer. He was Jewish and anti-Nazi. He combatted Nazism on Kantian grounds. Shouldn't Peikoff have mentioned this?

Also, I don't agree with you saying that Augustine and Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) were "anti-reason." If you belive that anyone who is religious is anti-reason, then do you take the same position with respect to Newton and the founding fathers? There is quite a debate about how much of a fideist Tertullian was. In any event, isn't that chestnut (credo quia absurdum) getting a little cold?

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/sider_credo.htm

-Neil Parille


Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 8:04:06 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com

"And if there are uncaused events on the quantum level as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle suggests, then isn't it Peikoff's philosophy that has to change?"

Philosophy comes before science, and it properly has a veto over any contradictory claims that anyone might make under the banner of science. (The same goes for allegedly "proving" determinism w.r.t. the human mind, "proving" that humans are inherently irrational, "proving" an observer-created reality, or any other of a slew of stolen concepts that have been advanced in the name of science.)

Besides, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says nothing about "uncaused events," although it has been abused to give credence to such a notion, by people under the influence of bad philosophical premises. And one such bad premise is the idea that we can look to the special sciences for a validation of philosophy.


Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 10:23:27 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog

Oops -- sorry, Mike! Yes, hasty typing/cut-n-pasting. I'll fix it now. :^)


Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 11:21:37 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog

Neil, again, if you have something to bring to the discussion, why not actually come and discuss it?? The bottom of every one of these posts explicitly invites you to join in, and the top of every recording includes the part where the floor is opened to talk about anything that's even remotely related to what's gone before. You have every opportunity to come make your points and get some real engagement.

I expect the realtime exchange would surprise you. For example, there's Andrew's quick comment above about the relationship between physics and philosophy and the inversion that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM represents, which I know we would all enjoy discussing at greater length.

For another example: I can't remember whether Godel came up in the live discussion (it was several weeks ago), but I do remember noting the same thing to myself as I read the chapter. If the name Godel was mentioned in the discussion, I'm sure those of us with the background to comment would have said that Peikoff didn't seem to understand what was being claimed around that theorem (and we would have then discussed the relevance of this slip to Peikoff's thesis -- you can safely infer my take given that I don't remember whether it came up in the conversation even though I remember registering it while reading).

Another example: your leaping from our characterizing Augustine and Tertullian as anti-reason to assuming this means we consider ALL religious people as similarly anti-reason is simply unwarranted. I, for one, distinguish between someone being irrational vs. someone who actively crusades against reason -- between being *implicitly* and *explicitly* against reason (and this also invites a discussion of just what they think "reason" is). For two, what a person holds himself out as and is influential for, and therefore how he affects the culture, is what we are focused on -- Newton is renowned and influential for his rational approach to physics, not his mystical religious stuff, and the reverse is true of the anti-reason guys we talk about.

On and on. I'm stopping because I don't want to spend time picking apart this sort of thing here when we already have a perfectly good (realtime and much-higher-bandwidth) forum for doing so. Why don't you show up and actually discuss rather than just toss these grenades from the sidelines? Besides possibly helping others understand something better when you actually have the goods, you will doubtless find you've been trusting many grenade-shaped duds you would do well to stop trusting.


Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 11:54:07 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: madmax

"and this also invites a discussion of just what they think "reason" is..."

I know first hand that Neil's definition of reason is not the same definition that Objecitivism adheres to. For Neil, and Nyquist and Auster and the other conservatives of that type that he shares common cause with, to be "rational" is to recognize that "reason" demands the logical inference that there is a God and a "transcendent" realm and that there are "non-rational" means to knowledge.

But you are right Greg, it would be nice if bomb-throwers like Neil would actually join a rational, value-oriented discussion about Ayn Rand's philosophy instead of engaging in sniper attacks from a distance. But having seen the way Neil responded to Jim Valliant's book I can predict with certainty that Neil has no intention of engaging in productive debate.


Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 18:02:31 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Neil Parille
E-mail: neilparille(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

Greg,

I don't think it's sniping from the sidelines to post on the topic at hand or refer readers to my more detailed discussion. I think it is a perfectly valid point that Peikoff could have done a better job in telling his readers that people like Cassirer were anti-Nazi and the Nazis didn't apparently like Kant much. It's not fatal to his case, but it's something that should have been addressed.

Mr. Max,

I actually have heard from a couple ARI supporters that they agree with much of my critique of Valliant's book (not that they would agree with my conclusions about the basic reliability of the Branden accounts).

-Neil Parille


Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 18:18:57 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Neil Parille
E-mail: neilparille(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

Mr. Max,

In addition it doesn't look like the new biographers were impressed with Valliant's opus.

-Neil Parille


 Post Your Comment

Name or Handle:
E-mail:
URL:
 Remember Me
 
Comment:  
No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links.

Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome.

The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays.

To weed out spammers: 8 plus 2 equals 5317632353355863769