Liberals think that the title of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.  They’re wrong.  Goldberg himself writes:

“For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee of Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment–John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke–and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of the leftwing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values–even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments” [page 175].

“Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  All fed into a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstructionism, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all these ideas had the same purpose–to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancient regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much, conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project” [Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 176].

It turns out that most of the moral and philosophical assumptions of liberalism have been shared by not only the Marxists, but the Nazis as well.  NAZI stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and was merely a rival brand of the clearly leftist political ideology of socialism.  And given the fact that Marxism was in fact every bit as totalitarian and murderous as Nazism, in hindsight it seems rather bizarre that “Marxist” was ever an abracadabra word that the American left was willing to bear to begin with.

The purpose of this article is to explore how the foundational ideas that liberals uphold as being the opposite of fascism in fact actually fed the monster of fascist Nazism, and how the modern American left continue to fall prey to fascist premises and outcomes to this very day.

It is particularly interesting that the supposedly highly individualistic and influential school of thought known as “existentialism” became so ensnared by fascism and Nazism.  On the surface, existentialism would seem to be the very polar opposite of fascism and Nazism.  After all, a philosophy of radical freedom centered in the individual would surely be incompatible with a totalitarian social system that denies political liberty in the name of the community.  One would assume that existentialism would be a philosophy of rebellion against all such external authority.  And yet the Nazis quoted Frederich Nietzsche at great length in support of their ideology (see also here).  Martin Heidegger, one of the foremost existentialist thinkers in history, turned out to have been a proud member of the Nazi Party.  And even famed existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre – who fought to resist fascism in his Nazi-occupied France during WWII – ultimately merely chose another totalitarian ideology in its place (Sartre identified himself as a Marxist and a Maoist).

Georg Lukács observed (in The Destruction of Reason, 1954, page 5) that tracing a path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, Weber.  Rather than merely being amoral monsters, the Nazis emerged out of a distinguished liberal secular humanist intellectual tradition.

Max Weinreich documented in Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People, an exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime.  Far from opposing the Nazi regime, we find that German academia actively provided the intellectual justification for Nazi fascism as well as the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Weinreich does not claim that German scholars intended the Holocaust, but he argues that the Holocaust would not have been possible without them.

He asks, “Did they administer the poison?  By no means; they only wrote the prescription.”

How could such a thing happen?

Very easily, it turns out.

The existentialists (along with the secular humanists and the liberals), deny the transcendent, deny objective truth, and deny the objective morality that derive from transcendence and objective truth.  Rather than any preordained system – whether moral or theological – existentialist anchored meaning not to any ideals or abstractions, but in the individual’s personal existence.  Life has no ultimate meaning; meaning is personal; and human beings must therefore create their own meaning for themselves.

One should already begin to see the problem: since existentialism, by its very nature, refuses to give objective answers to moral or ideological questions, a particular existentialist might choose to follow either a democrat or totalitarian ideology – and it frankly doesn’t matter which.  All that matters is that the choice be a genuine choice.

Existentialists didn’t merely acknowledge this abandonment of transcendent morality, they positively reveled in it.  In his book St. Genet, Jean-Paul Sartre celebrated the life of a criminal.  Genet was a robber, a drug dealer, and a sexual deviant.  By all conventional moral standards, Genet was an evil man.  But for Sartre, even ostensibly evil actions could be moral if they were performed in “good faith.”  And since Sartre’s Genet consciously chose to do what he did, and took responsibility for his choices and his actions, he was a saint in existentialist terms.

And the problem becomes even worse: by rejecting the concepts of transcendence, objective meaning, truth, and moral law, and by investing ultimate authority in the human will (i.e. Nietzsche’s “will to power”, Hitler’s “triumph of the will”), existentialism played directly into the hands of fascism — which preached the SAME doctrines.  If fascism can be defined as “violent and practical resistance against the process of transcendence,” as Ernst Nolte defined it, then it’s affinities with existentialism are crystal clear.  The two movements became part of the same stream of thought.

Modern Nietzsche followers argue that Nietzsche was not a racial anti-Semite.  For the sake of argument maybe he wasn’t; but he was without any question an intellectual anti-Semite, who attacked the Jews for their ideas and their ethics — particularly as they contributed to Western civilization and to Christianity (which he also actively despised).  And in addition to Nietzsche’s intellectual anti-Semitism was his utter contempt for any form of abstractions — particularly as they related to the transcendental categories of morality and reason.  Nietzsche maintained that abstraction of life resulted from abstraction of thought.  And he blamed Christianity – which he rightly blamed as a creation of the Jews – for the denial of life manifested in Christian morality.

And, unlike most pseudo-intellectuals of today, Nietzsche was consistent: in his attack against Christianity, he attacked Judeo-Christian morality.  He attacked the Christian value of other-centered love, and argued that notions of compassion and mercy favored the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Don’t you dare think for a single nanosecond that Hitler didn’t take the arguments of this beloved-by-liberals philosopher and run down the field with them toward the death camps.

The Nazis aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against the the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian morality the Jews represented.  A transcendent lawgiving God, who reveals His moral law on real tablets of stone for mankind to follow, was anathema to the fascists.  They argued that such transcendence alienates human beings from nature and from themselves (i.e., from their own genuine choices).  The fascist intellectuals sought to forge a new spirituality of immanence, focused upon nature, on human emotions, and on the community.  The fascists sought to restore the ancient pre-Christian consciousness, the ancient mythic sensibility in the form of the land and the blood, in which individuals experience unity with nature, with each other, and with their own deepest impulses.

Gene Edward Veith in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian worldview writes:

The fascist rebellion against transcendence restored the ancient pagan consciousness.  With it came barbarism, a barbarism armed with modern technology and intellectual sophistication.  The liquidation of the transcendent moral law and “Jewish” conscience allowed the resurgence of the most primitive and destructive emotions, the unleashing of original sin (page 14).

Nietzsche argued that God is dead, and Hitler tried to finish Him off by eradicating the Jews.  What is less known is that he also planned to solve the “church problem” after the war.  Hitler himself  said:

“The war is going to be over.  The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem.  It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” [From Hitler's Tabletalk (December 1941), quoted in The Nazi Years: A Documentary History, ed. Joachim Remak, 1990, page 105].

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion.  It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”  And Himmler said, “Men who can’t divest themselves of manners of previous centuries, and scoff and sling mud at things which are ‘holy’ and matters of belief to others, once and for all do not belong in the SS.”

With the creed “God is dead” and the resulting “death of God,” Nietzsche predicted that energizing conflict and revolution would reemerge in a great wave of nihilism.  Human beings would continue to evolve, he said, nodding to Darwinism.  And man would ultimately give way to Superman.  And Nietzsche said that this Superman would not accept the anachronistic abstract, transcendental meanings imposed by disembodied Judeo-Christian rationalism or by a life-denying religion.  Rather, this Superman would CREATE meaning for himself and for the world as a whole.

The Superman, according to Nietzsche, would be an artist who could shape the human race – no longer bound by putrefying and stultifying and stupefying transcendence – to his will.  “Man is for him an un-form, a material, an ugly stone that needs a sculptor,” he wrote.  Such a statement did not merely anticipate the Darwinist-based Nazi eugenics movement.  It demonstrated how the exaltation of the human will could and would lead not to general liberty, as one might have expected, but to the control of the many by the elite — with those of the weaker in will being subjugated to the will of the Supermen.

Nietzsche’s new ethic became the rationale for all the Nazi atrocities that would follow.  As Nietzsche himself put it, “The weak and the failures shall perish: the first principle of OUR love of man.  And they shall even be given every possible assistance.  What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and the weak: Christianity” (in “The Anti-Christ” in Portable Nietzsche, p. 570).  We see here also the exemplification of yet another legacy left behind by Nietzsche that was picked up by the Nazi and afterward by secular humanist atheists today: the Nietzschean attitude of flippant, sarcastic contempt for all the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity.

One of the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity was the fundamental sanctity of human life.  But the Nazis had their own concept – Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”).  And nearly fifty million of the most innocent and helpless human beings have perished as a result of an existentialist philosophy that survived the fall of the Nazis in liberal thought, which celebrates pro-existentialist “pro-choice” above human life.

Nietzsche’s philosophy underlies the thought of all the later existentialists, and the darker implications of his thought proved impossible to ignore.

And Martin Heidegger, in his own personal choice to commit himself to National Socialism, did not ignore them.

There is more that needs to be understood.

Martin Heidegger invoked Nietzsche in his 1933 Rectoral Address, in his speech entitled, “The Self-Assertion of the German University,” in which he articulated his commitment to the integration of academia with National Socialism.  He began by asking, if Nietzsche is correct in saying that God is dead, what are the implications for knowledge?

As Heidegger explained, if God is dead, there is no longer a transcendent authority or reference point for objective truth.  Whereas classical thought, exemplified by the Greeks, could confidently search for objective truth, today, after the death of God, truth becomes intrinsically “hidden and uncertain.”  Today the process of questioning is “no longer a preliminary step that is surmounted on the way to the answer and thus to knowing; rather, questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing.”

Heidegger’s conclusion became accepted to the point of becoming a commonplace of contemporary liberal thought: that knowledge is a matter of process, not content.  With the death of God, there is no longer any set of absolutes or abstract ideals by which existence must be ordered.  Such “essentialism” is an illusion; and knowledge in the sense of objective, absolute truth must be challenged.  The scholar is not one who knows or searches for some absolute truth, but the one who questions everything that pretends to be true.

Again, one would think that such a skeptical methodology would be highly incompatible with fascism, with its practice of subjecting people to an absolute human authority.  And yet this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of fascism.  In fact, Heidegger’s Rectoral Address was warmly endorsed by the National Socialists for a very good reason: the fascists saw themselves as iconoclasts, interrogating the old order and boldly challenging all transcendent absolutes.

We find that in this same address in which Heidegger asserts that “questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing,” Heidegger went on to advocate expelling academic freedom from the university:

“To give oneself the law is the highest freedom.  The much-lauded ‘academic freedom’ will be expelled from the university.”

Heidegger argued that the traditional canons of academic freedom were not genuine but only negative, encouraging “lack of concern” and “arbitrariness.”  Scholars must become unified with each other and devote themselves to service.  In doing so, he stated, “the concept of the freedom of German students is now brought back to it’s truth.”

Now, the claim that freedom would somehow emerge when academic freedom is eliminated might be sophistry of the worst kind, but it is not mere rhetorical doublespeak.  Why?  Because Heidegger was speaking existentially, calling not for blind obedience, but for a genuine commitment of the will.  Freedom was preserved because “to give oneself the law” was a voluntary, freely chosen commitment.  Academic freedom as the disinterested pursuit of truth shows “arbitrariness,” parking of the old essentialist view that truth is objective and transcendent.  The essentialist scholar is detached and disengaged, showing “lack of concern,” missing the sense in which truth is ultimately personal, a matter of the will, demanding personal responsibility and choice.  In the new order, the scholar will be fully engaged in service to the community.  Academic freedom is alienating, a function of the old commitment to moral and intellectual absolutes.

And what this meant in practice could be seen in the Bavarian Minister of Culture’s directive to professors in Munich, that they were no longer to determine whether something “is true, but whether it is in keeping with the direction of the National Socialist revolution” (Hans Schemm, quoted in Hermann Glaser, The Cultural Roots of National Socialism, tr. Ernest A. Menze, 1978, p. 99).

I point all of the above out to now say that it is happening all over again, by intellectuals who unknowingly share most of the same tenets that made the horror possible the last time.

We live in a time and in a country in which the all-too modern left has virtually purged the university of conservatives and conservative thought.  This is simply a fact that is routinely confirmed.  And as a mater of routine, conservative speakers need not apply at universities.  If they are actually invited to speak, they are frequently shouted down by a relative few liberal activists.  And leftwing censorship is commonplace.  Free speech is largely gone, in a process that simply quashes unwanted views.  We have a process today in which a professor who is himself employing fascist tactics calls a student “a fascist bastard.”  And why did he do so?  Because the student gave a speech in a speech class choosing a side on a topic that the professor did not like.

We live in a society in which too many of our judges have despised a system of objective laws from an objective Constitution and have imposed their own will upon both.  Judicial activist judges have largely driven transcendent religion and the transcendent God who gives objective moral laws out of the public sphere.

Today, we live in a society that will not post the Ten Commandments – the epitome of transcendent divinely-ordained moral law – in public schools.  And why not?  Because judges ruled that:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” which, the Court said, is “not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

One can only marvel that such justices so cynically debauched the thought of the founding fathers whose ideas they professed to be upholding.

Justices of the Supreme Court agreed with this fallacious ruling even as the figure of Moses holding the Ten Commandments rules atop the very building in which they betrayed our nation’s founding principles.

And thus the left has stripped the United States of America bare of transcendent moral law, just as their intellectual forebears did prior to WWII in Nazi Germany.   And thus the intellectual left has largely stripped the United States of America from free debate within academia largely by pursuing the same line of reasoning that Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger employed to do the same in Nazi Germany.  We saw this very feature evidenced by leftist scientists who threw aside their scientific ethics in order to purge climatologists who came to a different conclusion.

The climate that led to fascism and to Nazism in Germany did not occur overnight, even though the final plunge may have appeared to be such to an uninformed observer.  It occurred over a period of a half a dozen decades or so, with the transcendent and objective moral foundations having been systematically torn away.  And after that degree of cancer had been reached, it only took the right leader or the right event to plunge the world into madness.

Christians are hearing about the Manhattan Declaration with great excitement.  It is a tremendous document with tremendous support from some tremendous Christian figures.

The actual declaration (linked to above) is some 4,000 plus words long, and is available to read at the link above.  But here is the nutshell version:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I hope you stand with me – and with (at last count as of November 24, 2009) 106,738 other believers – and sign this declaration.

It reminds me of another time, and another declaration: the Barmen Declaration of 1934, which was a point-by-point denunciation of the fascist and racist ideological doctrines of Nazism and a positive expression of true Christian faith against a government and a culture that had become evil.

Adolf Hitler attempted to redefine – or “Nazify” – the Church and transform it into a component of his ideological agenda.  At one point in its history Germany had been the seat of the Protestant Reformation, and while Germany had since become the most secular humanist nation in Europe, there was still a vestige of Christianity remaining.  And Hitler wanted to harness that still-influential vestige toward his own ends.  The government thus passed resolutions to limit the influence or dictate the agenda of the church.  One demanded the purging of all pastors who rejected “the spirit of National Socialism.”  Another resolution categorically rejected the very foundations of Judeo-Christian transcendent morality even as it tried to conflate “being a German” with “being a Christian”:

“We expect that our nation’s church as a German People’s Church should free itself from all things not German in its services and confession, especially from the Old Testament with its Jewish system of quid pro quo morality.”

The German Confessing Movement was a reaction against the German government’s attempt to impose its agenda upon the Christian Church in Germany.  As Gene Edward Veith put it in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview:

The Barmen Declaration thus sets itself against not only the German Christian aberration but against the whole tradition of modernist syncretism that made it possible.

[Article 1 affirmed Christ as the transcendent authority and source of values (as opposed to the German race, the Nazi revolution, or the person of Adolf Hitler)].  Article 2 asserts the sovereignty of Christ over all of life.  Article 3 asserts Christ’s lordship over the church and rejects “the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political conventions.”  That is to say, the world does not set the agenda for the church.  Article 4 teaches that church offices are for mutual service and ministry, not for the exercise of raw power.  Article 5 acknowledges the divine appointment of the state, but rejects the pretensions of the state to “become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.”  Article 6 affirms the church’s commission to proclaim the free grace of God to everyone by means of the Word and the sacraments.  “We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans [pp. 60-61].

One article, entitled “Hitler’s Theologians: The Genesis of Genocide,” takes time to describe how various key German liberal theologians systematically tore apart the Bible and orthodox Christianity – and in so doing systematically undermined the ethics and morality of the German people in preparation for the hell to come.  The author begins with Friedrich Schleiermacher, called “the founder of Liberal Protestantism,” and profiles the “contributions” of Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Wellhausen, and Adolf von Harnack.

Georg Lukacs has observed that tracing the path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Weber [page 5, The Destruction of Reason].  And Max Weinreich produced an exhaustive study detailing the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime entitled Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People.  Ideas have consequences, and it was the ideas of these liberal theologians, philosophers and scholars who provided the intellectual justification and conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Thus Nazism did not merely emerge from a liberal theological system, but from a distinguished secular humanist intellectual tradition as well — a distinguished intellectual tradition that had repudiated all the moral and spiritual values inherent to the orthodox Christianity of the Confessing Church.

Josef Hromadka wrote that:

“The liberal theology in Germany and in her orbit utterly failed.  It was willing to compromise on the essential points of divine law and of “the law of nature”; to dispose of the Old Testament and to accept the law of the Nordic race instead; and to replace the “Jewish” law of the Old Testament by the autonomous law of each race and nation, respectively.  It had made all the necessary preparation for the “Germanization of Christianity” and for a racial Church.”

Veith subsequently says, “in deciding whether or not to sign the Barmen Declaration … the dividing line was clear.”  And he states, “The German Christian theologians predictably denounced the confessional movement as being ‘narrow’ and ‘fundamentalist.’”  He rightly described the opponents of the Barmen Declaration as being “modernists,” “existentialists,” and “dialectical” in their thinking.  The theologians who rejected Barmen were men like Emanuel Hirsch, who taught that the resurrection of Christ was only a spiritual vision, and that the idea of a physical resurrection distorted Christianity by focusing attention to the hereafter rather than to the culture and community of the present.

In short, it was Christians who thought like the evangelicals and fundamentalists of today who signed the Barmen Declaration and openly opposed Nazism, and it was “Christians” who thought like the mainline liberals of today who stood for the German Christian Nazification of Christianity and for the resulting Nazification of German ethics and morality.

Confessing Church pastors and priests who resisted this Nazification of the church paid dearly.  Thousands of clergymen were hauled away to the concentration camps.  According to the Niemoller archives, 2,579 clergymen were sent to Dachau alone – and 1,034 of them died in the camp.  And that only refers to the priests and pastors – not the untold thousands of devout Christians such as the Ten Booms who perished in the death camps for their opposition to Nazism.

An article entitled “Asking ‘Why Nazism?’” reviewing a book by Dr. Karla Poewe has this:

“One of the dangers of liberal Christianity, where all sorts of interpretations are permitted, is that it can easily slip into becoming a new religion,” Poewe says. “This is what happened. In a bid to rid Germany of what it saw as Jewish Christianity, several home-grown practices sprang up, including some that incorporated Icelandic and pre-Christian sagas, as well as ideas from German Idealism.”

Although initially these new religions were separate and disorganized entities, they eventually came under the umbrella of what was known as the German Faith Movement. Hitler saw in it a mechanism for transmitting and reinforcing the National Socialist worldview. “He shaped its followers into a disciplined political force but dismissed its leaders later when they were no longer needed,” Poewe says.

We’re clearly not to the point where Jews, or Christians, or anyone else are being gathered by the thousands and placed in death camps.  But we’re beginning to see a trend that is frightening, as government, with the assistance of liberal “Christian” churches and organizations, are trying to impose their will upon the church and its agenda.

We’ve had a “hate crimes” law imposed upon us that makes homosexuality a protected behavior.  And one evangelical expresses the Confessing Church position in a nutshell:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a written statement the bill “is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”

In another recent case, a Christian mother who has homeschooled her child is being forced to put her ten-year old child in public school, not to improve her academic education, but to limit her exposure to Christianity and forcibly expose her to a government-approved “public” point of view:

According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda’s “interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and…Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior.”

This is a shocking case, in which the government is usurping both parental and religious freedoms.  And there are many similar usurpations today, in which our government is actively opposing Christian values.

Nearly fifty million babies have been killed in this country by a government-sanctioned “pro-choice” system.  Gene Edward Veith addresses the “pro-choice” movement and its philosophical underpinnings:

Existential ethics brackets the objective issues on abortion entirely.  At issue is not some transcendent moral law, nor medical evidence, nor a logical analysis.  The content of that choice makes no difference.  If the mother chooses to have the baby, her action is moral.  If she chooses not to have the baby, her action is still moral.  If she bears a child against her will or aborts a child against her will — then and only then is the action evil.  Those who believe that abortion should be legal do not consider themselves “pro-abortion.”  They are “pro-choice.”  The term is not only a rhetorical euphemism but a precise definition of existential ethics.

Existentialism is also reflected in those who are “pro-choice” but personally oppose abortion.  They do not believe in abortion for themselves, but refuse to impose their beliefs on others.  In this view, a belief has no validity outside the private, personal realm of each individual.  Moral and religious beliefs are no more than personal constructions, important in giving meaning to an individual’s life, but not universally valid.  Or, to use another commonly accepted axiom, “what’s true for you may not be true for me.”

Such a view of truth flies in the face of all classical metaphysics, which sees truth as objective, universal, and applicable to all” (page 96, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview).

We can return to the historical analysis of Nazism presented by Karla Poewe, and what happened when such “anything goes” belief systems were allowed to rule.  [I am writing an article describing how existentialism became a primary component of Nazism, and will link to it here when I am finished writing it].

Before we leave the issue of abortion as a vile violation of Christian ethics and morality, let us consider one more voice:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Christians should fight for life.  And allowing a human being to live should not be a “choice,” but a duty.

In 2003 one David Allen Black wrote an article bearing the question, “Do We Need A New Barmen Declaration?“  No Christian with a knowledge of history can answer any other way than, “YES!“

The Barmen Declaration was written in 1934, but in many ways it was already too late: The Nazis were already in power.  Hitler was in his second year of power; and the ideas of the liberal theologians, the existentialist philosophers, and the amoral intellectuals were already firmly in place.

It is my fervent hope that we finally have that “New Barmen Declaration” to answer the evils of our own day.  If we already should have written one, then every day that passes is one more day wasted; if we are acting pro-actively, then let us thank God that we acting before it is too late.

From the UK Telegraph:

At last, Christians draw a line in the sand against their PC secularist persecutors

By Gerald Warner UK Last updated: November 24th, 2009

At long last, Christian leaders have faced up to their persecutors in the secularist, socialist, One-World, PC, UN-promoted axis of evil and said: No more. In the popular metaphor, they have drawn a line in the sand. For harassed, demoralised faithful in the pews it will come as the long-awaited call to resistance and an earnest that their leaders are no longer willing to lie down supinely to be run over by the anti-Christian juggernaut. This statement of principle and intent is called The Manhattan Declaration, published last Friday in Washington DC.

It is difficult to believe that so firm an assertion of Christian intransigence in the face of persecution will not have some beneficial effects even here. For this Declaration is no minor affirmation by a few committed activists: on the contrary, it is signed by the most important leaders of three mainstream Christian traditions – the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and Evangelical Protestants. For an ecumenical document it is heroically devoid of fudge, euphemism and compromise.

The Manhattan Declaration states that “the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions”.

For Barack Obama, the PC lobby, the “hate crime” fascists and, by implication, their opposite numbers in Britain, the signatories have an uncompromising message: “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.” That is plain speaking, in the face of anti-Christian aggression by governments. The signatories spelled it out even more unequivocally: “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”

In a world where a Swedish pastor has been jailed for preaching that sodomy is sinful, similar prosecutions have taken place in Canada, the European Court of Human Rights (sic) has tried to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms, Brazil has passed totalitarian legislation imposing heavy prison sentences for criticism of homosexual lifestyles, Amnesty International is championing abortion, David Cameron has voted for the enforced closure of Catholic adoption agencies, and Gordon Brown’s government has just been defeated in its fourth attempt to abolish the Waddington Clause guaranteeing free speech – this robust defiance is more than timely.

The signatories are unambiguously expressing their willingness to go to prison rather than deny any part of their religious beliefs. Those signatories are heavyweight. On the Catholic side they include Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia; Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop Emeritus of Detroit; the Archbishops of Denver, New York, Washington DC, Newark, Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Louisville; and other Bishops. The Orthodox include the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America and the Archpriest of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. There are also the Anglican Primates of America and Nigeria, as well as a host of senior Evangelical Protestants.

In terms of influence on votes and public opinion, this is a formidable coalition. It has served notice on the US government that further anti-Christian legislation will provoke cultural trench warfare and even civil disobedience. As regards the sudden stiffening of resistance among the usually spineless Catholic leadership, it is impossible not to detect the influence of Benedict XVI.

We need more declarations like this, on a global scale, and the requisite confrontational follow-up. This is Clint Eastwood, make-my-day Christianity – and not before time. From now on, any governments that are planning further persecution of Christians had better make sure they have a large pride of lions available for mastication duties. The worm has turned.

As a young Christian, I was inspired by the music, lyrics, and album cover of Keith Green’s album, No Compromise.  The cover says it all:

The Manhattan Declaration – like the Barmen Declaration – calls for Christians who are willing to stand up and be singled out even in the face of persecution or punishment.

I hope you are willing to be one of those Christians.

I wake up at eight, and attempt to take a shower. There is a small hot water tank in the bathroom, which I plug in. If I get hurt in China I am 99 percent sure I am going to be electrocuted. There are dangling wires everywhere including the plug for the water tank in the bathroom, which is right in the middle of everything, and gets soaked easily. 240 volts can’t feel good, so I will have to be careful. The shower is more like a drip of water, but it works ok.

The middle of the apartment. These aren't exactly high quality images, but I'm too lazy to take any more for now

My huge mirror

The kitchen

My bedoom. I didn't choose the covers

My other bedroom

Rick comes to pick me up at nine. After a struggle unlocking my own door due to me attempting to turn the lock in the wrong direction, we set out for the number two school. It is quite nice, and I am introduced to many of the teachers and staff. I promptly forget half of their names. I say hello to some of the children, who grin and reply “Hello teacher!” Some are very shy at first, but they warm up quickly.

I meet Connor, the teacher I am replacing. He is in the middle of doing a presentation for the parents. Every three months the kids complete a level of English instruction. After each level, their parents come in to see how much their kids have learned. Rick tells me I will be helping with the one next week.

Next I am taken in the schools van to the number one school, which is closer to downtown Jiaozhou. It is very similar to the other one. I am introduced to many more people, who I do my best to remember. Rick takes me to a small restaurant nearby, where we eat lunch. I notice the girls working there keep staring at me and giggling. He tells me they were talking about me after we leave, which I figured. Except for Connor, I haven’t seen a single other Westerner, and he is leaving tomorrow. Crazy.

After lunch I meet the principal of the school. His name is Fly. Yes, you read that correctly. I go online to check my email, as my apartment doesn’t have internet yet.  The “Great Firewall” seems rather ineffective. For example hotmail.com comes up as blocked, but mail.live.com, which is the same thing, is available. I encounter much more fail as I look at different websites. If a site is blocked it simply returns an error message and says unavailable, with no explanation. The only sites I regularly use that are blocked outright are YouTube and Facebook, which is incredibly annoying. Fortunately Gmail works fine. Going to a news site, I see an article about the Dalai Lama going to Taiwan. It opens fine, making me even more irritated that Facebook is blocked outright, but people can freely access information on somebody the government considers to be a dangerous separatist.

Me with Fly and Kiki, the two principals

Rick sees me using QQ, the most popular Chinese instant messaging program. He is astonished, as almost no Americans use it. It is the easiest way to communicate with people here, as every computer has it. It is quite interesting using the Chinese version, some tasks take multiple tries because I can’t read anything. The only Chinese writing I know is how to write my name.

Rick and I. Apparently there was something shiny to the left of me.

After spending a while at the school we go out to dinner with everyone from the number two school. It is me, Rick, Connor and about ten girls. Connor tells me some things I should know. For starters, he says that I will get asked three questions.

1. How much can you drink?
2. Do you have a girlfriend?
3. Do you have QQ?

I think I have the best answers possible to these three questions: a lot, no, and yes. He explains many of the rules for sitting at the table, for example the most important person always sits facing the door, and also be sure to sit where they tell you to. Toasts are very common, and seem to be pretty much the only time you drink beer. The height of your glass in relation to the one you are tapping is very important, if yours is lower it is a sign of respect.

I take the seat I am shown and wait for dinner to start. I am told to introduce myself. Predictably, the first question I get is “do you have a girlfriend?” This leads to endless giggling among the girls, especially after I say no. As they go along the ones with boyfriends make sure to tell me who does not. This leads to what, you ask? Why more giggling, of course.

They all introduce themselves one by one, asking me the above questions and other ones such as “What kind of food do you like? I want to cook for you.” This is awesome. Another asks if I have ever sat at a table with this many Chinese girls before, and this creates more giggling when I say no. I tell them that I love China already. This makes them very happy, and creates another flood of giggles.

The food we are eating is called Hot Pot. I am initially confused as to what it is, but it is clearly a huge pile of food, so I like it. There is a stone pot, divided into two, put over a flame in the middle of the table. Lots of mostly unrecognizable food is dumped into the broth, and is left to boil

While we are waiting for our food, the toasts start. I can’t understand the ones in Chinese, but I get to drink, so it’s good. One thing I have noticed about China is they don’t drink as much of anything with meals as we do. In an American restaurant, the waitress continually keeps your glass refilled, however no such thing happens in China, if indeed you get any water at all. The fact that a lot of the food is rather salty doesn’t help me, so I do my best to get water. We can’t drink beer unless we are making a toast, so I have to be content with my teacup, which holds about three tablespoons. I make do.

The toasts keep coming, to me, to Connor because he is leaving, to Jaspers and to unintelligible things in Chinese. Mine is “To China, to everyone who works at the Jaspers school, and especially to Chinese girls.” I am loving this. There were so many things I was worried about before I came, mostly getting put into a bad situation with a bad boss and coworkers who didn’t want anything to do with me, but all of those fears have been put to rest in a single day. I am asked how long have I been in China. “Twenty hours.” They are surprised.

One thing you will notice when you arrive here is that people often say “nigga, nigga, nigga.” Connor explains to me that they say this instead of “uh.” Therefore, they say it quite a lot, and I try not to laugh. We do our best to explain what it sounds like, but I’m not sure if they get it.

Once one course of the Hot Pot is gone, another arrives and we wait for it to boil. The new food is put in on top of the old food, which makes for an interesting and very good combination. We fill the time with funny questions and more toasts. One of the girls dares me to eat a hot pepper, which I pop in my mouth and nonchalantly chew up. This generates amazement, apparently Americans are known for having weak stomachs. I almost fall over laughing as I look over to see that Connor has attempted the same thing, and now looks like a tomato. They keep warning me that some of the food is spicy, but I love it.

Much of the food is stuff that I have had before, but it is simply presented in a different way. Who knew that potato could be in translucent slippery ribbons that look like overcooked noodles? I didn’t believe them until I took a bite. I lose track of the times different food has been put in the pot. This may be related to the fact that I long ago lost count of the toasts.

After dinner we go to a place in Korea town which has a Karaoke bar. I have never sang Karaoke before, as I am a terrible singer. However, after a few songs Connor and I are invited to sing, and who am I to refuse. We scroll through the terrible selection of English songs, until I see one that isn’t so bad. I Don’t Wanna Miss a Thing, by Aerosmith. If I’m going down, I’m going down in flames.

We absolutely nail it. The crowd loves us. We decide we need more beer. The selection of liquid courage outside is Heineken, Miller, Tsingtao, some other Chinese beers and for some god awful reason, PBR. I laugh at this. Perhaps they don’t know that it is composed of bilge water and horse byproducts. We opt for the Tsingtao, and out of the blue a guy from the school swoops up and pays for them, turning down our attempts to purchase them ourselves. Connor explains to me that they are very, very gracious hosts all the time, and especially because I am new.

We do two more songs. One is some ABBA song that I have never heard before. It is a different version than Connor remembers, and for some reason there are no words on the screen. This leads to us yelling various random things into the microphone until it is finally over. Next we decide to honor Michael Jackson by embarrassing ourselves singing Billie Jean. I cringe at the sound of my own voice, but everyone loves it. We sit back and watch them do more songs while talking to everyone around us. China is officially awesome.

We leave and walk back to the school. Connor introduces me to a man who runs a food stand right across from the school called Jay. We talk and drink and they teach me some Chinese words. I realize that the man at my apartment said the gate would be locked at 10 pm, and that I don’t have a key yet. It is already midnight. I put the thought out of my mind and keep having fun.

When I walk back to my apartment I see that the gate is indeed locked. I think for a moment and then roll under it. Clever me. Then I am presented with a new dilemma. There are three identical sets of stairs leading to the apartments. I guess the middle one, and fortunately I am correct, because walking up six flights of stairs is rather time consuming. Tomorrow will be my first day teaching.

La locura ha sido atribuida desde el principio de los tiempos a causas sobrenaturales.  En las más antiguas civilizaciones se creía que los locos actuaban de manera diferente porque estaban poseídos por entes malignos. En el mejor de los casos, la locura era tratada con exorcismos o trepanaciones. En el peor de los casos podían sufrir horrores hasta el alivio de la muerte.

Aunque ya en la antigua Grecia se había teorizado sobre los orígenes psicológicos de la locura (separándola de lo sobrenatural o maligno) , las enfermedades mentales han sido estudiadas a fondo desde hace relativamente poco, en los siglos XIX y XX por pioneros como Freud o Jaspers. De esta forma llegamos hasta el conocimiento actual de la psique, que da paso a que se nos pueda separar oficialmente entre locos y cuerdos.

Seguro que en algún momento de tu vida, casi seguro en la infancia pero puede que también en tu madurez, te han hecho sentir en mayor o menor medida como si estuvieras un poco mal de la cabeza. Y la verdad es que para que se te vea como un bicho raro a veces no hace falta mucho. Con que vivas la vida un poquito a lo loco puede ser más que de sobra.

Tal vez, una tarde de repente se pusiera a diluviar y decidieras disfrutar bajo la manta de lluvia en lugar de ponerte a resguardo como el resto de la gente. Puede que te chiflen las películas gore o que seas un entusiasta de los fenómenos paranormales. Tal vez seas un friki que tiene un disco de 1 terabyte lleno de anime o quizás eres homosexual y has sentido como muchas personas te trataban como un enfermo mental.

Aunque el término “loco” se usa con frecuencia para los enfermos mentales de alto grado, no hace falta que seas violento ni supongas un peligro potencial para nadie. Hasta final del siglo XIX se denominó a la locura como  cualquier comportamiento que rechazaba las normas sociales establecidas, y aún hoy  sólo con pensar distinto a la mayoría de la gente puedes ser llamado o considerado loco, con los prejuicios y perjuicios que ello conlleva.

Asumir los roles en los que está estructurada tu sociedad no es una tarea ni fácil ni rápida. Desde pequeños somos educados como si estuviéramos en una burbuja, en base a unos principios morales que cuando somos mayores vemos violados a diario. La línea que separa lo correcto de lo incorrecto a veces es muy difusa y tienes que estar siempre preocupado de estar pisando en la zona de la corrección, porque un paso en falso puede ser considerado como un revés en tu conducta, algo que de por sí no es peligroso para nadie excepto para tí, por las consecuencias que te puede acarrear.

En la actualidad, disponemos de una libertad de expresión que, si bien está bastante recortada en algunos aspectos, es muy superior a la que tuvieron nuestros padres y abuelos, y por supuesto a la que tienen en países acribillados por el hambre, la pobreza y la guerra. Puedes pensar lo que quieras y decirlo abiertamente, siempre que te abstengas de cosas como gritar “¡bomba!” en un aeropuerto o similares actos de puro y duro trolleo social. Evidentemente tu libertad termina cuando transgredes la de otro, cuando la simpática locura se convierte en una demente violencia física o verbal.

Podemos ejercer nuestro derecho de libertad individual para multitud de cosas, puede que más incluso de las que imaginamos, pero el yugo del “qué dirán” siempre está ahí acechante, haciendo que nos replanteemos si realmente nos conviene hacer eso que íbamos a hacer o nos conviene decir eso que teníamos en mente. La ley no nos cohíbe pero las personas  sí.

Y aunque cada vez es más la gente que se expresa libremente y que no juzga a los demás en base a modelos éticos y morales obsoletos, a mí me siguen mirando mal cuando me río en medio de la calle al recordar un vídeo de Pitito o la broma de Manolo Cabezahuevo. O cuando conversando  con alguien le digo que vivimos en una cárcel de barrotes invisibles. Y no es que me importe que me miren mal, al contrario, es todo un honor para mí y lo hago saber con una complaciente sonrisa hacia mis queridos inquisidores sociales.

Al fin y al cabo soy consciente de que el rechazo que puede provocar la actitud de un loco como yo se debe al miedo innato que el ser humano siente por lo desconocido, por lo que discrepa y por lo misterioso. En realidad, cuando alguien te ataca por ser diferente, no te ataca por odio sino por miedo, porque su ignorancia no le deja entender lo que eres y por lo tanto estás poniendo en jaque todo lo que le han inculcado desde pequeño.

Pero si a mí no me importa que me miren mal, sí me entristece que se discrimine a los que piensan distinto, porque además de ser malo para el oprimido, es malo para el resto de la comunidad. Personas como Einstein o Gandhi han sido acusados de ser locos, y esa persecución hacia quien corrompe el orden establecido se ha llevado por delante quién sabe a  cuántas personas y a cuántos genios.

Hoy en día vivimos amparados por una constitución que nos otorga unos derechos y unas obligaciones. Yo cumplo con mis obligaciones como ciudadano: entre otras cosas pago mis impuestos, realizo correctamente mis trámites con la administración y no pongo en peligro la integridad física de ningún otro ciudadano.

Al cumplir con estas obligaciones, tengo una serie de derechos, y salvo que exista una ley que me lo prohíba (que no la hay) yo tengo derecho a pensar lo que me dé la gana. A ser anarquista, budista o cristiano si me apetece. A grabar vídeos con mis amigos haciendo el capullo, o quedarme embobado mirando al cielo y de repente ponerme a llorar. Tengo derecho a pensar que el hombre es un ser despreciable y que a la vez es infinitamente maravilloso.  Tengo derecho a vestirme como un vagabundo y a ser un payaso (todos mis respetos a los payasos). A dar las gracias a alguien por su amistad o por su amor un día cualquiera. Tengo derecho  a maravillarme cada día por la enorme casualidad y suerte de que mi corazón siga latiendo, y poder sentir cosas para las que las palabras se quedan pequeñas. Tengo derecho a estar loco, y a creer que la locura forma parte de la magia de la vida.

El ser humano… es extraordinario.

]]> http://tiarafly.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/gotta-have-it-jaspers/ Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:26:54 +0000 dharmon79 http://tiarafly.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/gotta-have-it-jaspers/

Even though I am suffering through a stint of unemployment (and a cold nonetheless!)  I’ve decided that I’m going to kick start my blog and head out weekly in The Bubble to taste some of the newest, best, and most interesting dishes – on the cheap.  Yesterday my best friend Courtney and I headed out for yet another round of Freebirds – unfortunately I was too close to the line to take pics of me stuffing me face.  With every bite I took people kept asking me what the hell kind of burrito I had concocted.  Yet again, I looked like an absolute pig – the “half” Freebird I ordered was twice the size of Courtney’s and the same as the full Freebird from my last blog.

Nevertheless, after I watched my bestest drop $400 on kitchen goods at my hubby’s store (WITH a discount), we settled into Jasper’s for my favorite dessert ever – butterfinger creme brulee. You’re probably in shock that I had carbs more than once in a week – let alone sweets – but this creme brulee is worth every calorie, carb, and penny.

For those of you that aren’t familiar with Jasper’s, Kent Rathburn is the genius behind this establishment – with only a couple of restaurants scattered across Texas.  Yes, this is the same Kent Rathburn that defeated Bobby Flay on Iron Chef America.  The theme is “backyard gourmet” and the menu ranges from (my favorite) Maytag Blue Cheese Chips to gorgeous cuts of beef.  The atmosphere seems very pretentious when you walk through the doors, but being on Market Street, the crowd inside ranges from millionaire, AMEX black card holding elite to passersby in shorts.

So…on to the dessert.  My husband is a huge fan of creme brulee, and my BF not, so when our order was set down in front of us and she started gushing over the butterfinger goodness, I knew it was a winner.  This was good stuff.  Below is a pic of our dessert, served in a little-larger-than-demitasse cup.  The kicker is what you see on top – that piece of homemade butterfinger.  It tasted just like the 2/$1 special bar at the grocery checkout, but so light with the slightest hint of chocolate.  I was asked to describe this sinful topping on Facebook, and the closest I could relate this candy to were the good ‘ol Nutter Butter cookies from when I was a kid.  I don’t even know if they make them any more, but drizzle it in chocolate, and put it on top of creamy, crunchy creme brulee, and that’s all she wrote.

Butterfinger Creme Brulee

Jasper’s has locations in Austin, Plano, San Antonio, and The Woodlands. Visit their website at http://www.jaspers-restaurant.com/

Recommendations include the Sink Salad, Maytag Blue Cheese Chips, and any cut of beef on the menu – with the cherry demi-glaze. Market Street, The Woodlands, TX.  Somebody stop me, I’m drooling.

Not him, I’m not you. There’s a reasoning for my random title post lol, I was listening to Killa Season and I came across this picture of the Yeezy’s and the Jasper’s. Personally I would rock the Jasper’s over the Yeezy’s any day but Hypebeast think otherwise lol. But I’m about to sign off though, I had a long day today. I handles some business, chilled in Lil 5 for a ill minute then I went to the Falcons game. Beans is about to post pictures from the Falcons game after he runs this game of 2k9.

Don’t ever wear that much black in one fit. But he killed it excluding that fact that he wore black on black on black. But that Pink denim jacket is bananas though. And on another note, I don’t know what fat Joe had on, and he usually has some nice fits.  He could of pulled off a better fit for the Jasper’s.

Constantemente estoy pensando muxas cosas… de vez en cuando se me viene alguna idea inteligente, pero se van bastante rápido… cmo es costumbre, escribo cuando mi sueño llega al limite (he dormido 3 horas en las ultimas 24 horas) y después de preu y too… pero hay un tema interesante del cual hablar: filosofía, y un poco de religión.

Siempre kise tener una filosofía propia… de exo, de alguna forma la tengo, pero si tuviera q plantearla, terminaría siendo una gran incoherencia metafísica xD… aun asi, sin importar la enorme cantidad de contradicciones en las q entraré, intentaré establecer los principales preceptos de mi ideología, q desde ya aviso, no es más q una mezcla de muxos otros pensamientos anteriores…

De partida, creo q mi pensamiento se podría entender como un existencialismo. Cabe aclarar q no he leido acerca de toooooas las filosofias, pero al leer frases como “la desgracia de nuestra época es haber aprendido tantas cosas, y haberse olvidado de existir” (Kierkegaard) me hacen tener una clara preferencia x este movimiento. Según mi visión, cada ser humano debería tener su propia filosofía de vida, pues no existe una fórmula aplicable a toda la humanidad; somos hombres concretos, con experiencias concretas, y cada uno debe saber encontrar la esencia de su propia existencia mediante la reflexión y el uso crítico del pensamiento (que no debe, necesariamente, seguir un sistema lógico-racional). El gran problema del hoy en día, es q la gente se ha olvidado de la importancia de la felicidad en su propia vida, y esta orientado hacia una desesperada búsqueda del éxito. Y en cuanto a la filosofía, a mi parecer la gran mayoría de la gente se clasifica en 2 opciones: la gente q se dedica a leer y teorizar acerca de la existencia (y de vez en cuando se olvidan del verdadero significado de “existir”, q a mi parecer, es darle sentido a estar en este mundo, siendo feliz y alcanzando la plenitud como persona) o la gente q no le importa la filosofía, y se aferra a creer en algo q le de sentido a su existencia, sin pensar demasiado al respecto. Creo q en cierto modo esta última es una opción respetable, siempre y cuando no se deje de lado al ser mismo a cambio de la creencia.

Ahora es cuando debo aclarar la parte más importante de mi pensamiento, y a la vez, la más obvia y abstracta. Tengo la firme creencia en q todo en esta vida trata de equilibrio: lo ideal para mi es tener conciencia de nuestra propia filosofía (teoría) pero no encerrarnos en ella, sino también vivirla (práctica). Creo q la razón por la cual hago tanto incapié en el hecho de q nuestra existencia es importante, es q en cierto sentido soy pragmático: ayudarle a la gente a encontrar un camino viable es bueno, pero a la vez absurdo, pues en encontrarlo podríamos desperdiciar nuestra propia vida. No creo en segundas oportunidades, y x tanto la existencia en este mundo debe ser aprovechada.

Hoy en día la gente se inclina x la ciencia, y se maravilla x sus progresos. Pero en verdad son necesarios?? al mismo tiempo q se va destruyendo el planeta, y se van olvidando las culturas, el hombre pasa a ser un parámetro más, un factor, un mero objeto q puede servir como herramienta para hacer mayor progreso de la ciencia… es acaso la ciencia un monstruo q absorve al ser humano, q lo esclaviza, q lo obliga a trabajar para su alimentación mientras él se pierde en la soledad en la q nos estamos hundiendo?? No creo en anarquías, pero al menos se debe tener presente la importancia del hombre individual. Capitalismo o comunismo, romanticismo o realismo, empirismo o racionalismo, fanatismo o ateismo, ser un mentiroso o no saber ocultar la cruda verdad… en todos los extremos podemos encontrar defectos, trozos de deficiencia… y es xq la verdad nunca estará en una sola parte, la verdad no se concentra, sino q es como el aire… podemos respirar un poco de verdad, pero la verdad absoluta es tan inalcanzable como el concepto de perfección.

Y lo mismo ocurre con la religión. Algunos existencialistas justificaron  la esencia del hombre en la fe (Jaspers), mientras q otros definieron el existencialismo como la consecuencia de un ateismo coherente (Sartre). Que creo yo de la relación Ser-Divinidad?? A pesar de q en una parte de mi vida, mientras lograba mi madurez, afirmé mi pensamiento en la idea de Camus de q la existencia no tiene una razón, y la vida no tiene sentido, he cambiado mi parecer. La vida tiene el sentido q cada uno desea darle; la religión, el amor, la vocación, etc, que para qienes asi piensan son algo asi como “consuelos para qienes no pueden aceptar el sin sentido de la vida”, ciertamente le dan sentido a la vida de qien los escoge como respuesta; pero qien no qiere escogerlos, puede vivir sin un sentido determinado x el mismo sin problemas, o caer en el vacío existencial q lleva a la depresión. La religión es entonces una respuesta al significado de nuestra existencia, y en lo q a mi respecta, es muy válida (aunq no la comparto). Si me preguntan por mi religión, para mi todos los dioses son uno, y no son más q la energía q forma parte de nuestra esencia. Creo en el alma, pero no en la salvación; una vez q nuestra vida acaba pasamos a formar parte de un todo, y luego esa energía será vida una vez más.

Retomando el tema del sentido, además somos seres sociales: si nuestro propio existir no tiene sentido para nosotros, puede tenerlo para qienes nos rodean. Es x algo q el hombre solo sabe qien es al estar con otros; somos lo q sentimos, + lo q los otros ven de nosotros; podemos compararnos, y darnos cuenta de lo q somos en verdad.

Una pregunta curiosa: ¿Es bueno o malo q la iglesia intervenga en la política? mi respuesta fue un “TA MAL” rotundo. Puedo justificarlo en q, pese a todas las propuestas sociales favorables q la iglesia tiene para ofrecer, la política habla de poder; y la solidaridad con el poder no son compatibles. La iglesia pasaría a ser un partido político más, y finalmente olvidaría su propio dogma. Para mí, la iglesia es una institución importante en nuestros dias (pese a su oscuro pasado), q lidera una parte importante de la fe, al menos de nuestro país. Comparto sus valores, pero no así la imposición de los sacramentos, y “rituales” q en mi opinión son innecesarios: la divinidad se conecta con nosotros a través de nuestra fe, y no según los actos y palabras repetidas q la iglesia pretende imponer como sagradas.

Es entonces el problema de nuestra existencia un problema sin un método específico para su resolución; mientras esté en interacción con la esencia de un ser humano, esta atado a la subjetividad; como diría G. Marcel, es un misterio.

Se tiende a catalogar de absurdo aquello q presenta un problema sin una resolución lógica; mas por el contrario, yo catalogo de absurdo el intentar reducir la existencia a conceptos más pequeños. “Pienso, luego existo”, “Siento, luego existo”, “Creo, luego existo”, existir como ocupar un lugar en el espacio, existir como concepto… Siempre se reduce el existir a ideas más pequeñas, sin darse cuenta de q es el hecho de existir (q yo defino como “ser y estar conciente de ser”) la meta fundamental y hacia el cual debería estar encaminada toda metafísica, pues la metafísica (q como ya dije, es aplicable solo a cada individuo) debe ayudarnos a trascender nuestra vida, y no hay nada q pueda trascender sin haber existido.

Guys, I acknowledge that I promised to post this at 7pm, and it’s now 8:40pm. I broke my promise, and I apologize.

—

Important!
Nothing will ever beat an intimate knowledge of the text. No amount of study guides, “Idiot’s Guides,” or notes from friends will make up for your own effort to think with the philosophers and to try on their ideas for yourself. And yes, it shows. Bola is obvious from a mile away.

“Insight” (Roque Ferriols, SJ)

1. What is the relationship between insight and reality? Why is it crucial to always “return the insight to its concrete fullness”?
2. How does Ferriols arrive at the essay’s conclusion?
3. What does the nature of insight have to do with philosophy?

“What is Philosophy?” (Karl Jaspers)

1. What is the relationship between philosophy and science? How are they similar? How are they different?
2. Jaspers repeatedly states throughout the essay that philosophy both begins with and leads to “an awareness of being and man’s place in it.” What does he mean? What does it tell you about the nature of philosophy?
3. What is philosophy concerned with?Why bother with philosophizing if, as Jaspers points out, philosophy produces no tangible results? Does this mean that in philosophy, everything is just relative?
4. Why does Jaspers assert that philosophy is accessible to all?

Apology of Socrates (Plato)

1. What is the meaning of the Delphic Oracle’s statement? Why is this statement so important—not only to Socrates, but in his social context? Why would this statement be important to us today?
2. In sections 28b-29a, Socrates explains why he has chosen to defend himself in the manner that he is accustomed to speaking, even though he knows that other people think him arrogant because of it. He brings up the analogy of the soldier on a battlefield—that, like a soldier in battle, he must stand his ground even at the cost of his life. What is it that is worth dying for, in Socrates eyes? Why must he stand his ground?
3. Socrates compares Athens to a “sluggish horse,” and says that he is the horsefly keeping it awake. In what way was the Athens of his time “slow and sluggish”? What was the point of the analogy?
4. Can we consider Socrates to be a personification of philosophy? If so, how does he personify it? (Of course, this implies first that you have some sort of provisional definition of philosophy.)

Synthesis Questions:

• What do all three texts have to do with philosophy? How do they answer the question “what is philosophy?”
• What is/are the points of intersection of the three texts? Do they resonate with each other? How? What particular idea/s resonate across the texts?
• What is philosophy, now that you’ve read and discussed these three texts?

What can you expect in the long test?
Let me refer you back to your syllabus—a description of what long tests consist of is indicated there. Just in case you’re too lazy to look for your syllabus, here’s what it says:

Long Tests
Three long tests will be given throughout the semester, and will consume an entire class period (one hour and 20 minutes). these will involve answering one or two questions related to one or more of the readings discussed. The questions are designed to examine both your understanding of the ideas and your ability to reflect on and critically apply these ideas in relation to human experience.
A deduction of 0.25 is applied to essays which are badly written (e.g. errors in grammar, use of text or internet language, lack of clarity) and to essays which don’t complete answer the question/s.
Format for all long tests: For all long tests, students are to use pad paper, and to write clearly and legibly using black or blue pens. Tests written in pencil or ink of other colors will be automatically marked F.

A+

“The ‘utopias’ of the twentieth century rested on the myth of self-creation, self-foundation, and on the self-sufficiency of mankind, conceived to be capable of rebuilding any lost heritage. They claimed that one could say nothing about mankind, per se. The reexamination of totalitarianism therefore calls for thinking about limits, which are statements about mankind. Limits bestow a name and an identity upon man, since the human being takes his name and identity from what distinguishes and therefore limits him. The lesson of the twentieth century is the following: we have limits that we do not choose, and which it would be in our interest to accept rather than suppress, given the damage attempts at suppression have caused.”

Chantal Delsol, The Unlearned Lessons of the Twentieth Century: An Essay on Late Modernity, trans. by Robin Dick (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2006), 30-1.

Typically I would consider “limits” as referring primarily to man’s epistemological limits: the limits of our knowing, which therefore limit our action. Here Delsol implies the reverse; her “limits” are the limits of our acting, which therefore limit our knowledge. In the same chapter as the above paragraph, she appropriates Marcel Gauchet’s phrase “the contrary evidence inflicted by reality on belief” (28) to describe the situation of communism today, its ideals discredited by history and its tenets proven false by experience. The twentieth century’s tragedies have resulted in a kind of tentative “experiential knowledge about man” (30)—a knowledge, says Delsol, which can be debated but which cannot be rejected wholesale.

Such debate is the source of a safeguard against the misuse even of such experiential knowledge. Delsol argues that the late modern stands between the Scylla of fanaticism and the Charybdis of relativism. Even when rejecting ideological and grasping experiential truth, “he sooner or later risks becoming its unconditional accomplice or henchman.” (98) Instead of drawing absolute and essentially abstract conclusions from experience, this knowledge must avoid both fanaticism and relativism by avoiding “depersonalization, the deepest source of the ills that might befall us.” And to avoid such depersonalization we must assume a certain view of truth and adopt a certain approach in dealing with it: “For the truth is not meant to be hammered into others or to be suppressed: it is to be pursued.”

The pursuit of the truth is tied to the person, which Delsol refers to as the “modern subject,” (85) in at least three ways. First, it cannot be “hammered into others;” it must be pursued willingly by each person out of his individual motivation. Second, it must involve the individual mind in debate and questioning. Third, it finds its source in experience as acted and observed by individuals. Yet this individualistic aspect is not merely subjective, for three parallel reasons: experience takes place in a world peopled by other subjects; the act of debate and dialogue is necessarily communal; and one’s conclusions about ethical truth, though they cannot be “hammered,” may be displayed in his actions by the subject as witness. “Morality is not a science or knowledge that can stand on thought alone,” writes Delsol, echoing Karl Jaspers; “morality is a practice.” (112)

I approve of this conclusion. But I think Delsol’s assertion that limits are “statements about mankind” is open to criticism or at least to further discussion. She says man “takes his name and identity” from limits, but Aristotle says that man takes his identity not from a limit but from ability: the capacity for speech and, more generally, the capacity for social life. Perhaps we could say that Aristotle saw the polis as arising in some sense from man’s limitations, from necessity—though he states this more positively in terms of self-sufficiency and higher good. Epistemologically, of course, Aristotle bases almost every one of his conclusions in an experientially grounded sort of thinking. Delsol’s idea of limits, then, might be no more than a restatement in modern terms of Aristotelian empiricism, relying on the individual subject to avoid the dangers of excessive certainty and excessive skepticism.

High Snobiety worked up a photoshoot pairing the photography of Daniela Muller-Brunke with the Louis Vuitton footwear collection from Kanye West. After giving the Air Yeezy its time to shine, now the Louis Vuitton collection is ready to claim the spotlight. The Yeezy is definitely an eye-catching sneaker, and although the LV kicks take more of a classy lifestyle approach than the athletic design of the Nike shoe, the shoes are anything but boring. They are supposed to be released the 1st of July. A-

I can never be a food blogger.. The reason for that is soon as I order I already have the utensils (or chopsticks) in hand in eager anticipation of the yummy feast that will be brought before me. Soon as the plate makes contact with the table I attack the food within 2 seconds. What is the point of this admission? Oh yeah.. I never get to take a photo of the food. (I’m no good at taking photos anyway).

But today we had lunch at a Japanese restaurant called Yume on Brunswick Street and I just have to rave about my favourite Japanese dish – Katsudon. I‘ve been to quite a number of Japanese restaurants in Melbourne, and every time I go to one, I always order Katsudon. And so far, all of them fell short of my expectations until this one..

Okay so I’ve already taken several bites from this dish and the photo is unclear because I took the photos with my mobile phone but believe me when I say this particular one was fantastic! It tastes just like I expect Katsudon to taste. The breading was tasty, pork cooked to perfection, egg just the right kind of gooey and the rice was sticky enough for my mediocre chopstick skills. We also had assorted tempura as appetizer and they had a good mix of prawn, fish, eggplant, potato & carrot there.

I think (but I may be speaking too soon) I have found my favourite Japanese restaurant in this city. The ambience is unpretentious with simple origami décor and a few Japanese paintings. The service was superb without being stifling. The prices are reasonable (we he paid about $8.80 for our plate of tempura and $8.90 for our individual rice dishes each).There were other customers but the place was not packed allowing for conversations without having to overhear what the other diners are saying. Best of all it is only three blocks from where I live!

On our way back to my flat, Jack and I decided we needed some caffeine in our systems and sat down for lattes at Café Nova, also on Brunswick Street. Coffee is good here too and they have raw sugar which I personally believe make coffees taste a lot better than white sugar.

Another beautifully spent couple of hours in Fitzroy. I love my neighbourhood!

Here is a quick preview of the upcoming LOUIS VUITTON collection ! Kanye’s shoe line is releasing in 3 weeks ! Too bad you have to be on the VIP list to get a pair….

Josef Rattner / Gerhard Danzer: Existenzphilosophie. Denkmode oder bleibende Aktualität?, Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 2008

Existence philosophy turned out to be the most influential topic last century’s philosophy. Thinkers like Heidegger have been discussed continuously and widely, their influences extend deep into popular discourse and affect fields far beyond sociology, ethics, or theology. It could be argued that existence philosophy represents a habitus or feeling that, at times, spread through most of European middle (and upper) classes. It’s topics contain more than the usual quest for the “happy life” or an acceptable ethics; instead, existence philosophy deals with “existencial problems” like the question of “God” (and consequently: morality as such) or “Being” as a whole, thus trying to answer a deep rooted insecurity within European intelligentsia that perhaps has been most vibrant between 1850 and 1950.

Seen in this context, Rattner’s resp. Danzer’s extremely well and understandably written monograph adresses a very important question while asking whether existence philosophy might be jut a passing fancy or not, still having actuality for our times. The basic question would be: does existence philosophy ask relevant questions that are not only connected to a (mode of) Being conditioned by its times? Are the times that formed existence philosophy’s ideas still relevant for our understanding of the world, of society, or ourselves? We like to see historic developments everywhere, and especially the 20th century has been a very, a fundamentally eventful time period. It would be easy to argue from a Christian or Hegelian point of view that with the rise and the stabilization of a democratic and pluralistic society and the expansion of a new, democratic, capitalist, in short: “western” ethics and values the past becomes irrelevant to us – indeed, formulations related to an “end of history” come to mind.

Not only the current financial and cultural crisis make this approach very questionable. It would be a grotesque exaggeration that Western values can be defined in a clear manner – it’s background is far beyond our experience. The imprint of Christianity on the society has waned for centuries, humanist ideals have thoroughly been questioned by philosophic tradition and the belief in a continuous development of mankind has been shattered by the European wars, the shoah and continuing ethnic “cleansings” all over the world. While it seemed for some time – especially during the Cold War – that a certain European or even Western consensus, some form of common identity could be reached, today, these hopes are severely dashed by particularists, nationalists and populists all over Europe and the Western world – not to speak of other regions.

Unfortunately, the question whether the answers of existence philosophy are acceptable and could provide some common ground remains unanswered as well in Rattners book. In fact, despite its title, these questions are neither asked nor discussed. The definitions of the conditio humana given by existence philosophy remains untackled, its quest for a modern ethics and identity unanswered. The reason lies not so much in the fact that the authors do not provide a fresh, critical opinion on the authors (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus, and Löwith) they discuss. On the contrary, their personal comments are always compassionate, understanding and thoughtful, although – especially in the case of Heidegger, who is seen as a prominent, but paltry, provincial thinker and racketeer opportunist – not always doing complete justice to the discussed subject. The problem lies elsewhere. The authors have obviously failed to decide on the kind of book they wanted to write – a thorough discussion of the matter, as suggested by approach and title or a short introduction that is very limited in space and profundity. The result is a very readable introduction that has nice ideas and the occasional refreshing and thoughtful remark but contains nothing fundamentally new and is highly questionable even from the outset: Why were these thinkers chosen, especially if Löwith is seen as “less independent thinker” (p. 207) – or de Beauvoir, who is less a philosopher than an essayist, auto-biographer, novelist and scientist, as the authors themselves formulate it (p. 157)? Why not include Scheler, Plessner, Rosenzweig or others? Another severe problem of the book lies in space. While it is – especially regarding its undeniable introductory character – very pleasing to see the authors placed in a context of biographical introdution and a short discussion of their works, there hardly is to be found a  general conclusion that is worth reading. If there is one at all, it often does not exceed more than a few lines (in the case of Heidegger it is a meagre page, in the cases of Camus and Löwith it is missing completely). The bibliography of the book comprises of three pages – which is, again, somewhat pathetic regarding the fact that the books deals with eight major figures of existence philosophy – for a mere introduction, however, it might barely suffice.

There are three models in Louis Vuitton x Kanye West’s Men’s Sneaker Collection, they’re the Don’s (presumably named after Kanye West himself, or after his manager Don C.), Jasper’s (named after Kanye’s barber), and Mr. Hudson’s (named after the GOOD Music artist and 808 collaborator of the same name).

The prices are as follows:

• Don’s – $870.00 USD - $960.00 USD. 
• Jasper’s – $990.00 USD - $1140.00 USD. 
• Mr. Hudson’s – $840.00 USD. 

What's your plans buddy?!

We love to say stuff like, “Who’s the greatest Mc of all-time?, What’s the best album of all-time?” Well, rappers are bigger than music now. Endorsements have become the norm. So I say to you, “Who’s had the best sneakers?” Silly sh@t, I know. Gotta do something to past the time.

What’s the best pair of kicks released by a rapper? Vote Now!!!

Dus ik was van plan om 2 paar (de lichte Don’s en de Mr Hudson’s) van die LV – Kanye kicks te halen, maar nu ik die prijzen zie moet ik het misschien toch maar bij 1 paar houden. Zwaar gestoord dit. Exclusiviteit is leuk, maar dat heb je ook bij een gehalveerde prijs.

Kanye West is captured here in Paris during the shooting of The Satorialist & All the More Reason to Live project. Kanye can be seen rocking his all black version of his highly anticipated Louis Vuitton collabo. This color-way of the Jaspers are scheduled to retail for $990 in June.

source: Vagant

Ernst Ludwig Krichner, "Kopferna"

Opere di Munch e di maestri del ‘900. Ma anche strumenti di contenzione. E dolorose testimonianze di ex internati in mostra a Siena dal 31 gennaio. In Santa Maria della Scala una esposizione nutrita assunti antiscientifici. Prima dell’800 non c’è autore che considerasse la malattia mentale come genio di Simona Maggiorelli

Chi l’avrebbe mai detto, Vittorio Sgarbi dopo molti incarichi nei ranghi dei berluscones si lancia sul versante opposto in habitus da improbabile sessantottino. Con il viatico di citazioni da Foucault il sindaco di Salemi si imbarca sulla nave dei folli che fu di Basaglia. E a Siena firma una esposizione con 300 opere e una ridda di prestiti internazionali; una mega mostra guazzabuglio basata sui più consunti luoghi comuni e antiscientifici a proposito di arte, genio e pazzia. Così accanto a opere come Hôpital Saint-Paul à Saint-Rémy,di Van Gogh e ad alcune interessanti tele di Munch provenienti da Oslo, ecco strumentazioni di contenzione manicomiale, incisioni e stampe del XIX secolo sugli internati de la Salpêtrière, edizioni originali dei libri di Esquirol dal Musée d’Historie de la Médecine di Parigi, insieme a una sterminata messe di Art brut che, nel segno di Dubuffet, è fatta di ripetitive testimonianze di malattia mentale recuperate dagli archivi di ex manicomi italiani e stranieri e presentate qui come opere d’arte.

Il ritornello è quello superficiale e consunto che i malati di mente sarebbero solo dei diversi, che la società si toglie dalla vista rinchiudendoli e criminalizzandoli. Senza prendere in considerazione il dolore psichico della malattia mentale e il diritto di chi sta male a ricevere una cura valida. Ma la mostra non si è data il compito di affrontare nello specifico questioni psichiatriche, obietta Sgarbi, rivendicando una propria “originale ricerca su arte e follia”. Ma intanto nell’esposizione che si è aperta il 31 gennaio in Santa Maria della Scala a Siena (catalogo Mazzotta) rispolvera assunti ottocenteschi da Genio e follia di Lombroso e organizza un omaggio allo psichiatra Hans Prinzhorn con pezzi della collezione di Heidelberg: “la più storica raccolta di arte dei folli”, scrive Sgarbi che usa i termini follia e pazzia come fossero sinonimi. Mentre Prinzhorn è acriticamente presentato come lo psichiatra che scoprì le radici di “un’arte autentica nelle opere di maestri schizofrenici, facendone nuovo paradigma estetico”. In barba ai danni che questo tipo di pensiero ha prodotto. Come hanno dimostrato in più saggi gli psichiatri Paola Bisconti, Francesco Fargnoli e Annelore Homberg (ne Il Sogno della Farfalla 2/007).

E come, sul piano della storia della arte, Rudolf e Margot Wittkower avevano scritto nel 1963 nel libro Nati sotto Saturno (Einaudi) precisando che la “follia”, intesa in primis come malinconia, era il segno distintivo degli artisti che nel Rinascimento finalmente conquistavano una nuova immagine e un più alto status sociale. “Prima dell’Ottocento – si legge in Nati sotto Saturno – non c’è scrittore che considerasse l’insanità mentale come una concomitanza del genio”. Ma in questo straordinario libro che ancora oggi è considerato un classico si dice anche che non fu la pazzia- questa sì con ogni probabilità vera e propria – a innalzare artisti come van der Gros nella sfera della tensione drammatica e del genio. Né il posato classicismo di un Annibale Carracci, viceversa, lasciava intuire a tutta prima la sua malattia. Ma ai due Wittkower, Sgarbi sembra prestare una distratta attenzione anche se, en passant, li omaggia esponendo le bizzarre sculture settecentesche di Messerschmidt, un caso da loro molto studiato. Piuttosto come curatore della mostra senese, con la complicità di Giorgio Bedoni e Giulio Macchi, Sgarbi fa suo il pensiero del filosofo esistenzialista Karl Jaspers che in Psicologia delle visioni del mondo nel 1919 arrivò a dire che la pazzia non sarebbe malattia ma una forza di esistenza particolare.

Un pensiero che nel 1921 portò lo psichiatra svizzero Morgenthaler a dire che le allucinazioni di uno schizofrenico e pedofilo come Wölfli (di cui a Siena sono esposte alcune opere) potevano essere lette come capolavori universali. Esattamente un anno dopo Jaspers in un saggio su Van Gogh contenuto nel famoso libro Genio e follia (Raffaello Cortina) – a cui Sgarbi dedicata il più importante capitolo della mostra con opere di van Gogh, Strindberg, Munch e Kirchner – scrisse che nel caso del genio olandese “la produttività della malattia mentale” liberò forze che prima erano inibite determinando un plus di creatività e di capacità espressiva. Un pensiero del tutto errato che la psichiatria moderna ha demolito, ma che ha inspiegabilmente esercitato una forte attrattiva sul mondo dell’arte ed è in qualche modo entrato nella mentalità comune. Proprio “ obbedendo a questo meccanismo mentale cui parecchi erano inclini a credere” il critico Pierre Loeb nel ‘47 chiese a Antonin Artaud di scrivere il saggio Van Gogh, Il suicidato della società (Adelphi), pensando che nessuno meglio di un ex internato come Artaud “fosse capace di parlare di un poeta o di un pittore ritenuto anch’egli alienato”.

Un libro che poi è stato preso a modello dai Surrealisti e che ancora una ventina di anni fa era considerato un “cult” fra i giovani artisti e gli studenti di storia dell’arte. E la “lucida follia” (come la definisce Sgarbi stesso) dei Surrealisti con le sue immagini che si propongono come sterili e astratta fantasmagorie nel tentativo razionale di trascrivere le immagini oniriche, in questa mostra senese trovano immancabilmente molto spazio. Nella sezione “inconscio e realtà” s’incontrano quadri di Max Enst, André Masson, Victor Brauner,per arrivare poi all’action painting di Hermann Nitsch dove la meccanica del gesto, il fare materiale, non lascia sottintendere nessuna immagine più profonda. Il gusto per l’immagine bizzarra come la macchina per cucire e un ombrello su un tavolo anatomico di cui scriveva Lautréamont è eletta al più alto rango dell’arte.

L’obiettivo di Breton e compagni è produrre spaesamento, un corto circuito del senso. Già nel 1924 André Breton, che aveva assunto voracemente il verbo di Freud virandone l’intrinseco pessimismo in una sorta di fatua euforia, nel suo Manifesto per il Surrealismo lancia la costruzione di una surrealtà costruita nel “sogno” dalla follia. Andando alla ricerca del gesto inusitato, di un movimento inconsulto, come “sparare a caso nella folla”. Mentre pittori come Ernst e Magritte usano l’idea dell’automatismo psichico derivata da Freud per fondare un’arte basata su un tipo di immagine raffreddata. Quel padre della psicoanalisi,che sosteneva che l’arte fosse solo un modo di sublimare e di scaricare le fantasie perverse e che autorevoli critici come Meyer Shapiro hanno del tutto sconfessato dimostrando che i suoi scritti erano basati su errori e frutto di autoanalisi, a Siena viene riproposto come protagonista di un ciclo di conferenze dedicate ai suoi studi sulle arti figurative e al contempo viene richiamato ne “La lente di Freud. Una galleria dell’incoscio”una serie di incisioni , xilografie e acquerelli della Fondazione Mazzotta. Intanto, in finale di “Arte, genio follia”-in una sorta di horror vacui – Sgarbi aggiunge ancora una riflessione sulla “ follia collettiva della guerra” letta attraverso le opere di Otto Dix, George Grosz e – chissà per quale strano nesso – anche di Guttuso e Mafai.
Left-Avvenimenti 4/09
Arte, genio, follia, il giorno e la notte dell’artista. Dal 31 gennaio al 25 maggio nel complesso di Santa Maria della Scala a Siena. Catalogo Mazzotta. www.artegeniofollia.it

]]>