What do you think?
Rate this book
Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall and demise of the Soviet Union, prominent Western thinkers began to suggest that liberal democracy had triumphed decisively on the world stage. Having banished fascism in World War II, liberalism had now buried communism, and the result would be an end of major ideological conflicts, as liberal norms and institutions spread to every corner of the globe. With the Brexit vote in Great Britain, the resurgence of right-wing populist parties across the European continent, and the surprising ascent of Donald Trump to the American presidency, such hopes have begun to seem hopelessly naïve. The far right is back, and serious rethinking is in order.
In Dangerous Minds , Ronald Beiner traces the deepest philosophical roots of such right-wing ideologues as Richard Spencer, Aleksandr Dugin, and Steve Bannon to the writings of Nietzsche and Heidegger—and specifically to the aspects of their thought that express revulsion for the liberal-democratic view of life. Beiner contends that Nietzsche's hatred and critique of bourgeois, egalitarian societies has engendered new disciples on the populist right who threaten to overturn the modern liberal consensus. Heidegger, no less than Nietzsche, thoroughly rejected the moral and political values that arose during the Enlightenment and came to power in the wake of the French Revolution. Understanding Heideggerian dissatisfaction with modernity, and how it functions as a philosophical magnet for those most profoundly alienated from the reigning liberal-democratic order, Beiner argues, will give us insight into the recent and unexpected return of the far right.
Beiner does not deny that Nietzsche and Heidegger are important thinkers; nor does he seek to expel them from the history of philosophy. But he does advocate that we rigorously engage with their influential thought in light of current events—and he suggests that we place their severe critique of modern liberal ideals at the center of this engagement.
In Dangerous Minds , Ronald Beiner traces the deepest philosophical roots of such right-wing ideologues as Richard Spencer, Aleksandr Dugin, and Steve Bannon to the writings of Nietzsche and Heidegger—and specifically to the aspects of their thought that express revulsion for the liberal-democratic view of life. Beiner contends that Nietzsche's hatred and critique of bourgeois, egalitarian societies has engendered new disciples on the populist right who threaten to overturn the modern liberal consensus. Heidegger, no less than Nietzsche, thoroughly rejected the moral and political values that arose during the Enlightenment and came to power in the wake of the French Revolution. Understanding Heideggerian dissatisfaction with modernity, and how it functions as a philosophical magnet for those most profoundly alienated from the reigning liberal-democratic order, Beiner argues, will give us insight into the recent and unexpected return of the far right.
Beiner does not deny that Nietzsche and Heidegger are important thinkers; nor does he seek to expel them from the history of philosophy. But he does advocate that we rigorously engage with their influential thought in light of current events—and he suggests that we place their severe critique of modern liberal ideals at the center of this engagement.
176 pages, Hardcover
Published April 5, 2018
26 people are currently reading
408 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
October 25, 2020
I've only read two books, one being "Being and Time", and a couple of essays by Heidegger, all for two classes about his work, but I've read pretty much everything by Nietzsche, most of it on my own. I rather thoroughly disliked the former, quite liked the latter, guided, as I was, by the somewhat apologetical books about Nietzsche by Hollingdale and, especially, Kaufmann.
Beiner's treatment of both is negative as regards their political philosophies and their appropriation by fascistic movements, including those allied with the Trump administration. And, yes, indeed, this is true. Both philosophers were anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic, despite Kaufmann's efforts to put the best face possible on Nietzsche and Heidegger's efforts to conceal his own Nazi past.
In my view, there are four major trends in ethics, those being the deontological (Kant), natural law (Aquinas), utilitarian (Mill) and virtue ethics. Nietzsche and Heidegger fit under the last of these rubrics, both of them harkening back to their idealized envisionings of the pre-Socratic Greeks. How they can know so much about those virtually prehistoric thinkers is beyond me, but, yes, such do associate with social caste systems, including slavery--whatever Parmenides or Heraclitos might have thought of such things personally--and both Nietzsche and Heidegger have some good things to say about rigidly oppressive hierarchies (and to war) as conducive to arete, to virtue or excellence--presumably imagining those like themselves guaranteed top spots in the pecking orders conducive to such. There is, however, more to both of them than this.
Most glaring, to me, is Beiner's failure to note the mystical element to Heidegger foundational ontology. I dislike Heidegger as a political figure and as a writer, but I must acknowledge that he had something to contribute to what we, more ordinary, mortals call 'theology', mystical theology. So, too, I was surprised to see Beiner taking Nietzsche's 'eternal return' as being more than a thought experiment arising out of his reading of contemporary physics books--a musing, as it were.
Finally, I am a bit taken aback by Beiner's confinement to the world of ideas. Fascist populisms don't catch on, as they are doing, because of thinkers like those two. They come to power because the masses are rightfully dissatisfied, and mostly for very material reasons. In fairer times we can afford the adolescent conceits of a Nietzsche or Heidegger fan. Now, facing dire economic and environmental prospects, the risk is great, especially since it seems unlikely that existing polities will manage these crises well.
Beiner's treatment of both is negative as regards their political philosophies and their appropriation by fascistic movements, including those allied with the Trump administration. And, yes, indeed, this is true. Both philosophers were anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic, despite Kaufmann's efforts to put the best face possible on Nietzsche and Heidegger's efforts to conceal his own Nazi past.
In my view, there are four major trends in ethics, those being the deontological (Kant), natural law (Aquinas), utilitarian (Mill) and virtue ethics. Nietzsche and Heidegger fit under the last of these rubrics, both of them harkening back to their idealized envisionings of the pre-Socratic Greeks. How they can know so much about those virtually prehistoric thinkers is beyond me, but, yes, such do associate with social caste systems, including slavery--whatever Parmenides or Heraclitos might have thought of such things personally--and both Nietzsche and Heidegger have some good things to say about rigidly oppressive hierarchies (and to war) as conducive to arete, to virtue or excellence--presumably imagining those like themselves guaranteed top spots in the pecking orders conducive to such. There is, however, more to both of them than this.
Most glaring, to me, is Beiner's failure to note the mystical element to Heidegger foundational ontology. I dislike Heidegger as a political figure and as a writer, but I must acknowledge that he had something to contribute to what we, more ordinary, mortals call 'theology', mystical theology. So, too, I was surprised to see Beiner taking Nietzsche's 'eternal return' as being more than a thought experiment arising out of his reading of contemporary physics books--a musing, as it were.
Finally, I am a bit taken aback by Beiner's confinement to the world of ideas. Fascist populisms don't catch on, as they are doing, because of thinkers like those two. They come to power because the masses are rightfully dissatisfied, and mostly for very material reasons. In fairer times we can afford the adolescent conceits of a Nietzsche or Heidegger fan. Now, facing dire economic and environmental prospects, the risk is great, especially since it seems unlikely that existing polities will manage these crises well.
December 4, 2018
This is a short and intense book by a political theorist at the University of Toronto. The premise is to examine the philosophies of Nietzsche and Heidegger in terms of their links with recent reincarnations of extremist right wing political movements in Russia, the US, Turkey, Hungary and other places. The issue is to show the intellectual heritage of extremist movements that are commonly thought of as fringe and not highly intellectual. The work of showing their linkage to individuals seen as part of the mainline Western intellectual tradition is intended to prompt observers to take these movements more seriously and critically than has been the case in the past. With regard to Nietzsche and Heidegger, the book also highlights that these thinkers have strong affinities for reactionary and anti democratic political orientations that are potentially dangerous to free societies when put into practice. This is quite different from the more typical take on these thinkers as exposing the limitations of bourgeois middle class society, a position that has found affinity with various left wing intellectuals.
I became interested in this line of analysis while reading about Putin and Russia, as well as recent political developments in the US since the 2016 election and the rise of Trump. I recently read a bio of Nietzsche that got me thinking more about the relationship of his life (and eventual madness) to his philosophical work. Unfortunately, neither Nietzsche nor Heidegger are amenable to quick dives to get a flavor of their thinking. I have tried to read both at different times and still retain some bruises from the effort.
Beiner’s book is really an extended essay that is clearly written and powerfully argued. I realize it is his perspective, but his logic is clear and relatively easy to follow and it was an interest in these sorts of analysis that brought me to the book. It is refreshing to read an author who actively engages with other authors in an effort to clarify and inform. This book is not for the timid and it would be helpful to have some orientation to the tradition of political theory that Beiner engages.
I enjoyed the book.
I became interested in this line of analysis while reading about Putin and Russia, as well as recent political developments in the US since the 2016 election and the rise of Trump. I recently read a bio of Nietzsche that got me thinking more about the relationship of his life (and eventual madness) to his philosophical work. Unfortunately, neither Nietzsche nor Heidegger are amenable to quick dives to get a flavor of their thinking. I have tried to read both at different times and still retain some bruises from the effort.
Beiner’s book is really an extended essay that is clearly written and powerfully argued. I realize it is his perspective, but his logic is clear and relatively easy to follow and it was an interest in these sorts of analysis that brought me to the book. It is refreshing to read an author who actively engages with other authors in an effort to clarify and inform. This book is not for the timid and it would be helpful to have some orientation to the tradition of political theory that Beiner engages.
I enjoyed the book.
January 6, 2019
Or consider this quote from Spencer in a profile by Sarah Posner in the October 18, 2016, issue of Rolling Stone: “I love empire, I love power, I love achievement.” Posner reports that “Spencer loves imperialism so much, he says, that he’ll sometimes ‘get a boner’ reading about Napoleon.”
If getting sexually aroused by the achievements of Napoleon makes you a Nazi, then call me Reinhard Heydrich.
April 30, 2019
Rather better on Heidegger than Nietzsche, in my opinion. For a book that presents itself as being about, in some sense, the "return" of the far right, it has precious little to offer in this regard -- and a book that approvingly cites both David Brooks and Leon Wieseltier was unlikely to be one I harbored warm feelings toward.
January 11, 2022
The title is misleading. It is not about the return of the far right or the influence of Nietzsche and Heidegger. The book gives surprisingly superficial, partisan interpretetation of these two philosophers. The problem is important, but the author does not address it at all.
July 18, 2018
Tolerance, reason rather than authority, valuing diversity, equality and dignity for all human beings and seeking rational solutions for human problems are at the core of modernity and humanism. Nietzsche and Heidegger lay the foundation for the antithesis of modernity (Enlightenment thought) and humanism. They typically are not read today by the modern day main stream political party members, but they capture the hate that is prevalent in today’s politics and they go a long way towards explaining it.
The author started out with a quote by Allan Bloom. For those who don’t know, Bloom wrote the book ‘The Closing of the American Mind’. Bloom’s book is mostly a screed against Nietzsche and Heidegger (two thinkers most people can’t even spell their names let alone speak in depth about their philosophy) and how their ‘relativism’ is destroying American colleges in the 1980s. This author points out correctly how Bloom is anti modernity and humanism and doesn’t realize the debt he owes to those thinkers.
Tolerance (or any of the other values from the Enlightenment) is not a suicide pact. The value of tolerance does not mean to roll over and look the other way when hate of the other for its own sake of the other is the only motivation. For example, when a fascist runs his car into a group of anti-Nazi protestors, the response should not be ‘both sides have good points and both sides are to blame’. The response is to be intolerant towards the fascist and his beliefs. (Call me a hypocrite; I don’t care about consistency when it comes to standing up against fascist).
The foundation for fascism and the beliefs espoused by these two thinkers and how they align with a large segment of today’s haters is laid out by this author by considering what Nietzsche and Heidegger actually said and meant overall.
Heidegger and Nietzsche are not happy people. They cannot stand democracy and equality. They believe democracy is nihilism. It’s not the death of God that takes away our meaning in living. They’ll say it’s the ‘last man standing’ (the ‘man’ who is watching old movies on his TV while eating potato chips, drinking beer and never thinking beyond the moment and will never have an original thought in his head and so on, probably a lot like me) and for the world to have meaning it needs an Ubermensch, a Superman or Overman, Nietzsche’s Napoleon or Heidegger’s Hitler, and most importantly they can never fail they can only be failed because in the end their fascist foundations only criticizes and offers no constructive solution and they will always say that the leader just got it wrong while never realizing that their leader is just an ordinary man who channels the hate of the people because he is no better than the rest of the mob, he is just one of the mob itself (‘War and Peace’ is an extremely good book that gets this point). To them modernity and humanism have taken away our values and meaning and it’s up to a fascist totalitarian leader to restore it. (I would suggest Hannah Arendt’s book ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ for further clarification on the nature of fascism and totalitarianism. BTW, she will say that Nazi’s, Nationalist Social Workers Party, are neither socialist nor nationalist).
In their terms, there is a ‘forgetfulness of Being’ (Heidegger) or a ‘homelessness’ for existence (Nietzsche). Our true nature needs a visionary to guide our hate, they think. They both have a ‘caste’ system which transcends the dignity of all humans and for what they think the true ‘authentic’ human based on their instinctual values should be told to believe. The values they espouse may be relative values, but the myths they embrace are their myths, and believe that their myths are the only myths that should be believed. The Frankfurt School’s founding book, ‘Dialectics of Enlightenment’ cannot stand relativism as espoused by Nietzsche and Heidegger but they each reach the same conclusions but with different starting premises. Allan Bloom and his teacher, Leo Strauss, are usually considered within the Frankfurt School of thought. Enlightenment principles are anathema to them as well as Nietzsche and Heidegger.
Nietzsche and Heidegger want a return to our primal instincts; they want a return to what they would call our authentic selves derived from our feelings which emanate from our gut. Heidegger loved the ‘Volk’, the German Peasant since he thought that they were least tainted by culture and the principals of the Enlightenment. The author quotes mostly from Division II (the Time part, the ‘existentialist part’) of ‘Being and Time’ to defend his thesis, but he could have just as easily quoted from Division I (the Being part) because Heidegger’s most ‘authentic man’ and ironically most philosophical is the one who doesn’t think what the door knob is but just uses it to open the door, and he will basically say that metaphysics is dead (it was laid to rest with Hegel, he will say) and instinct trumps contemplation and existence comes before essence. There is a real telling line in Heidegger’s ‘Introduction to Metaphysics’ (written in 1931) describing the Nazis as not going far enough in their fascist thought that goes like this, 'the works that are being peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism but have nothing whatever do with the inner truth and greatness of the movement (namely the encounter between global technology and modern man)'.
The authenticity they speak of is acquired with ‘spontaneity’. Reflective thought is not required. Their feelings trump contemplation. The primal instinct rule their world. Their spiritual followers of today will even say that everything around them that doesn’t come from them is ‘fake news’ and there are such things as ‘alternative facts’ and facts are what they say they are as long as it serves the masters wishes for that day in support of their myths and will embrace absurdities such as ‘climate change is a Chinese hoax’, ‘a trillion and a half dollar tax cut primarily for the rich will benefit everyone’, ‘trade wars are good and are easy to win’, ‘Putin tells me he didn’t interfere in our elections and that’s good enough for me’, or thinks ‘CNN is fake news and the New York Times can’t be trusted since it is a failing business’. All of the justification for that kind of thought fits into some of the writings of Nietzsche or Heidegger or both. Action before knowledge describes their first principal. The ‘Why We Fight’ film series by John Huston during the war had the fascist creed as ‘stop thinking and follow me’. That is the fascist creed of today too and that is metaphorically contained within the works of Nietzsche and Heidegger.
This author has done a very good job of showing these two thinkers for who they really are and how they relate to today. I read a lot of Nietzsche and Heidegger because it helps me understand where today’s fascists are coming from and they give me insights into how others might think. I can also gain insights from their assessment of what is wrong while rejecting their solutions.
The author started out with a quote by Allan Bloom. For those who don’t know, Bloom wrote the book ‘The Closing of the American Mind’. Bloom’s book is mostly a screed against Nietzsche and Heidegger (two thinkers most people can’t even spell their names let alone speak in depth about their philosophy) and how their ‘relativism’ is destroying American colleges in the 1980s. This author points out correctly how Bloom is anti modernity and humanism and doesn’t realize the debt he owes to those thinkers.
Tolerance (or any of the other values from the Enlightenment) is not a suicide pact. The value of tolerance does not mean to roll over and look the other way when hate of the other for its own sake of the other is the only motivation. For example, when a fascist runs his car into a group of anti-Nazi protestors, the response should not be ‘both sides have good points and both sides are to blame’. The response is to be intolerant towards the fascist and his beliefs. (Call me a hypocrite; I don’t care about consistency when it comes to standing up against fascist).
The foundation for fascism and the beliefs espoused by these two thinkers and how they align with a large segment of today’s haters is laid out by this author by considering what Nietzsche and Heidegger actually said and meant overall.
Heidegger and Nietzsche are not happy people. They cannot stand democracy and equality. They believe democracy is nihilism. It’s not the death of God that takes away our meaning in living. They’ll say it’s the ‘last man standing’ (the ‘man’ who is watching old movies on his TV while eating potato chips, drinking beer and never thinking beyond the moment and will never have an original thought in his head and so on, probably a lot like me) and for the world to have meaning it needs an Ubermensch, a Superman or Overman, Nietzsche’s Napoleon or Heidegger’s Hitler, and most importantly they can never fail they can only be failed because in the end their fascist foundations only criticizes and offers no constructive solution and they will always say that the leader just got it wrong while never realizing that their leader is just an ordinary man who channels the hate of the people because he is no better than the rest of the mob, he is just one of the mob itself (‘War and Peace’ is an extremely good book that gets this point). To them modernity and humanism have taken away our values and meaning and it’s up to a fascist totalitarian leader to restore it. (I would suggest Hannah Arendt’s book ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ for further clarification on the nature of fascism and totalitarianism. BTW, she will say that Nazi’s, Nationalist Social Workers Party, are neither socialist nor nationalist).
In their terms, there is a ‘forgetfulness of Being’ (Heidegger) or a ‘homelessness’ for existence (Nietzsche). Our true nature needs a visionary to guide our hate, they think. They both have a ‘caste’ system which transcends the dignity of all humans and for what they think the true ‘authentic’ human based on their instinctual values should be told to believe. The values they espouse may be relative values, but the myths they embrace are their myths, and believe that their myths are the only myths that should be believed. The Frankfurt School’s founding book, ‘Dialectics of Enlightenment’ cannot stand relativism as espoused by Nietzsche and Heidegger but they each reach the same conclusions but with different starting premises. Allan Bloom and his teacher, Leo Strauss, are usually considered within the Frankfurt School of thought. Enlightenment principles are anathema to them as well as Nietzsche and Heidegger.
Nietzsche and Heidegger want a return to our primal instincts; they want a return to what they would call our authentic selves derived from our feelings which emanate from our gut. Heidegger loved the ‘Volk’, the German Peasant since he thought that they were least tainted by culture and the principals of the Enlightenment. The author quotes mostly from Division II (the Time part, the ‘existentialist part’) of ‘Being and Time’ to defend his thesis, but he could have just as easily quoted from Division I (the Being part) because Heidegger’s most ‘authentic man’ and ironically most philosophical is the one who doesn’t think what the door knob is but just uses it to open the door, and he will basically say that metaphysics is dead (it was laid to rest with Hegel, he will say) and instinct trumps contemplation and existence comes before essence. There is a real telling line in Heidegger’s ‘Introduction to Metaphysics’ (written in 1931) describing the Nazis as not going far enough in their fascist thought that goes like this, 'the works that are being peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism but have nothing whatever do with the inner truth and greatness of the movement (namely the encounter between global technology and modern man)'.
The authenticity they speak of is acquired with ‘spontaneity’. Reflective thought is not required. Their feelings trump contemplation. The primal instinct rule their world. Their spiritual followers of today will even say that everything around them that doesn’t come from them is ‘fake news’ and there are such things as ‘alternative facts’ and facts are what they say they are as long as it serves the masters wishes for that day in support of their myths and will embrace absurdities such as ‘climate change is a Chinese hoax’, ‘a trillion and a half dollar tax cut primarily for the rich will benefit everyone’, ‘trade wars are good and are easy to win’, ‘Putin tells me he didn’t interfere in our elections and that’s good enough for me’, or thinks ‘CNN is fake news and the New York Times can’t be trusted since it is a failing business’. All of the justification for that kind of thought fits into some of the writings of Nietzsche or Heidegger or both. Action before knowledge describes their first principal. The ‘Why We Fight’ film series by John Huston during the war had the fascist creed as ‘stop thinking and follow me’. That is the fascist creed of today too and that is metaphorically contained within the works of Nietzsche and Heidegger.
This author has done a very good job of showing these two thinkers for who they really are and how they relate to today. I read a lot of Nietzsche and Heidegger because it helps me understand where today’s fascists are coming from and they give me insights into how others might think. I can also gain insights from their assessment of what is wrong while rejecting their solutions.
May 30, 2021
The book is nice in summarizing and pointing out different aspects of Nietzsche's and Heidegger's ideas (especially their anti-modernism, conservationism, elitism, mysticism, and so on) that inspired past and present aspects of radical far right movements. There are multiple issues with the arguments presented in this book. Just to name three. First, Nietzsche, but especially Heidegger, were primarily involved in fundamental human issues and ontology. Assuming that what they did was not just pure nonsense, then the implications of their thoughts affected all domains of human activity in radical ways; and not just the politics. Secondly and as the author himself acknowledges, their political followers spanned the entire traditional political spectrum from extreme left to extreme right. To approach both Nietzsche and Heidegger from within a specific political perspective (whatever that may be) will inevitably lead to fundamental conflicts. Thirdly, it seems to me quite a stretch of imagination to impute events as separate as the Brexit referendum in the UK, the popular support for Putin in Russia, the election of Trump in the US, and so on; to Nietzsche's and Heidegger's ideas. All these events may be more easily explained by specific national situations, Marxist theory regarding the conflicts of capitalism, technological changes, poverty, migration, globalization, and so on. This book is worth reading; but far more important is to read Nietzsche and Heidegger directly and to form your own impressions on them and their political ideas – even if you are not a philosopher or a political theorist as the author is.
July 28, 2018
This was an excellent critique of Nietzsche and Heidegger as far-right agitators who inspired (Nietzsche) and actively supported (Heidegger) Nazism. The author connects Nietzsche's affinities for feudalism with the philosopher's critique of compassion, morality, and egalitarianism, and shows how such despotism of thought was reproduced by Heidegger as well. It's very disturbing and sickening to see how Heidegger was a committed Nazi not only under Hitler but also after the war and for decades thereafter. Beiner is rightly worried that Nietzsche and Heidegger, being anti-liberal critics of modernity, are coming back in a rude way, in light of the menace posed by the neo-Nazi Alt-Right, Donald Trump, Putin, Erdoğan, Orbán, and Modi. My only major disagreement with Beiner is that his explicit support for liberal modernity as being egalitarian is an ideology which mystifies the power of capitalism and as such overlooks the unavoidable associated hierarchies which belie the claim. Instead of this, we should advance an egalitarian anti-capitalist critique and social movement.
Here is my full review: https://t.co/K8e80ncSWf
Here is my full review: https://t.co/K8e80ncSWf
March 4, 2021
Brief and bearable for that reason. Much of what was worthwhile in this book can be found in finer and more detailed works such as Wolin's 'The Seduction of Unreason', and the additional attempts to relate that analysis to the current 'far or alt right' were sad and lazy.
January 25, 2023
This is such a lazy and cartoonishly ideological interpretation of Nietzsche.
Added Jan. 24, 2023:
This book makes a prima facie convincing case that Martin Heidegger was a bad guy. Never having studied Heidegger, though, the discussion here doesn't really give me any sense of what he thought and why. Maybe that is alright. I have studied Nietzsche, though, and that part of the book is definitely not alright.
Saying that the book offers a "lazy and cartoonishly ideological interpretation of Nietzsche" actually exaggerates its value. Dangerous Minds does not offer any account of what Nietzsche's main political ideas were, why he held them, or how they relate to the rest of his philosophy. In that sense, it doesn't really present an "interpretation of Nietzsche" at all. Rather, it concatenates many passages in which Nietzsche expressed (or appeared to express) some illiberal view or denigrated some liberal value (equality, commercial prosperity, the pursuit of happiness, whatever). The quoted passages are interspersed with comically uncontrolled expressions of disapproval. At one point the author exclaims: "This guy is not a liberal!" It is obvious that Nietzsche was not a liberal. It is not necessary to take a Brainy Quotes page and pepper it with remarks that sound like they were lifted from a late night talk show monologue to make that point.
I can understand the author's concern about the role of philosophy in political extremism. Maybe there could be some value in a careful effort to reconstruct Nietzsche's philosophy and then to calmly explain why Nietzsche's political conclusions are incorrect. Doing this properly would require rebutting the view that Nietzsche had no political philosophy per se, just political remarks that are basically irrelevant to his main philosophy; Beiner ignores all recent exponents of that view , such as Williams and Leiter, and instead focuses on Walter Kaufmann (d. 1980), who famously translated Gewaltmensch der Kultur as "cultural dynamo".
I cannot imagine anybody being convinced to give up on Nietzsche-inspired political beliefs by this kind of hysteria. Which is too bad, because some people with very extreme, indeed dangerous, views have been inspired by Nietzsche.
Added Jan. 24, 2023:
This book makes a prima facie convincing case that Martin Heidegger was a bad guy. Never having studied Heidegger, though, the discussion here doesn't really give me any sense of what he thought and why. Maybe that is alright. I have studied Nietzsche, though, and that part of the book is definitely not alright.
Saying that the book offers a "lazy and cartoonishly ideological interpretation of Nietzsche" actually exaggerates its value. Dangerous Minds does not offer any account of what Nietzsche's main political ideas were, why he held them, or how they relate to the rest of his philosophy. In that sense, it doesn't really present an "interpretation of Nietzsche" at all. Rather, it concatenates many passages in which Nietzsche expressed (or appeared to express) some illiberal view or denigrated some liberal value (equality, commercial prosperity, the pursuit of happiness, whatever). The quoted passages are interspersed with comically uncontrolled expressions of disapproval. At one point the author exclaims: "This guy is not a liberal!" It is obvious that Nietzsche was not a liberal. It is not necessary to take a Brainy Quotes page and pepper it with remarks that sound like they were lifted from a late night talk show monologue to make that point.
I can understand the author's concern about the role of philosophy in political extremism. Maybe there could be some value in a careful effort to reconstruct Nietzsche's philosophy and then to calmly explain why Nietzsche's political conclusions are incorrect. Doing this properly would require rebutting the view that Nietzsche had no political philosophy per se, just political remarks that are basically irrelevant to his main philosophy; Beiner ignores all recent exponents of that view , such as Williams and Leiter, and instead focuses on Walter Kaufmann (d. 1980), who famously translated Gewaltmensch der Kultur as "cultural dynamo".
I cannot imagine anybody being convinced to give up on Nietzsche-inspired political beliefs by this kind of hysteria. Which is too bad, because some people with very extreme, indeed dangerous, views have been inspired by Nietzsche.
August 11, 2018
Troubling book and a necessary book to read to understand the Alt-Right.
June 20, 2022
A decent liberal critique and analysis of these thinkers, and a criticism of those who have appropriated Nietzsche and Heidegger for the left i.e. Left Nietzcheans and Left Heideggerians. The author notably does not call for writing off genuine insights derived from Nietzsche and Heidegger, but notes that that the reactionary elements of their thought - which are right out in the open and not difficult to find - have been downplayed by appreciative leftists and widely embraced by reactionaries for obvious reasons.
August 11, 2025
ผู้เขียนหนังสือเล่มนี้เป็นนักวิชาการที่ทำงานในสาขาทฤษฎีการเมืองมาตลอด ผลงานวิชาการที่สำคัญก่อนหน้านี้ก็คือตำราแนะนำความคิดของนักปรัชญา/ทฤษฎีการเมืองคนสำคัญๆในศตวรรษที่ยี่สิบ(ซึ่งปรับมาจากคำบรรยายที่ตัวเขาใช้สอนนักศึกษาในระดับบัณฑิตศึกษาของมหาวิทยาลัยโตรอนโต) ดังนั้น เมื่อหันมาศึกษาการก่อตัวของขบวนการประชานิยมฝ่ายขวา สิ่งที่ผู้เขียนสนใจจึงไม่ใช่เรื่องของวิธีการก่อตัวตลอดจนแนวทางบริหารจัดการขบวนการเหล่านี้ แต่คือเรื่องรากฐานทางปรัชญาที่ทำงานเบื้องหลังอุดมการณ์ซึ่งขับเคลื่อนการเคลื่อนไหวดังกล่าว โดยผู้เขียนเสนอว่า การเติบโตของขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาร่วมสมัยในปัจจุบันคือการเคลื่อนไหวภายใต้แนวทางปรัชญาคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์ หรือพูดง่ายๆก็คือ การขยายตัวของขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวประชานิยมฝ่ายขวาซึ่งนับเป็นปรากฏการณ์ทางการเมืองที่สำคัญตั้งแต่ต้นทศวรรษที่ 2010 เป็นต้นมานั้น แท้จริงแล้วคือรูปปรากฏในการขยายตัวของอุดมการณ์ตามแบบผู้เลื่อมใสนิตเช่ท์ (Nietzschean Ideology) เห็นได้จากข้อเขียนและคำให้สัมภาษณ์ของปัญญาชนแกนนำในขบวนการดังกล่าวที่ล้วนแต่ได้รับแรงบันดาลใจ กระทั่งกล่าวอ้างไปถึงตำรางานเขียนของนิตเช่ท์ ไม่ว่าจะเป็นผู้นำขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวที่เชิดชูอัตลักษณ์คนขาวที่ได้จุดกระแสการเคลื่อนไหวของฝ่ายขวาแนวใหม่ (alt-right หรือ alternative right) ในอเมริกา หรือแกนนำของพรรคชาตินิยมบอลเชวิก ผู้มีบทบาทต่อการก่อตัวของขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวขวาจัดในรัสเซีย และนักปรัชญาชาวอิตาเลี่ยนบางคนที่ให้แรงบันดาลใจแก่การรื้อฟื้นขบวนการชาตินิยมฟาสซิสต์ในอิตาลี (และในภูมิภาคต่างๆของยุโรป)
สำหรับเนื้อหาในปรัชญาของนิตเช่ท์ที่ผู้เขียนมองว่าถูกนำไปสานต่อจนกลายเป็นอุดมการณ์ขับเคลื่อนขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวแบบขวาจัด จะเริ่มต้นจากข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่าตัวนิตเช่ท์เองเป็นบุคคลที่จงเกลียดจงชังระเบียบการเมืองแบบเสรีนิยมและประชาธิปไตยซึ่งลงหลักปักฐานในฐานะค่านิยมหลักของโลกสมัยใหม่ภายหลังการปฏิวัติฝรั่งเศส ค.ศ. 1789 ด้วยมองว่าระเบียบดังกล่าวได้ลดทอนศักยภาพความเป็นมนุษย์ผ่านการสถาปนาให้วิถีชีวิตของมวลชนทั่วไป อันเป็นวิถีชีวิตที่นิตเช่ท์มองว่าเรื่อยเปื่อย ไร้แก่นสาร ไปวันๆได้กลายมาเป็นแนวทางการใช้ชีวิตมาตรฐานที่มนุษย์ควรจะเป็น พร้อมๆกับทำให้แนวทางการใช้ชีวิตแบบอภิชนที่เน้นความสำคัญของเกียรติศักดิ์และหน้าที่ที่ได้รับมอบหมายตามตำแหน่งแห่งที่ทางสังคมที่ไม่เท่าเทียม กลายเป็นแนวทางอันล้าหลังทั้งๆที่แนวทางการใช้ชีวิตดังกล่าวต่างหากที่ตอบสนองและยืนยันคุณสมบัติของความเป็นมนุษย์อย่างแท้จริง แน่นอน นี่ไม่ได้หมายความว่า นิตเช่ท์ปรารถนาให้มนุษย์ทุกคนต้องใช้ชีวิตแบบชนชั้นสูงที่ยึดมั่นในเกียรติยศและศักดิ์ศรี เพราะนิตเช่ท์ไม่เชื่อว่ามนุษย์ทุกคนจะสามารถใช้ชีวิตแบบมีเกียรติได้ แต่ประเด็นของนิตเช่ท์คือการยืนยันถึงความสูงส่งของมนุษย์บางคน/บางกลุ่มที่โลกควรยกย่อง เทิดทูนในฐานะตัวแบบที่ควรเป็นผู้นำของมนุษยชาติอย่างแท้จริง ตัวแบบผู้ซึ่งจะยืนอยู่บนขั้นสูงสุดของลำดับชั้นทางสังคมที่ซึ่งคุณสมบัติส่วนตัวจะแตกต่างอย่างสุดขั้วจากบุคคลทั่วๆไป ไม่ใช่เพราะถือครองทรัพย์สินธุ์มหาศาล หรือมาจากชาติตระกูลที่ดี แต่เพราะมี will หรือเจตนารมณ์อันแข็งแกร่ง หนักแน่น ไม่แปรปรวนไปกับความเห็นของบุคคลต่างๆ ซึ่���สุดท้ายแล้วก็ได้ทำให้มนุษย์กลุ่มนี้สามารถก้าวข้าม “ความเป็นมนุษย์” ที่คนทั่วไปยึดมั่น กลายเป็นสิ่งที่นิตเช่ท์เรียกว่า “ยอดมนุษย์” (Ubermensch)
และด้วยเนื้อหาในปรัชญาคำสอนดังกล่าว ผู้เขียนจึงสรุปว่า โดยแก่นสารแล้ว อุดมการณ์ตามแบบผู้เลื่อมใสนิตเช่ท์ซึ่งอยู่เบื้องหลังการก่อตัวของขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาประชานิยมนั้น คืออุดมการณ์ที่ปฏิเสธความเสมอภาคเท่าเทียมตลอดจนเสรีภาพในการเลือกใช้ชีวิตของแต่ละปัจเจกบุคคล ควบคู่ไปกับการเชิดชูระเบียบการเมืองที่เน้นพันธะหน้าที่ตามลำดับชั้นทางสังคมที่ไม่เสมอภาคกัน ด้วยมองว่ามีแต่ระเบียบการเมืองชนิดนี้เท่านั้นที่จะปกป้องมนุษย์จากความล่มสลายทางจิตวิญญาณ กระนั้น ผู้เขียนก็ไม่ลืมที่จะชี้ให้เห็นว่าแม้นิตเช่ท์อาจเป็นต้นตอความคิดที่เชิดชูและยกย่องความสำคัญของระเบียบการเมืองที่เน้นลำดับชั้นทางสังคม แต่ตัวนิตเช่ท์ก็ไม่เคย(หรือเสียชีวิตก่อนที่จะ)นำเสนอแนวปฏิบัติเพื่อบ่มเพาะหรือให้กำเนิดสิ่งที่เขาเรียกว่ายอดมนุษย์ ในแง่นี้ ผู้เขียนจึงได้ชี้ให้เห็นถึงความสำคัญของมาร์ติน ไฮเด็กเกอร์นักปรัชญาผู้ได้ชื่อว่าเก่งกาจและยิ่งใหญ่ที่สุดเมื่อศตวรรษที่แล้วในฐานะบุคคลที่พัฒนาปรัชญาคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์ต่อมา เพราะแม้ปรัชญาของไฮเด็กเกอร์อาจมีเนื้อหาที่แตกต่างไปจากคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์ แต่ก็เป็นที่ทราบกันดีว่าไฮเด็กเกอร์นั้นชื่นชมนิตเช่ท์และได้รับแรงบันดาลใจจากปรัชญาของนิตเช่ท์อย่างมาก โดยเฉพาะการประเมินปัญหาใจกลางของมนุษย์ในยุคสมัยใหม่ว่าคือปัญหาอันเกิดจากวิกฤติของการสูญเสียจิตวิญญาณ แปลกแยกและมองไม่เห็นความสัมพันธ์ที่เชื่อมร้อยการดำรงอยู่ของตนเองเข้ากับ “โลก” ที่รายล้อม/รองรับการดำรงอยู่ดังกล่าว ซึ่งสำหรับไฮเด็กเกอร์แล้วทางแก้ต่อปัญหานี้ก็คือการอุทิศตนเองให้กับแผ่นดินที่ตนถือกำเนิดและใช้ชีวิต
ทั้งนี้ โดยอาศัยเนื้อหาจากตัวบททางปรัชญาของไฮเด็กเกอร์อย่าง Being and Time และบทความอย่าง “The Letter on Humanism” ผู้เขียนได้ตีความและถอดนัยยะทางการเมืองจากปรัชญาของไฮเด็กเกอร์ให้เห็นว่า สำหรับไฮเด็กเกอร์แล้ว ปรัชญาที่ให้ความสำคัญและเชื่อมั่นกับชีวิตของมนุษย์เป็นปรัชญาที่ไร้บ้าน หรือ Homelessness เพราะเป็นปรัชญาที่ให้ความสำคัญกับเพียงแค่การดำรงอยู่ของมนุษย์(being)โดยมิได้ให้ความสนใจกับการตระหนักรู้ตลอดจนเงื่อนไขที่อยู่เบื้องหลังการก่อตัวของความเข้าใจต่อสิ่งที่เรียกว่าการดำรงอยู่(Being) นแง่นี้ สังคมการเมืองสมัยใหม่ที่ให้ความสำคัญกับการดำรงอยู่ของชีวิตและเสรีภาพในการเลือกใช้ชีวิตของปัจเจกอย่างเท่าเทียม จึงเป็นผลมาจากปรัชญาสมัยใหม่ที่ไร้บ้าน และหลงลืมคำถามพื้นฐานอย่างเงื่อนไขทางภววิทยาที่กำหนดความเข้าใจและการตระหนักรู้ถึงการดำรงอยู่ของมนุษย์ ดังนั้น เพื่อแก้ปัญหาความไร้บ้านของปรัชญาสมัยใหม่ ไฮเด็กเกอร์จึงนำเสนอแนวคิดที่มุ่งรื้อฟื้นจิตวิญญาณของมนุษย์ ตลอดจนนำพาปรัชญาและมนุษย์ชาติให้สามารถ “กลับบ้าน” ได้อีกครั้ง โดยการกลับบ้านดังกล่าวก็จะไม่ใช่อะไรเลยนอกจาก การสะกิดให้มนุษย์ได้ตระหนักรู้ว่าชีวิตและการดำรงอยู่ของตนมิใช่การดำรงอยู่อย่างลอยๆ แต่คือการดำรงอยู่ภายใต้การโอบกอดของผืนแผ่นดินที่คอยกำหนดเส้นขอบฟ้าให้กับโลกทัศน์และความเข้าใจต่อสิ่งต่างๆของตน จนทำให้มนุษย์เห็นความสำคัญของสังคมการเมืองที่ตนถือกำเนิดในฐานะเงื่อนไขพื้นฐานที่คอยกำหนดชะตากรรม (Destiny) โดยที่จะมีการดำรงอยู่ของตัวมนุษย์ผู้นั้นเองเป็นองค์ประกอบหนึ่งและส่งผลให้ปัจเจกละทิ้งเสรีภาพส่วนตน พร้อมๆกับอุทิศตนให้สังคมการเมืองจนกลายเป็นการรากฐานทางปรัชญาที่รองรับอุดมการณ์ชาตินิยมในท้ายที่สุด
ในแง่นี้ ถ้ามรดกทางปรัชญาของนิตเช่ท์คือการนำเสนอแนวคิดเรื่อง ยอดมนุษย์ ในฐานะแนวทางที่มุ่งล้มล้างระเบียบการเมืองแบบเสรีประชาธิปไตย มรดกดังกล่าวก็ได้ถูกพัฒนาต่อยอดจนกลายเป็นปรัชญาชาตินิยมของไฮเด็กเกอร์ สำหรับไฮเด็กเกอร์ ชาติไม่ใช่เรื่องของจินตกรรม หรือประดิษฐ์กรรมของสังคมสมัยใหม่ แต่ชาติคือรูปปรากฏของ Volk หรือจิตวิญญาณอันเป็นหัวใจที่ผูกพันแต่ละปัจเจกผ่านการมีมรดกทางวัฒนธรรมร่วมกัน ปรัชญาของไฮเด็กเกอร์จึงเป็นปรัชญาที่มุ่งสร้างยอดมนุษย์ผ่านการทำให้มนุษย์ยอมอุทิศตน พลีชีพพร้อมสละตนเองเพื่อ “บ้าน” หรือสังคมการเมือง/ผืนแผ่นดินที่ตนใช้ชีวิตอยู่ จากตรงนี้ก็คงจะเห็นได้ชัดถึงความเชื่อมโยงระหว่างอุดมการณ์ความคิดของกลุ่มปัญญาชนแกนนำในขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาร่วมสมัยกับคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์ที่ได้รับการปรับแต่งโดยปรัชญาชาตินิยมของไฮเด็กเกอร์ โดยเฉพาะการก่อตัวของแนวคิดเรื่องชาติ ในฐานะรูปธรรมของการสร้างยอดมนุษย์ตามคำสอนที่นิตเช่ท์เคยกล่าวถึง ต่างกันก็แต่เพียงว่า ในขณะที่ชาติและ “บ้าน” ของไฮเด็กเกอร์นั้นจะไม่ใช่อะไรเลยนอกจากแผ่นดินของสังคมการเมืองที่เขาถือกำเนิดขึ้นมาอย่างสังคมการเมืองเยอรมัน ชาติและบ้านสำหรับปัญญาชนผู้นำขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาร่วมสมัยนี้กลับคือชาติพันธ์หรือศาสนาเฉพาะที่ตนยึดถือไม่ว่าจะเป็นแนวคิดที่เชื่อในความเหนือกว่าของคนขาวซึ่งเริ่มแพร่หลายกันอย่างกว้างขวางในอเมริกาและยุโรป หรือทัศนะของชาวรัสเซียที่มองว่าชนชาติสลาฟของตนคือชนชาติที่ยิ่งใหญ่ควรค่าแก่การทำสงครามช่วงชิงดินแดนและทรัพยากรเพื่อสถาปนาจักรวรรดิ์อันรุ่งโรจน์ของพวกตนอีกครั้ง
ในบทสรุปของหนังสือ ผู้เขียนได้หันมาตั้งคำถามกับแนวทางการศึกษาทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยกระแสหลักซึ่งตัวเขามองว่าตกอยู่ภายใต้อิทธิพลของจอห์น รอลล์และเยอร์เก้น ฮาเบอร์มาส สองนักทฤษฏีผู้ยิ่งใหญ่ผู้จัดวางให้การศึกษาปรัชญาและทฤษฎีการเมืองถูกกำกับด้วยความคิดแบบเสรีนิยมที่ให้ความสำคัญกับการคุ้มครองสิทธิส่วนบุคคลรวมไปถึงการสร้างกระบวนการแลกเปลี่ยนความเห็นของบุคคลต่างๆ จนมองข้ามคำถามเรื่อง “ชีวิตที่ดี” และ “สังคมการเมืองที่ดี” ราวกับว่าคำถามดังกล่าวเป็นคำถามที่ไม่มีความสำคัญหรือไม่สอดคล้องกับโลกสมัยใหม่อีกต่อไป (เพราะภายใต้วิธีคิดแบบเสรีนิยมนั้น ความดีและชีวิตที่ดีเป็นเรื่องของทัศนะส่วนบุคคลไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับการเมืองและกิจการสาธารณะ จึงไม่มีคุณค่ามากพอที่ปรัชญาและทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยจะหันไปให้ความสำคัญ) แต่ก็ด้วยความเพิกเฉยต่อคำถามดังกล่าวนี่เอง ผู้เขียนจึงมองว่าปรัชญาและทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยล้มเหลวในการทำความเข้าใจและกระทั่งคาดการณ์ถึงการขยายตัวของขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวประชานิยมฝ่ายขวาในปัจจุบัน ในแง่นี้ เพื่อที่จะเข้าใจต้นตอของปรากฏการณ์ดังกล่าว ตลอดจนเพื่อปรับปรุงให้เสรีนิยมและการศึกษาปรัชญาทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยมีความเข้มแข็ง หนักแน่น สามารถตอบคำถาม และหาทางรับมือกับวิกฤติการทางการเมืองที่กำลังเกิดขึ้นมาได้ การกลับมาใส่ใจกับคำถามเรื่องชีวิตที่ดีและสังคมการเมืองที่ดี จึงเป็นสิ่งที่ต้องทำ การกลับมาใส่ใจกับรูปธรรมอันชัดเจนที่สุด นั่นคือการหันมาอ่านตำราคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์และไฮเด็กเกอร—ผู้ได้ชื่อว่าปฏิเสธเสรีประชาธิปไตยและเป็นแรงบันดาลใจสำหรับการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาประชานิยม—ดังที่ตัวผู้เขียนได้นำเสนอผ่านงานเขียนชิ้นนี้ การกลับมาใส่ใจที่จะช่วยขยับขยายพรมแดนของทั้งเสรีประชาธิปไตยและการศึกษาทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยให้มีความรุ่มรวย เป็นจุดเริ่มต้นต่อการทำความเข้าใจทั้งความมืดบอดของตนเองและทางเลือกของฝ่ายที่เป็นปฏิปักษ์กับตน อันจะเป็นก้าวแรกที่จะช่วยให้ระบอบเสรีประชาธิปไตยสามารถเผชิญหน้ากับวิกฤติที่กำลังเกิดขึ้นได้ไม่มากก็น้อย
สำหรับเนื้อหาในปรัชญาของนิตเช่ท์ที่ผู้เขียนมองว่าถูกนำไปสานต่อจนกลายเป็นอุดมการณ์ขับเคลื่อนขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวแบบขวาจัด จะเริ่มต้นจากข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่าตัวนิตเช่ท์เองเป็นบุคคลที่จงเกลียดจงชังระเบียบการเมืองแบบเสรีนิยมและประชาธิปไตยซึ่งลงหลักปักฐานในฐานะค่านิยมหลักของโลกสมัยใหม่ภายหลังการปฏิวัติฝรั่งเศส ค.ศ. 1789 ด้วยมองว่าระเบียบดังกล่าวได้ลดทอนศักยภาพความเป็นมนุษย์ผ่านการสถาปนาให้วิถีชีวิตของมวลชนทั่วไป อันเป็นวิถีชีวิตที่นิตเช่ท์มองว่าเรื่อยเปื่อย ไร้แก่นสาร ไปวันๆได้กลายมาเป็นแนวทางการใช้ชีวิตมาตรฐานที่มนุษย์ควรจะเป็น พร้อมๆกับทำให้แนวทางการใช้ชีวิตแบบอภิชนที่เน้นความสำคัญของเกียรติศักดิ์และหน้าที่ที่ได้รับมอบหมายตามตำแหน่งแห่งที่ทางสังคมที่ไม่เท่าเทียม กลายเป็นแนวทางอันล้าหลังทั้งๆที่แนวทางการใช้ชีวิตดังกล่าวต่างหากที่ตอบสนองและยืนยันคุณสมบัติของความเป็นมนุษย์อย่างแท้จริง แน่นอน นี่ไม่ได้หมายความว่า นิตเช่ท์ปรารถนาให้มนุษย์ทุกคนต้องใช้ชีวิตแบบชนชั้นสูงที่ยึดมั่นในเกียรติยศและศักดิ์ศรี เพราะนิตเช่ท์ไม่เชื่อว่ามนุษย์ทุกคนจะสามารถใช้ชีวิตแบบมีเกียรติได้ แต่ประเด็นของนิตเช่ท์คือการยืนยันถึงความสูงส่งของมนุษย์บางคน/บางกลุ่มที่โลกควรยกย่อง เทิดทูนในฐานะตัวแบบที่ควรเป็นผู้นำของมนุษยชาติอย่างแท้จริง ตัวแบบผู้ซึ่งจะยืนอยู่บนขั้นสูงสุดของลำดับชั้นทางสังคมที่ซึ่งคุณสมบัติส่วนตัวจะแตกต่างอย่างสุดขั้วจากบุคคลทั่วๆไป ไม่ใช่เพราะถือครองทรัพย์สินธุ์มหาศาล หรือมาจากชาติตระกูลที่ดี แต่เพราะมี will หรือเจตนารมณ์อันแข็งแกร่ง หนักแน่น ไม่แปรปรวนไปกับความเห็นของบุคคลต่างๆ ซึ่���สุดท้ายแล้วก็ได้ทำให้มนุษย์กลุ่มนี้สามารถก้าวข้าม “ความเป็นมนุษย์” ที่คนทั่วไปยึดมั่น กลายเป็นสิ่งที่นิตเช่ท์เรียกว่า “ยอดมนุษย์” (Ubermensch)
และด้วยเนื้อหาในปรัชญาคำสอนดังกล่าว ผู้เขียนจึงสรุปว่า โดยแก่นสารแล้ว อุดมการณ์ตามแบบผู้เลื่อมใสนิตเช่ท์ซึ่งอยู่เบื้องหลังการก่อตัวของขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาประชานิยมนั้น คืออุดมการณ์ที่ปฏิเสธความเสมอภาคเท่าเทียมตลอดจนเสรีภาพในการเลือกใช้ชีวิตของแต่ละปัจเจกบุคคล ควบคู่ไปกับการเชิดชูระเบียบการเมืองที่เน้นพันธะหน้าที่ตามลำดับชั้นทางสังคมที่ไม่เสมอภาคกัน ด้วยมองว่ามีแต่ระเบียบการเมืองชนิดนี้เท่านั้นที่จะปกป้องมนุษย์จากความล่มสลายทางจิตวิญญาณ กระนั้น ผู้เขียนก็ไม่ลืมที่จะชี้ให้เห็นว่าแม้นิตเช่ท์อาจเป็นต้นตอความคิดที่เชิดชูและยกย่องความสำคัญของระเบียบการเมืองที่เน้นลำดับชั้นทางสังคม แต่ตัวนิตเช่ท์ก็ไม่เคย(หรือเสียชีวิตก่อนที่จะ)นำเสนอแนวปฏิบัติเพื่อบ่มเพาะหรือให้กำเนิดสิ่งที่เขาเรียกว่ายอดมนุษย์ ในแง่นี้ ผู้เขียนจึงได้ชี้ให้เห็นถึงความสำคัญของมาร์ติน ไฮเด็กเกอร์นักปรัชญาผู้ได้ชื่อว่าเก่งกาจและยิ่งใหญ่ที่สุดเมื่อศตวรรษที่แล้วในฐานะบุคคลที่พัฒนาปรัชญาคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์ต่อมา เพราะแม้ปรัชญาของไฮเด็กเกอร์อาจมีเนื้อหาที่แตกต่างไปจากคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์ แต่ก็เป็นที่ทราบกันดีว่าไฮเด็กเกอร์นั้นชื่นชมนิตเช่ท์และได้รับแรงบันดาลใจจากปรัชญาของนิตเช่ท์อย่างมาก โดยเฉพาะการประเมินปัญหาใจกลางของมนุษย์ในยุคสมัยใหม่ว่าคือปัญหาอันเกิดจากวิกฤติของการสูญเสียจิตวิญญาณ แปลกแยกและมองไม่เห็นความสัมพันธ์ที่เชื่อมร้อยการดำรงอยู่ของตนเองเข้ากับ “โลก” ที่รายล้อม/รองรับการดำรงอยู่ดังกล่าว ซึ่งสำหรับไฮเด็กเกอร์แล้วทางแก้ต่อปัญหานี้ก็คือการอุทิศตนเองให้กับแผ่นดินที่ตนถือกำเนิดและใช้ชีวิต
ทั้งนี้ โดยอาศัยเนื้อหาจากตัวบททางปรัชญาของไฮเด็กเกอร์อย่าง Being and Time และบทความอย่าง “The Letter on Humanism” ผู้เขียนได้ตีความและถอดนัยยะทางการเมืองจากปรัชญาของไฮเด็กเกอร์ให้เห็นว่า สำหรับไฮเด็กเกอร์แล้ว ปรัชญาที่ให้ความสำคัญและเชื่อมั่นกับชีวิตของมนุษย์เป็นปรัชญาที่ไร้บ้าน หรือ Homelessness เพราะเป็นปรัชญาที่ให้ความสำคัญกับเพียงแค่การดำรงอยู่ของมนุษย์(being)โดยมิได้ให้ความสนใจกับการตระหนักรู้ตลอดจนเงื่อนไขที่อยู่เบื้องหลังการก่อตัวของความเข้าใจต่อสิ่งที่เรียกว่าการดำรงอยู่(Being) นแง่นี้ สังคมการเมืองสมัยใหม่ที่ให้ความสำคัญกับการดำรงอยู่ของชีวิตและเสรีภาพในการเลือกใช้ชีวิตของปัจเจกอย่างเท่าเทียม จึงเป็นผลมาจากปรัชญาสมัยใหม่ที่ไร้บ้าน และหลงลืมคำถามพื้นฐานอย่างเงื่อนไขทางภววิทยาที่กำหนดความเข้าใจและการตระหนักรู้ถึงการดำรงอยู่ของมนุษย์ ดังนั้น เพื่อแก้ปัญหาความไร้บ้านของปรัชญาสมัยใหม่ ไฮเด็กเกอร์จึงนำเสนอแนวคิดที่มุ่งรื้อฟื้นจิตวิญญาณของมนุษย์ ตลอดจนนำพาปรัชญาและมนุษย์ชาติให้สามารถ “กลับบ้าน” ได้อีกครั้ง โดยการกลับบ้านดังกล่าวก็จะไม่ใช่อะไรเลยนอกจาก การสะกิดให้มนุษย์ได้ตระหนักรู้ว่าชีวิตและการดำรงอยู่ของตนมิใช่การดำรงอยู่อย่างลอยๆ แต่คือการดำรงอยู่ภายใต้การโอบกอดของผืนแผ่นดินที่คอยกำหนดเส้นขอบฟ้าให้กับโลกทัศน์และความเข้าใจต่อสิ่งต่างๆของตน จนทำให้มนุษย์เห็นความสำคัญของสังคมการเมืองที่ตนถือกำเนิดในฐานะเงื่อนไขพื้นฐานที่คอยกำหนดชะตากรรม (Destiny) โดยที่จะมีการดำรงอยู่ของตัวมนุษย์ผู้นั้นเองเป็นองค์ประกอบหนึ่งและส่งผลให้ปัจเจกละทิ้งเสรีภาพส่วนตน พร้อมๆกับอุทิศตนให้สังคมการเมืองจนกลายเป็นการรากฐานทางปรัชญาที่รองรับอุดมการณ์ชาตินิยมในท้ายที่สุด
ในแง่นี้ ถ้ามรดกทางปรัชญาของนิตเช่ท์คือการนำเสนอแนวคิดเรื่อง ยอดมนุษย์ ในฐานะแนวทางที่มุ่งล้มล้างระเบียบการเมืองแบบเสรีประชาธิปไตย มรดกดังกล่าวก็ได้ถูกพัฒนาต่อยอดจนกลายเป็นปรัชญาชาตินิยมของไฮเด็กเกอร์ สำหรับไฮเด็กเกอร์ ชาติไม่ใช่เรื่องของจินตกรรม หรือประดิษฐ์กรรมของสังคมสมัยใหม่ แต่ชาติคือรูปปรากฏของ Volk หรือจิตวิญญาณอันเป็นหัวใจที่ผูกพันแต่ละปัจเจกผ่านการมีมรดกทางวัฒนธรรมร่วมกัน ปรัชญาของไฮเด็กเกอร์จึงเป็นปรัชญาที่มุ่งสร้างยอดมนุษย์ผ่านการทำให้มนุษย์ยอมอุทิศตน พลีชีพพร้อมสละตนเองเพื่อ “บ้าน” หรือสังคมการเมือง/ผืนแผ่นดินที่ตนใช้ชีวิตอยู่ จากตรงนี้ก็คงจะเห็นได้ชัดถึงความเชื่อมโยงระหว่างอุดมการณ์ความคิดของกลุ่มปัญญาชนแกนนำในขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาร่วมสมัยกับคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์ที่ได้รับการปรับแต่งโดยปรัชญาชาตินิยมของไฮเด็กเกอร์ โดยเฉพาะการก่อตัวของแนวคิดเรื่องชาติ ในฐานะรูปธรรมของการสร้างยอดมนุษย์ตามคำสอนที่นิตเช่ท์เคยกล่าวถึง ต่างกันก็แต่เพียงว่า ในขณะที่ชาติและ “บ้าน” ของไฮเด็กเกอร์นั้นจะไม่ใช่อะไรเลยนอกจากแผ่นดินของสังคมการเมืองที่เขาถือกำเนิดขึ้นมาอย่างสังคมการเมืองเยอรมัน ชาติและบ้านสำหรับปัญญาชนผู้นำขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาร่วมสมัยนี้กลับคือชาติพันธ์หรือศาสนาเฉพาะที่ตนยึดถือไม่ว่าจะเป็นแนวคิดที่เชื่อในความเหนือกว่าของคนขาวซึ่งเริ่มแพร่หลายกันอย่างกว้างขวางในอเมริกาและยุโรป หรือทัศนะของชาวรัสเซียที่มองว่าชนชาติสลาฟของตนคือชนชาติที่ยิ่งใหญ่ควรค่าแก่การทำสงครามช่วงชิงดินแดนและทรัพยากรเพื่อสถาปนาจักรวรรดิ์อันรุ่งโรจน์ของพวกตนอีกครั้ง
ในบทสรุปของหนังสือ ผู้เขียนได้หันมาตั้งคำถามกับแนวทางการศึกษาทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยกระแสหลักซึ่งตัวเขามองว่าตกอยู่ภายใต้อิทธิพลของจอห์น รอลล์และเยอร์เก้น ฮาเบอร์มาส สองนักทฤษฏีผู้ยิ่งใหญ่ผู้จัดวางให้การศึกษาปรัชญาและทฤษฎีการเมืองถูกกำกับด้วยความคิดแบบเสรีนิยมที่ให้ความสำคัญกับการคุ้มครองสิทธิส่วนบุคคลรวมไปถึงการสร้างกระบวนการแลกเปลี่ยนความเห็นของบุคคลต่างๆ จนมองข้ามคำถามเรื่อง “ชีวิตที่ดี” และ “สังคมการเมืองที่ดี” ราวกับว่าคำถามดังกล่าวเป็นคำถามที่ไม่มีความสำคัญหรือไม่สอดคล้องกับโลกสมัยใหม่อีกต่อไป (เพราะภายใต้วิธีคิดแบบเสรีนิยมนั้น ความดีและชีวิตที่ดีเป็นเรื่องของทัศนะส่วนบุคคลไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับการเมืองและกิจการสาธารณะ จึงไม่มีคุณค่ามากพอที่ปรัชญาและทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยจะหันไปให้ความสำคัญ) แต่ก็ด้วยความเพิกเฉยต่อคำถามดังกล่าวนี่เอง ผู้เขียนจึงมองว่าปรัชญาและทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยล้มเหลวในการทำความเข้าใจและกระทั่งคาดการณ์ถึงการขยายตัวของขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวประชานิยมฝ่ายขวาในปัจจุบัน ในแง่นี้ เพื่อที่จะเข้าใจต้นตอของปรากฏการณ์ดังกล่าว ตลอดจนเพื่อปรับปรุงให้เสรีนิยมและการศึกษาปรัชญาทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยมีความเข้มแข็ง หนักแน่น สามารถตอบคำถาม และหาทางรับมือกับวิกฤติการทางการเมืองที่กำลังเกิดขึ้นมาได้ การกลับมาใส่ใจกับคำถามเรื่องชีวิตที่ดีและสังคมการเมืองที่ดี จึงเป็นสิ่งที่ต้องทำ การกลับมาใส่ใจกับรูปธรรมอันชัดเจนที่สุด นั่นคือการหันมาอ่านตำราคำสอนของนิตเช่ท์และไฮเด็กเกอร—ผู้ได้ชื่อว่าปฏิเสธเสรีประชาธิปไตยและเป็นแรงบันดาลใจสำหรับการเคลื่อนไหวฝ่ายขวาประชานิยม—ดังที่ตัวผู้เขียนได้นำเสนอผ่านงานเขียนชิ้นนี้ การกลับมาใส่ใจที่จะช่วยขยับขยายพรมแดนของทั้งเสรีประชาธิปไตยและการศึกษาทฤษฎีการเมืองร่วมสมัยให้มีความรุ่มรวย เป็นจุดเริ่มต้นต่อการทำความเข้าใจทั้งความมืดบอดของตนเองและทางเลือกของฝ่ายที่เป็นปฏิปักษ์กับตน อันจะเป็นก้าวแรกที่จะช่วยให้ระบอบเสรีประชาธิปไตยสามารถเผชิญหน้ากับวิกฤติที่กำลังเกิดขึ้นได้ไม่มากก็น้อย
April 14, 2022
Ronald Beiner, professor emeritus of politics at the University of Toronto, has written a clear and telling warning against the resurgence of fascist thinking, based on Nietzsche and Heidegger. He demolishes much of Nietzsche's excesses but remains respectful of his deep insights, mainly his critique of the bourgeois liberal social order. As for Heidegger, while admitting that his questioning of being is of philosophical importance, he convincingly shows that Heidegger was an odious human being, an unrepentant Nazi.
In his conclusion, Beiner challenges liberals like himself and his presumed readers to address the issues that cause so many people to turn their backs on the complacencies of liberalism and seek redemption in extreme ideologies.
My critique of Beiner would be that modern liberalism, the philosophy of equality and tolerance, openness and pluralism, etc., is merely a cover for the real situation, which is the dominance of money. Today money is what calls the shots, and money allows people like Beiner (and me) to espouse liberal values and pretend that they rule the roost.
I would submit that it is the self-deception of liberals, who pretend that their values permeate Western democracies, that drives people to reject liberalism instinctively. How can we delude ourselves that a world order that countenances the accumulation of inordinate wealth in the hands of people like the Russian and American oligarchs is a liberal world order respecting human rights, equality under, the law, the free exchange of ideas, and tolerance?
In his conclusion, Beiner challenges liberals like himself and his presumed readers to address the issues that cause so many people to turn their backs on the complacencies of liberalism and seek redemption in extreme ideologies.
My critique of Beiner would be that modern liberalism, the philosophy of equality and tolerance, openness and pluralism, etc., is merely a cover for the real situation, which is the dominance of money. Today money is what calls the shots, and money allows people like Beiner (and me) to espouse liberal values and pretend that they rule the roost.
I would submit that it is the self-deception of liberals, who pretend that their values permeate Western democracies, that drives people to reject liberalism instinctively. How can we delude ourselves that a world order that countenances the accumulation of inordinate wealth in the hands of people like the Russian and American oligarchs is a liberal world order respecting human rights, equality under, the law, the free exchange of ideas, and tolerance?
June 18, 2020
In this short work, Ronald Beiner argues that Nietzsche and Heidegger's philosophies harbor dangerous arguments and insights that fuel right-wing reactionaries and fascists.
Beiner's arguments aren't new. The railings of Nietzsche, especially in his late works, have long been seen to anticipate fascism and Heidegger's explicit Nazi sympathies along with his failure to recant these sympathies land him firmly in the camp of anti-liberals.
Beiner devotes the bulk of this book to showing that Nietzsche's and Heidegger's works are irredeemably permeated with fascist and dangerous ideas.
Maybe it's because I'm not a huge fan of Nietzsche, but I found Beiner's chapter on Nietzsche more convincing than his chapter on Heidegger. One need only read Nietzsche, without the glosses of an apologist, to see that he's deeply opposed to liberal democracies, upholding the rights of the oppressed, and working towards a more equitable future. It takes a great deal of hermeneutical work to show that Nietzsche would actually approve of a multicultural democracy prizing egalitarianism. But I don't think that's a good reason to stop reading Nietzsche. As Beiner says in the final chapter, we should read Nietzsche (and others like him) in order to understand why some are drawn away from liberalism and towards reactionary political positions. But Nietzsche's works also contain insights that transcend debates about the legitimacy of liberalism and I think that he should still be taught, though not romanticized.
Beiner's chapter on Heidegger was less convincing. Before I criticize Beiner's reading of Heidegger, it needs to be said that Heidegger was not a nice person. Nor is he in any way guiltless of anti-Semitism or Nazism. But Beiner's grasp of Heidegger is a bit weak. He begins by wondering why Heidegger needed to write one-hundred books about Being - yet, the more than one-hundred books appearing the the Gesamtausgabe are not all 'books' written by Heidegger. Most of them are lecture notes, some of which come from Heidegger's students.
One of the prevailing problems with the dismissals of Heidegger's thought has to do with the difficulty of Heidegger's writing. It is far easier to dismiss him as a Nazi than to do the work and see whether he has anything interesting to say (and I believe he does). (One professor I know refused to attend a particular talk by a noted philosopher because the one giving the talk had published on Heidegger). Beiner spends a lot of effort trying to show that Being and Time is an inherently anti-liberal text. Beneath the guise of a neutral 'fundamental ontology,' Beiner argues, Heidegger is articulating a traditionalist and hierarchical ethic, one where those who genuinely confront death are 'authentic' while the hoi polloi who flee death are inauthentic, mindless, and not in tune with Being. Now, while it is true that Heidegger does seem to hide an ethic underneath a professed ontology, I don't see how this ethic of 'authenticity' vs. 'inauthenticity' is irredeemably fascist. It is, rather, and in line with Heidegger's other works, more elitist in character - the majority is consumed in its everyday pursuits and is fleeing from an awareness of the possibility of the end of all possibilities. But being elitist, however problematic that may be (and however common it was among early twentieth-century intellectuals), is not in itself fascist. Nor does Heidegger's elitism preclude us from learning from Being and Time. That Heidegger seems to privilege those who are conscious of their own death does not negate the fact that many of us live our lives without thinking about death, just doing what others do, and saying what others say. That some of the consequences of Heidegger's analyses are unpalatable does not refute the analyses themselves. After looking at Being and Time Beiner attempts to unearth other irreducibly fascist notions in Heidegger's other works, most notably his 'Letter on Humanism'. And while Beiner, at times, succeeds in pointing out fascist leanings here and there, Heidegger's writings offer us much more than defenses of fascism. His readings of the history of philosophy are extremely interesting, even if they are not always faithful to the original intent, and his critique of technology is worth considering. Many today bemoan, like Heidegger, the alienating qualities of capitalism and the mundane character of bourgeois life along with the accelerating speed of contemporary society without being fascists. Beiner tends to lump together ideas - i.e. anti-capitalism, anti-globalism, and traditionalism - that have often appeared together with fascism. But, I believe, these strands need to be separated, not only in Heidegger's work, but in the work of many other intellectuals. So, while Heidegger does have a lot to say about the failings of contemporary liberal society, these criticisms should not, in themselves, be taken to be endorsements of fascism. The two must be separated.
The best part of Beiner's book is, by far, the final chapter, in which he argues that liberalism (equality, multiculturalism, individual freedoms and rights, etc.) has too often been taken for granted as historically necessary, as the final and most attractive stage of civilization. For that reason, Beiner points out, Rawls and Habermas have spent too little effort justifying liberalism. In our current historical stage, we need to rethink the appeal of liberalism, a worldview that seems to posit human flourishing and pleasure as a final end. People are turning to alternative worldviews precisely because liberalism seems so spiritually lifeless. ISIS and the far right, today, are attractive because they hold up ideals to live and die for. Liberalism, by contrast, tells us to tolerate others, keep our fundamental commitments to ourselves, and participate in an endless 'dialogue' or 'conversation' with 'acceptable' ideas and thinkers. If liberalism is to regain traction, it needs to defend itself, show why it is attractive, and reacquire its spiritual force. With this, Beiner and I are on the same page.
Beiner's arguments aren't new. The railings of Nietzsche, especially in his late works, have long been seen to anticipate fascism and Heidegger's explicit Nazi sympathies along with his failure to recant these sympathies land him firmly in the camp of anti-liberals.
Beiner devotes the bulk of this book to showing that Nietzsche's and Heidegger's works are irredeemably permeated with fascist and dangerous ideas.
Maybe it's because I'm not a huge fan of Nietzsche, but I found Beiner's chapter on Nietzsche more convincing than his chapter on Heidegger. One need only read Nietzsche, without the glosses of an apologist, to see that he's deeply opposed to liberal democracies, upholding the rights of the oppressed, and working towards a more equitable future. It takes a great deal of hermeneutical work to show that Nietzsche would actually approve of a multicultural democracy prizing egalitarianism. But I don't think that's a good reason to stop reading Nietzsche. As Beiner says in the final chapter, we should read Nietzsche (and others like him) in order to understand why some are drawn away from liberalism and towards reactionary political positions. But Nietzsche's works also contain insights that transcend debates about the legitimacy of liberalism and I think that he should still be taught, though not romanticized.
Beiner's chapter on Heidegger was less convincing. Before I criticize Beiner's reading of Heidegger, it needs to be said that Heidegger was not a nice person. Nor is he in any way guiltless of anti-Semitism or Nazism. But Beiner's grasp of Heidegger is a bit weak. He begins by wondering why Heidegger needed to write one-hundred books about Being - yet, the more than one-hundred books appearing the the Gesamtausgabe are not all 'books' written by Heidegger. Most of them are lecture notes, some of which come from Heidegger's students.
One of the prevailing problems with the dismissals of Heidegger's thought has to do with the difficulty of Heidegger's writing. It is far easier to dismiss him as a Nazi than to do the work and see whether he has anything interesting to say (and I believe he does). (One professor I know refused to attend a particular talk by a noted philosopher because the one giving the talk had published on Heidegger). Beiner spends a lot of effort trying to show that Being and Time is an inherently anti-liberal text. Beneath the guise of a neutral 'fundamental ontology,' Beiner argues, Heidegger is articulating a traditionalist and hierarchical ethic, one where those who genuinely confront death are 'authentic' while the hoi polloi who flee death are inauthentic, mindless, and not in tune with Being. Now, while it is true that Heidegger does seem to hide an ethic underneath a professed ontology, I don't see how this ethic of 'authenticity' vs. 'inauthenticity' is irredeemably fascist. It is, rather, and in line with Heidegger's other works, more elitist in character - the majority is consumed in its everyday pursuits and is fleeing from an awareness of the possibility of the end of all possibilities. But being elitist, however problematic that may be (and however common it was among early twentieth-century intellectuals), is not in itself fascist. Nor does Heidegger's elitism preclude us from learning from Being and Time. That Heidegger seems to privilege those who are conscious of their own death does not negate the fact that many of us live our lives without thinking about death, just doing what others do, and saying what others say. That some of the consequences of Heidegger's analyses are unpalatable does not refute the analyses themselves. After looking at Being and Time Beiner attempts to unearth other irreducibly fascist notions in Heidegger's other works, most notably his 'Letter on Humanism'. And while Beiner, at times, succeeds in pointing out fascist leanings here and there, Heidegger's writings offer us much more than defenses of fascism. His readings of the history of philosophy are extremely interesting, even if they are not always faithful to the original intent, and his critique of technology is worth considering. Many today bemoan, like Heidegger, the alienating qualities of capitalism and the mundane character of bourgeois life along with the accelerating speed of contemporary society without being fascists. Beiner tends to lump together ideas - i.e. anti-capitalism, anti-globalism, and traditionalism - that have often appeared together with fascism. But, I believe, these strands need to be separated, not only in Heidegger's work, but in the work of many other intellectuals. So, while Heidegger does have a lot to say about the failings of contemporary liberal society, these criticisms should not, in themselves, be taken to be endorsements of fascism. The two must be separated.
The best part of Beiner's book is, by far, the final chapter, in which he argues that liberalism (equality, multiculturalism, individual freedoms and rights, etc.) has too often been taken for granted as historically necessary, as the final and most attractive stage of civilization. For that reason, Beiner points out, Rawls and Habermas have spent too little effort justifying liberalism. In our current historical stage, we need to rethink the appeal of liberalism, a worldview that seems to posit human flourishing and pleasure as a final end. People are turning to alternative worldviews precisely because liberalism seems so spiritually lifeless. ISIS and the far right, today, are attractive because they hold up ideals to live and die for. Liberalism, by contrast, tells us to tolerate others, keep our fundamental commitments to ourselves, and participate in an endless 'dialogue' or 'conversation' with 'acceptable' ideas and thinkers. If liberalism is to regain traction, it needs to defend itself, show why it is attractive, and reacquire its spiritual force. With this, Beiner and I are on the same page.
March 18, 2022
Going through the Good and Bad in this book.
Unfortunately I dont know enough about Nietzsche and Heidegger to judge many things in this book but I can smell bad rhetoric and I know a few things about honesty.
This book starts really badly, quoting and using Richard Spencer at his most right-wing moment... the problem is that Spencer is an actor that was at the time an agitator made to caricature the far-right, he has since been totally aligned with the Biden/Democrat administration and Washington's general foreign and internal politics, etc.
That's not some very serious to take a 'spook' as an example of 'dangerous people' inspired by Nietzsche and Heidegger.
Yet, this book is still informative about history and philosophy despite its lack of nuances.
Some examples of easiness of thinking in the book : I really don't believe it is intelligent to equate alt-right to fascism without even making a clear definition of the first. It is also too easy to simply call Dugin a fascist, since he clearly thinks that fascism is a complete failure. You can call him an Ultra-Nationalist and think that it's actual fascism (but still have to make an argument for it) but to simply equate Dugin to Mussolini's fascism is really not nuanced enough. You might think that I exaggerate but in a world were we often too easily use adjectives as loaded as 'fascist' it is very important to make things clear through argumentation.
The book is sometimes disingenuous, it often bases arguments on well selected but badly presented quotes and cites 'experts' who are totally aligned with the author sentiment.
At the same time the author make good points but, as I wrote, it sometimes lacks a bit of nuances.
You get the point. We have here a very smart book that is ideologically (and sometimes fallaciously) oriented but it is still worth a look.
That will really speak to people already convinced by the author's idea and points. Others won't be impressed but may learn a few things.
The rhetoric of the author is sometime astonishing, here an example :
“For instance, it is very hard to read Goodrick-Clarke’s book on neo-Nazi cults, Black Sun, without being struck again and again by how Nietzsche’s work supplies—and is understood by such ideologues as supplying—an abundant reservoir of defining mythological tropes for these neo-Nazis:”
By the way he expresses himself, we can see that the author is accusing Nietzsche rather than Neo-Nazis.
Some quotes from the (worst of the) book :
-“Richard Spencer and Aleksandr Dugin, scary as they are, are not unique cases. They are part of a new Fascist International that is becoming more and more assertive.”
A Fascist International ?!
-“But we know that Nietzsche’s votary, Julius Evola, was perfectly happy performing the role of a guru for terrorists : “Young postwar neo-fascists sat at Evola’s feet to hear this oracle of aristocratic values and war with modernity.” ”
I really wish the author had provided some quotes from Evola (and not Goodrick-Clarke) about this, but alas !
On Nietzsche :
-“imagine that such a thinker went on to become one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century and was championed to a very large extent by intellectuals of the left! ”
Again, I wish the author had provided us with the names of some of those intellectuals.
“The initial thought on which my presentation of Nietzsche is founded is that Nietzsche’s positive philosophy is all nonsense or lunacy: Übermenschen, will to power, eternal recurrence of the same, a return to ancien régime–type European aristocracy.”
Nothing less than "all nonsense" and "lunacy" ?
“Contrary to what is suggested by countless left-Nietzscheans, Nietzsche, of course, wasn’t interested in promoting greater openness, tolerance, or inclusion for the marginalized.”
Who are those "left-Nietzscheans" and where did they suggest those things ?
Later in the book, the author identifies Foucault as one of those "left-Nietzscheans", he also talks about other "French left-Nietzscheans" but no name again... And that's all, he doesn't explains how Foucault is a "left-Nietzscheans", we are left there.
-“Some commentators on Nietzsche have actually gone so far as to suggest that there is simply no meaningful political philosophy in Nietzsche, but that’s a patently absurd view.”
WHO ARE THOSE COMMENTATORS ?
-“It concerns the curious and somewhat bizarre fact that Nietzsche is widely celebrated as the very archetype of an “anti-foundationalist” and “post-metaphysical” style of philosophizing. All of that strikes me as nonsense.”
WHERE AND BY WHO ?
-“His rage is such that Donald Trump starts looking like a model of civility and thoughtfulness relative to the rants and rancor expressed throughout Nietzsche’s oeuvre.”
I guess it was at the time a plus to talk about Trump anywhere you could.
In the chapter about Heidegger :
-“Similarly, one can be a fervent anti-Semite, as Heidegger was and as Dugin is”
For this sentence, the author send us to the notes where he links an article from the DailyBeast (that has nothing on Dugin's anti-semitism) and then explains that he saw a Youtube video (which one, no one knows...) where Dugin uses the term “Pax Judaica” and, for the author, only an anti-semite would do so... He then says that “In all likelihood, Dugin is faithful to the theory of “spiritual racism” articulated by Julius Evola”, but we have to trust him on this as he doesn't provide us with anything else than a link to an article of The Atlantic about Evola... and with nothing on Dugin.
The whole book is like that...
Unfortunately I dont know enough about Nietzsche and Heidegger to judge many things in this book but I can smell bad rhetoric and I know a few things about honesty.
This book starts really badly, quoting and using Richard Spencer at his most right-wing moment... the problem is that Spencer is an actor that was at the time an agitator made to caricature the far-right, he has since been totally aligned with the Biden/Democrat administration and Washington's general foreign and internal politics, etc.
That's not some very serious to take a 'spook' as an example of 'dangerous people' inspired by Nietzsche and Heidegger.
Yet, this book is still informative about history and philosophy despite its lack of nuances.
Some examples of easiness of thinking in the book : I really don't believe it is intelligent to equate alt-right to fascism without even making a clear definition of the first. It is also too easy to simply call Dugin a fascist, since he clearly thinks that fascism is a complete failure. You can call him an Ultra-Nationalist and think that it's actual fascism (but still have to make an argument for it) but to simply equate Dugin to Mussolini's fascism is really not nuanced enough. You might think that I exaggerate but in a world were we often too easily use adjectives as loaded as 'fascist' it is very important to make things clear through argumentation.
The book is sometimes disingenuous, it often bases arguments on well selected but badly presented quotes and cites 'experts' who are totally aligned with the author sentiment.
At the same time the author make good points but, as I wrote, it sometimes lacks a bit of nuances.
You get the point. We have here a very smart book that is ideologically (and sometimes fallaciously) oriented but it is still worth a look.
That will really speak to people already convinced by the author's idea and points. Others won't be impressed but may learn a few things.
The rhetoric of the author is sometime astonishing, here an example :
“For instance, it is very hard to read Goodrick-Clarke’s book on neo-Nazi cults, Black Sun, without being struck again and again by how Nietzsche’s work supplies—and is understood by such ideologues as supplying—an abundant reservoir of defining mythological tropes for these neo-Nazis:”
By the way he expresses himself, we can see that the author is accusing Nietzsche rather than Neo-Nazis.
Some quotes from the (worst of the) book :
-“Richard Spencer and Aleksandr Dugin, scary as they are, are not unique cases. They are part of a new Fascist International that is becoming more and more assertive.”
A Fascist International ?!
-“But we know that Nietzsche’s votary, Julius Evola, was perfectly happy performing the role of a guru for terrorists : “Young postwar neo-fascists sat at Evola’s feet to hear this oracle of aristocratic values and war with modernity.” ”
I really wish the author had provided some quotes from Evola (and not Goodrick-Clarke) about this, but alas !
On Nietzsche :
-“imagine that such a thinker went on to become one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century and was championed to a very large extent by intellectuals of the left! ”
Again, I wish the author had provided us with the names of some of those intellectuals.
“The initial thought on which my presentation of Nietzsche is founded is that Nietzsche’s positive philosophy is all nonsense or lunacy: Übermenschen, will to power, eternal recurrence of the same, a return to ancien régime–type European aristocracy.”
Nothing less than "all nonsense" and "lunacy" ?
“Contrary to what is suggested by countless left-Nietzscheans, Nietzsche, of course, wasn’t interested in promoting greater openness, tolerance, or inclusion for the marginalized.”
Who are those "left-Nietzscheans" and where did they suggest those things ?
Later in the book, the author identifies Foucault as one of those "left-Nietzscheans", he also talks about other "French left-Nietzscheans" but no name again... And that's all, he doesn't explains how Foucault is a "left-Nietzscheans", we are left there.
-“Some commentators on Nietzsche have actually gone so far as to suggest that there is simply no meaningful political philosophy in Nietzsche, but that’s a patently absurd view.”
WHO ARE THOSE COMMENTATORS ?
-“It concerns the curious and somewhat bizarre fact that Nietzsche is widely celebrated as the very archetype of an “anti-foundationalist” and “post-metaphysical” style of philosophizing. All of that strikes me as nonsense.”
WHERE AND BY WHO ?
-“His rage is such that Donald Trump starts looking like a model of civility and thoughtfulness relative to the rants and rancor expressed throughout Nietzsche’s oeuvre.”
I guess it was at the time a plus to talk about Trump anywhere you could.
In the chapter about Heidegger :
-“Similarly, one can be a fervent anti-Semite, as Heidegger was and as Dugin is”
For this sentence, the author send us to the notes where he links an article from the DailyBeast (that has nothing on Dugin's anti-semitism) and then explains that he saw a Youtube video (which one, no one knows...) where Dugin uses the term “Pax Judaica” and, for the author, only an anti-semite would do so... He then says that “In all likelihood, Dugin is faithful to the theory of “spiritual racism” articulated by Julius Evola”, but we have to trust him on this as he doesn't provide us with anything else than a link to an article of The Atlantic about Evola... and with nothing on Dugin.
The whole book is like that...
February 9, 2025
Far-right movements of all parts of the world are edging closer and closer to power and thus to being able to make their horrid ideas into reality. In the land of the free, this has already occured.
Nietzsche and Heidegger are two of the most prominent philosophers referenced on the far-right which is why it's imperative for us to (re-)read the two and understand the origins and the end point of fascism.
There was, and still is an urge to appropriate these writers for left-wing projects, but Ronald Beiner argues convincingly that this is futile. Nietzsche was a proto-fascist, and as is well-known, Heidegger was an enthusiastic Nazi.
Beiners goal is not to banish the two from intellectual history. That would be ridiculous, especially given that generations of people have found profound value in their writings. What he intends to do is to break apart the rose-tinted glasses we apply when reading "intellectually radioactive materials": "We need to open our eyes, at once intellectually, morally, and politically, to just how dangerous they are".
The gist of Beiners argument is the following:
Both Nietzsche and Heidegger are thinkers within the anti-egalitarian tradition which criticizes the egalitarian modernity that followed the French Revolution. For the anti-egalitarians, "liberal modernity is so humanly degrading that one ought to (if one could) undo the French Revolution and its egalitarian ideal and perhaps cancel out the whole moral legacy of Christianity. For all of them, hierarchy and rootedness are more morally compelling than equality and individual liberty; democracy diminishes our humanity rather than elevates it". What the solution is is unclear, but they all agree requires revolution of a spiritual and cultural kind.
Nietzsche goes about his project by attacking what he sees as the culprit of our malaise: our cultural preoccupation with reason and morality.
While often thought of as an individualist, his analysis operates on a cultural level. He diagnoses a spiritlessness, a horizonlessness to modernity. We are all "last men" who are immersed in a shallow life-denying culture. "Nietzsche argues that life, in order for vibrant agency to be meaningful or simply in order for life to be life, requires firm and definite bounded horizons, of which late modernity, on account of its privileging of knowledge over action, is incapable."
He believed that most people cannot be saved from this abyss. All his concepts from eternal recurrence to the notorious "Übermensch" are part of his project to cultivate "a new caste to rule over Europe. (§ 251, Beyond Good and Evil)” This new caste, and we have no reason to believe that he used this word metaphorically, shall go "beyond good and evil" and exercise "the will necessary to recreate their own selves... (and) legislate new norms that would put an end to the insipid and irresolute cultural vacuum into which the post-Christian egalitarian culture had collapsed," so Beiner says. While sounding somewhat emancipatory out of context, this is anything but. As § 251 makes clear, he wants "creativity and open horizons for the heroic philosopher and wanted brutally closed and confined horizons for everyone else."
Heidegger goes a step further and goes on a philosophical rampage against the entirety of Western philosophy starting with Plato. His grand claim is that Western philosophy is shallow and practically useless. It operates on an ontic level (looking at things), rather than ontological (looking at the being of a thing).
Like Nietzsche, Heidegger's work is aimed at critiquing our society and modernity at large. We, the moderns are, so he claims, further away from Being (Dasein) than any society ever before. We are basically in a state of sleepwalking, repressing any thought of our finality, living shallow, inauthentic lives. This inauthenticity and shallowness, going back to flawed "metaphysics" of Plato and Aristotle, has had catastrophic consequences on history, culture and society. What he hopes for is a
a cultural revolution of epic proportions, a return to a life attuned to true authentic beings like the pre-Socratics.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is totally biased view on the philosophies of Nietzsche and Heidegger, and this bias must be kept in mind when reading this. I suspect that readers with more favourable views of the two thinkers might get less enjoyment from this work than me.
This book was the first time I sat through anything related to Heidegger, so I can't vouch for the validity of Beiners interpretation.
I am however an avid Nietzsche reader and I largely agree with Beiners arguments here. Daniel Tutts "How to Read Like a Parasite" is a great supplement to this book for anyone interested in a critique of Nietzsche from a socialist perspective.
Nietzsche and Heidegger are two of the most prominent philosophers referenced on the far-right which is why it's imperative for us to (re-)read the two and understand the origins and the end point of fascism.
There was, and still is an urge to appropriate these writers for left-wing projects, but Ronald Beiner argues convincingly that this is futile. Nietzsche was a proto-fascist, and as is well-known, Heidegger was an enthusiastic Nazi.
Beiners goal is not to banish the two from intellectual history. That would be ridiculous, especially given that generations of people have found profound value in their writings. What he intends to do is to break apart the rose-tinted glasses we apply when reading "intellectually radioactive materials": "We need to open our eyes, at once intellectually, morally, and politically, to just how dangerous they are".
The gist of Beiners argument is the following:
Both Nietzsche and Heidegger are thinkers within the anti-egalitarian tradition which criticizes the egalitarian modernity that followed the French Revolution. For the anti-egalitarians, "liberal modernity is so humanly degrading that one ought to (if one could) undo the French Revolution and its egalitarian ideal and perhaps cancel out the whole moral legacy of Christianity. For all of them, hierarchy and rootedness are more morally compelling than equality and individual liberty; democracy diminishes our humanity rather than elevates it". What the solution is is unclear, but they all agree requires revolution of a spiritual and cultural kind.
Nietzsche goes about his project by attacking what he sees as the culprit of our malaise: our cultural preoccupation with reason and morality.
While often thought of as an individualist, his analysis operates on a cultural level. He diagnoses a spiritlessness, a horizonlessness to modernity. We are all "last men" who are immersed in a shallow life-denying culture. "Nietzsche argues that life, in order for vibrant agency to be meaningful or simply in order for life to be life, requires firm and definite bounded horizons, of which late modernity, on account of its privileging of knowledge over action, is incapable."
He believed that most people cannot be saved from this abyss. All his concepts from eternal recurrence to the notorious "Übermensch" are part of his project to cultivate "a new caste to rule over Europe. (§ 251, Beyond Good and Evil)” This new caste, and we have no reason to believe that he used this word metaphorically, shall go "beyond good and evil" and exercise "the will necessary to recreate their own selves... (and) legislate new norms that would put an end to the insipid and irresolute cultural vacuum into which the post-Christian egalitarian culture had collapsed," so Beiner says. While sounding somewhat emancipatory out of context, this is anything but. As § 251 makes clear, he wants "creativity and open horizons for the heroic philosopher and wanted brutally closed and confined horizons for everyone else."
Heidegger goes a step further and goes on a philosophical rampage against the entirety of Western philosophy starting with Plato. His grand claim is that Western philosophy is shallow and practically useless. It operates on an ontic level (looking at things), rather than ontological (looking at the being of a thing).
Like Nietzsche, Heidegger's work is aimed at critiquing our society and modernity at large. We, the moderns are, so he claims, further away from Being (Dasein) than any society ever before. We are basically in a state of sleepwalking, repressing any thought of our finality, living shallow, inauthentic lives. This inauthenticity and shallowness, going back to flawed "metaphysics" of Plato and Aristotle, has had catastrophic consequences on history, culture and society. What he hopes for is a
a cultural revolution of epic proportions, a return to a life attuned to true authentic beings like the pre-Socratics.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is totally biased view on the philosophies of Nietzsche and Heidegger, and this bias must be kept in mind when reading this. I suspect that readers with more favourable views of the two thinkers might get less enjoyment from this work than me.
This book was the first time I sat through anything related to Heidegger, so I can't vouch for the validity of Beiners interpretation.
I am however an avid Nietzsche reader and I largely agree with Beiners arguments here. Daniel Tutts "How to Read Like a Parasite" is a great supplement to this book for anyone interested in a critique of Nietzsche from a socialist perspective.
December 29, 2024
Reality is a Philosophical Problem
The thesis of the book is that Nietzsche and Heidegger have been mistaken for philosophers of personal liberation. The secular progressive left was originally attracted to Nietzsche and Heidegger because they were seen as essential to a constructive and valid movement toward personal meaning and the unfolding of human freedom. They were also the emancipatory voices of liberation rebelling against the conformism and banality of commercial liberalism. This interpretation is only partially correct, it was cultural meaning, not individual meaning, that Nietzsche and Heidegger wanted to restore. Nietzsche and Heidegger have been mistakenly read as an integral part of the transfigurative movement toward new vistas of freedom.
Their true focus was the long-term liberation of the civilization or the culture from the day-to-day banality of commercial liberalism that they took to be the emptiness of modernity. Both Nietzsche and Heidegger hated modernity. For Nietzsche, the imperative was to restore meaning. For Heidegger the imperative was recover Being or the conditions of authentic human existence and the essence of awareness in some abstract instantiation. The recovery and liberation on offer from Nietzsche and Heidegger is not at the individual level, it is at the cultural level with a new totalizing metaphysical civil religion or meaning narrative. They thought that it was only from within a vital meaning narrative that we could end the condition of existential sleepwalking through life so that meaning could be restored and Being could be recovered. With the worldview of Christianity utterly discredited, a horizon of meaning was displaced and needed to be replaced. Modernity offered no horizons of meaning in place of Christianity in Nietzschean terms or it made us homeless in Heideggerian terms. In Nietzschean terms, this is expressed as the death of God with modernity as the killer. In Heideggerian terms, we have forgotten about Being and what means to exist.
Human culture simply cannot exist without a life-affirming meaning narrative and modernity is seen as uninspiring. The Nietzschean solution is for the ‘Superman’ who can will into existence a new horizon of meaning. The Heideggerian solution is a new attunement to authentic experience and the genuine rootedness of a shared belonging in civilizational foundations. These seductive chronicles take the form of a vague hierarchal aristocratic social order providing a sense of purpose and unity in the pursuit of noble civilizational goals in which meaning can be found for Nietzsche and Being can be recovered for Heidegger; modernity and nobility become incompatible. The vagaries of the life-affirming meaning narrative are easily filled with fascist (neo-Nazi) mythology and ideology including race-based rootedness and hyper-nationalism, the lack of which is seen as a failing of the shallow modern liberal commercial democratic state; democracy is equated to degeneration. The problem is that both Nietzsche and Heidegger offer us hopeful ideas worth dying for and killing for, this is far worse than any emptiness or banality found in modernity. Putting this mystical, romanticized jingoistic nonsense behind us is the triumph of liberal democracy. Nietzsche is famously credited with being against German nationalism but this was not because he was a liberal, it was because such nationalism arose against the Nietzschean superman, Napoleon.
As the progressive left onboarded such thought they merely ignored the inconvenient proto-fascist aspects. The current alt right, and the Nazis before them, do not and did not have to engage in exegetical acrobatics or intellectual sophistry to draw fascist conclusions from Nietzsche or Heidegger. Fascism is not the result of an impressive misreading of Nietzsche or Heidegger, it is logical outcome of the overzealous search for a meaning narrative and the invitation to explore the unfathomable and mysterious depths of Being to which we are pushed by these thinkers. Impressive exegetical acrobatics are needed to claim that Nietzsche and Heidegger did not mean what they said. The point is that there was enough in Nietzsche and Heidegger to be attractive to Hitler just as there was enough in Marx to be attractive to Lenin and Stalin. The fear the author highlights is that Nietzsche and Heidegger are providing the same attraction to a new generation of populist rightwing activists.
With the collapse of a viable progressive secular humanitarian political left, the danger is that the authoritarianism and nationalism of the fascist variety, or the fascism and theocracy of the nationalist variety, will be the only alternatives to the so-called banality of commercial liberalism and the meaning void and loss of Being produced by hollow modernity. Both Nietzsche and Heidegger saw the emptiness of modernity as the true barbarism that needed to be overcome. The risk is in that a new and aggressive form intellectual fascism will come into place to provide the intellectual grounding for a revival of alt right authoritarian fascism.
It only takes a small degree of slippage to move from a tolerable and tolerant modern liberal paradigm into an intolerable extreme ideology offering a meaning narrative and a mysterious search for the essence of existence in place of addressing real material conditions. Liberalism is improperly equated with mediocrity and the leveling of meaning and Being. Liberation from a seemingly banal liberalism is the path to a new and total totalitarianism. Tolerant social democratic liberalism is not missed until it is gone and cannot be recovered. If the epochs of material well-being are the blank pages of history as Hegel said, then I will be glad to live with and in a blank page. Nietzsche and Heidegger were right on one important point, there is nothing permanent about the current liberal democratic paradigm or modernity itself, this assumed permanence is the Fukuyama Fallacy. This fallacy is the trap that can ensnare the modern liberal democratic assumption. In fairness to Francis Fukuyama, his mistake can be charitably cast as over optimistically assuming that the modern values of tolerance, progress and participation are the default position of humanity. He did not account for the bigoted, narrowminded bullies of belief - liked most people that I know. This describes that state of mind in fundamentalist religious believers, both Christian and Islamic - additional dangerous ideological forces that combine well with fascism. These are the people who would have us stumble into a repeat of the catastrophe known as the twentieth-century. The battle over grand narrative is not over and those who prize the achievements of a tolerant progressive moral order must remain vigilant - reality is a philosophical challenge. Reality can always surprise us with a new form of barbarism.
The dichotomous choice forced upon us: Banality versus Totality
A major problem we have with modernity is that democracy gets blamed for the extremes of neoliberalism and is thereby discredited. Neoliberalism is a particularly aggressive form of capitalism. This destroys democracy but allows neoliberal capitalism to continue with both its deficiencies and excesses intact. This opens the path to false pseudopopulist alternatives for meaning that morph into authoritarianism and eventually into mystical fascism. A post-liberal, post-egalitarian, post-commercial politics is what Nietzsche and Heidegger offer. But, to celebrate the superhuman, one needs to create the subhuman.
Is our real ‘choice’ between banality and totality? Self-oppression in the pursuit of happiness is the key driver in our society while all the time thinking we are free. Is our real ‘choice’ that of being an alienated worker-consumer or the victim of direct servitude and domination? If yes, I guess it is preferable to reduce human relations to the dollars and cents of a liberal commercial paradigm rather than to the whips and chains of a fascist meaning rhyme, but this is just less bad, not good. The only equality we currently share is the equality of alienated market participants, but I guess alienation and banality is preferable to the totality and subjection. But to achieve this privileged alienation we have to acquiesce in the subjection of others. Both are profoundly dehumanizing.
In the final analysis, the Nietzschean and Heideggerian analysis of the apparent cultural and ‘spiritual’ short comings in liberal progressive commercial modernity are valid and should be taken seriously. The danger is in turning to Nietzsche and Heidegger for an alternative political philosophy. In this sense, Nietzsche and Heidegger can better be thought of as false prophets or charismatic preachers rather than rational thinkers or philosophers. This is why fascism looks and functions so much like a mystical religion.
Nietzsche and Heidegger and for that matter Foucault and Derrida (not in the book) and issues of pathos and ethos, infinite responsibility, discoveries of impossibilities, unreachability and unrepresentability are fine for living room speculation but not for taking up public responsibility. The problem with the left is that it over theorizes issues, becomes focused on abstractions and cedes the practical ground of the established order to the right.
The thesis of the book is that Nietzsche and Heidegger have been mistaken for philosophers of personal liberation. The secular progressive left was originally attracted to Nietzsche and Heidegger because they were seen as essential to a constructive and valid movement toward personal meaning and the unfolding of human freedom. They were also the emancipatory voices of liberation rebelling against the conformism and banality of commercial liberalism. This interpretation is only partially correct, it was cultural meaning, not individual meaning, that Nietzsche and Heidegger wanted to restore. Nietzsche and Heidegger have been mistakenly read as an integral part of the transfigurative movement toward new vistas of freedom.
Their true focus was the long-term liberation of the civilization or the culture from the day-to-day banality of commercial liberalism that they took to be the emptiness of modernity. Both Nietzsche and Heidegger hated modernity. For Nietzsche, the imperative was to restore meaning. For Heidegger the imperative was recover Being or the conditions of authentic human existence and the essence of awareness in some abstract instantiation. The recovery and liberation on offer from Nietzsche and Heidegger is not at the individual level, it is at the cultural level with a new totalizing metaphysical civil religion or meaning narrative. They thought that it was only from within a vital meaning narrative that we could end the condition of existential sleepwalking through life so that meaning could be restored and Being could be recovered. With the worldview of Christianity utterly discredited, a horizon of meaning was displaced and needed to be replaced. Modernity offered no horizons of meaning in place of Christianity in Nietzschean terms or it made us homeless in Heideggerian terms. In Nietzschean terms, this is expressed as the death of God with modernity as the killer. In Heideggerian terms, we have forgotten about Being and what means to exist.
Human culture simply cannot exist without a life-affirming meaning narrative and modernity is seen as uninspiring. The Nietzschean solution is for the ‘Superman’ who can will into existence a new horizon of meaning. The Heideggerian solution is a new attunement to authentic experience and the genuine rootedness of a shared belonging in civilizational foundations. These seductive chronicles take the form of a vague hierarchal aristocratic social order providing a sense of purpose and unity in the pursuit of noble civilizational goals in which meaning can be found for Nietzsche and Being can be recovered for Heidegger; modernity and nobility become incompatible. The vagaries of the life-affirming meaning narrative are easily filled with fascist (neo-Nazi) mythology and ideology including race-based rootedness and hyper-nationalism, the lack of which is seen as a failing of the shallow modern liberal commercial democratic state; democracy is equated to degeneration. The problem is that both Nietzsche and Heidegger offer us hopeful ideas worth dying for and killing for, this is far worse than any emptiness or banality found in modernity. Putting this mystical, romanticized jingoistic nonsense behind us is the triumph of liberal democracy. Nietzsche is famously credited with being against German nationalism but this was not because he was a liberal, it was because such nationalism arose against the Nietzschean superman, Napoleon.
As the progressive left onboarded such thought they merely ignored the inconvenient proto-fascist aspects. The current alt right, and the Nazis before them, do not and did not have to engage in exegetical acrobatics or intellectual sophistry to draw fascist conclusions from Nietzsche or Heidegger. Fascism is not the result of an impressive misreading of Nietzsche or Heidegger, it is logical outcome of the overzealous search for a meaning narrative and the invitation to explore the unfathomable and mysterious depths of Being to which we are pushed by these thinkers. Impressive exegetical acrobatics are needed to claim that Nietzsche and Heidegger did not mean what they said. The point is that there was enough in Nietzsche and Heidegger to be attractive to Hitler just as there was enough in Marx to be attractive to Lenin and Stalin. The fear the author highlights is that Nietzsche and Heidegger are providing the same attraction to a new generation of populist rightwing activists.
With the collapse of a viable progressive secular humanitarian political left, the danger is that the authoritarianism and nationalism of the fascist variety, or the fascism and theocracy of the nationalist variety, will be the only alternatives to the so-called banality of commercial liberalism and the meaning void and loss of Being produced by hollow modernity. Both Nietzsche and Heidegger saw the emptiness of modernity as the true barbarism that needed to be overcome. The risk is in that a new and aggressive form intellectual fascism will come into place to provide the intellectual grounding for a revival of alt right authoritarian fascism.
It only takes a small degree of slippage to move from a tolerable and tolerant modern liberal paradigm into an intolerable extreme ideology offering a meaning narrative and a mysterious search for the essence of existence in place of addressing real material conditions. Liberalism is improperly equated with mediocrity and the leveling of meaning and Being. Liberation from a seemingly banal liberalism is the path to a new and total totalitarianism. Tolerant social democratic liberalism is not missed until it is gone and cannot be recovered. If the epochs of material well-being are the blank pages of history as Hegel said, then I will be glad to live with and in a blank page. Nietzsche and Heidegger were right on one important point, there is nothing permanent about the current liberal democratic paradigm or modernity itself, this assumed permanence is the Fukuyama Fallacy. This fallacy is the trap that can ensnare the modern liberal democratic assumption. In fairness to Francis Fukuyama, his mistake can be charitably cast as over optimistically assuming that the modern values of tolerance, progress and participation are the default position of humanity. He did not account for the bigoted, narrowminded bullies of belief - liked most people that I know. This describes that state of mind in fundamentalist religious believers, both Christian and Islamic - additional dangerous ideological forces that combine well with fascism. These are the people who would have us stumble into a repeat of the catastrophe known as the twentieth-century. The battle over grand narrative is not over and those who prize the achievements of a tolerant progressive moral order must remain vigilant - reality is a philosophical challenge. Reality can always surprise us with a new form of barbarism.
The dichotomous choice forced upon us: Banality versus Totality
A major problem we have with modernity is that democracy gets blamed for the extremes of neoliberalism and is thereby discredited. Neoliberalism is a particularly aggressive form of capitalism. This destroys democracy but allows neoliberal capitalism to continue with both its deficiencies and excesses intact. This opens the path to false pseudopopulist alternatives for meaning that morph into authoritarianism and eventually into mystical fascism. A post-liberal, post-egalitarian, post-commercial politics is what Nietzsche and Heidegger offer. But, to celebrate the superhuman, one needs to create the subhuman.
Is our real ‘choice’ between banality and totality? Self-oppression in the pursuit of happiness is the key driver in our society while all the time thinking we are free. Is our real ‘choice’ that of being an alienated worker-consumer or the victim of direct servitude and domination? If yes, I guess it is preferable to reduce human relations to the dollars and cents of a liberal commercial paradigm rather than to the whips and chains of a fascist meaning rhyme, but this is just less bad, not good. The only equality we currently share is the equality of alienated market participants, but I guess alienation and banality is preferable to the totality and subjection. But to achieve this privileged alienation we have to acquiesce in the subjection of others. Both are profoundly dehumanizing.
In the final analysis, the Nietzschean and Heideggerian analysis of the apparent cultural and ‘spiritual’ short comings in liberal progressive commercial modernity are valid and should be taken seriously. The danger is in turning to Nietzsche and Heidegger for an alternative political philosophy. In this sense, Nietzsche and Heidegger can better be thought of as false prophets or charismatic preachers rather than rational thinkers or philosophers. This is why fascism looks and functions so much like a mystical religion.
Nietzsche and Heidegger and for that matter Foucault and Derrida (not in the book) and issues of pathos and ethos, infinite responsibility, discoveries of impossibilities, unreachability and unrepresentability are fine for living room speculation but not for taking up public responsibility. The problem with the left is that it over theorizes issues, becomes focused on abstractions and cedes the practical ground of the established order to the right.
May 21, 2021
“The strong survive,
The weak perish.
Isn’t that the law of nature?”
Political solutions? There are no political solutions (contradictory terms), be it right, left, or in between. Take a look at ourselves and we know that only failure can be anticipated through mediocrity or worse. Take a look around and we see sensory confirmation of this phenomenon. The People are always in need of leaders and archetypes. It’s historical. They also have leaders now, but they need better leaders, more justice, and it might even arrive or project itself in the form of “someone” like The Furies (in alliance with the Fates?), as ugly and just as they may come or it might be someone else. One thing is certain, Nietzsche NEVER proto-projected the likes of Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, Truman, Stalin, Reagan, Pinochet, Thatcher, Bolsonaro, Trump, Johnson, Farage, etc. by invoking (semi-)divine intervention and he was certainly not the fraud his sister ‘edited’ him to be.
“So let it be with Caesar.
(…) The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: (…)
And Brutus is an honourable man.”
Nietzsche was a philosopher before anything else, his intellectual pessimism was about the cultural and natural history of humans, and even though he had to go far back in time to look for a cure, all along he knew that it was impossible to save humanity from itself (fate, I guess). It was never about gods a priori: “God is dead,” and that should be the end of it. Mr. Beiner should at least try to leave us ‘our Nietzsche’ (the immoralist) and target the abusers instead of us. Maybe one of his next books could be about Socrates and proto-anti-democracy or how stupidity always wins, but not really. And, Mr. Beiner, it is so obvious that we like him, Nietzsche the liberator, more than these self-proclaimed liberal saviors of the world (in the US they can be categorized together with the right-wing libertarians, though not all of them are that cruel), and the French Revolution-farce as their basic principle. True, it was a breaking point and as grotesque beyond its limited promise content as the Ancien Regime it replaced, not because leaders on both sides were wearing perukes but because of the introduced ‘egalitarian’ principle that caused a surplus capital of inequality and injustice (industrialism, imperialism, the Machiavellian State, corporate capitalism, state capitalism, oligarchy, colonialism, etc.). Unfortunately, Georg Grosz was only there for Hitler, or we let him do the opposite of prototyping in this case with the finished product).
The weak perish.
Isn’t that the law of nature?”
Political solutions? There are no political solutions (contradictory terms), be it right, left, or in between. Take a look at ourselves and we know that only failure can be anticipated through mediocrity or worse. Take a look around and we see sensory confirmation of this phenomenon. The People are always in need of leaders and archetypes. It’s historical. They also have leaders now, but they need better leaders, more justice, and it might even arrive or project itself in the form of “someone” like The Furies (in alliance with the Fates?), as ugly and just as they may come or it might be someone else. One thing is certain, Nietzsche NEVER proto-projected the likes of Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, Truman, Stalin, Reagan, Pinochet, Thatcher, Bolsonaro, Trump, Johnson, Farage, etc. by invoking (semi-)divine intervention and he was certainly not the fraud his sister ‘edited’ him to be.
“So let it be with Caesar.
(…) The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: (…)
And Brutus is an honourable man.”
Nietzsche was a philosopher before anything else, his intellectual pessimism was about the cultural and natural history of humans, and even though he had to go far back in time to look for a cure, all along he knew that it was impossible to save humanity from itself (fate, I guess). It was never about gods a priori: “God is dead,” and that should be the end of it. Mr. Beiner should at least try to leave us ‘our Nietzsche’ (the immoralist) and target the abusers instead of us. Maybe one of his next books could be about Socrates and proto-anti-democracy or how stupidity always wins, but not really. And, Mr. Beiner, it is so obvious that we like him, Nietzsche the liberator, more than these self-proclaimed liberal saviors of the world (in the US they can be categorized together with the right-wing libertarians, though not all of them are that cruel), and the French Revolution-farce as their basic principle. True, it was a breaking point and as grotesque beyond its limited promise content as the Ancien Regime it replaced, not because leaders on both sides were wearing perukes but because of the introduced ‘egalitarian’ principle that caused a surplus capital of inequality and injustice (industrialism, imperialism, the Machiavellian State, corporate capitalism, state capitalism, oligarchy, colonialism, etc.). Unfortunately, Georg Grosz was only there for Hitler, or we let him do the opposite of prototyping in this case with the finished product).
September 23, 2021
The thesis of this book is that two philosophers liked by the left - Nietzsche and Heidegger - actually espouse philosophies that are the polar opposite of supporting liberalism and modern social mores more generally. Because of this, the two philosophers should be approached with caution and understood on the context of the fact that both hated modern liberal states based on equality and with a focus on supporting the average citizen, and that they provide far more philosophical support to far right thinking than thinking of any sort on the left. In service of this thesis, the author discusses what several high profile far right figures - such as Richard Spencer, a well known neo Nazi and white supremacist who came to mainstream prominence during the 2016 presidential election - have to say about these philosophers, and spends most of the text discussing the actual texts written by the philosophers in question.
This book was...difficult. I am not familiar with any of the original texts by Nietzsche or Heidegger that were extensively quoted and analyzed, and there were fair portions of the analysis that flew right over my head because I am also unfamiliar with the modes of thinking used in the field of philosophy. That being said, the basic point the author was trying to make is apparent to anyone who can put up with being bit confused and not getting every point, but I'll be honest: this would have been significantly better reading experience if I understood from the outset that, while the ultimate point of the book is a political one, the entire argument made in service of that point is predicated on understanding the philosophy at issue and this makes the book one about philosophy and not about politics. (If I had understood that, I probably wouldn't have picked it up at all, actually. If you can't tell from the preceding sentences, the nitty gritty of philosophy isn't my thing.) For someone who's interested in this kind of thing, I imagine the book would be very interesting. To anyone else, not so much.
This book was...difficult. I am not familiar with any of the original texts by Nietzsche or Heidegger that were extensively quoted and analyzed, and there were fair portions of the analysis that flew right over my head because I am also unfamiliar with the modes of thinking used in the field of philosophy. That being said, the basic point the author was trying to make is apparent to anyone who can put up with being bit confused and not getting every point, but I'll be honest: this would have been significantly better reading experience if I understood from the outset that, while the ultimate point of the book is a political one, the entire argument made in service of that point is predicated on understanding the philosophy at issue and this makes the book one about philosophy and not about politics. (If I had understood that, I probably wouldn't have picked it up at all, actually. If you can't tell from the preceding sentences, the nitty gritty of philosophy isn't my thing.) For someone who's interested in this kind of thing, I imagine the book would be very interesting. To anyone else, not so much.
March 26, 2020
This book summarises the strong case for Nietzsche and Heidegger's philosophies being profoundly contaminated by an anti-humanism, anti-modern life attitude that is much more compatible with fascism and conservatism than with democracy and humanism that are for most people by far probably the best political system and philosophical life attitude. This core anti-humanism of these seminal continental philosophers is very attractive to the far right, but it cause a severe intellectual and cognitive dissonance for left-wing and post-modern intellectuals inspired by these thinkers.
The book makes a convincing case together with some other analyse I've seen that these proto-existentialist thinkers' ideas are a moral and philosophical minefield, and cannot form the basis for a constructive life attitude/philosophy in the modern world, despite their influence on French existentialists such as Sartre who may have synthesized a positive life philosophy out of them (I won't comment on the post-modernists, obviously their intellectual nihilism can at best serve as an occasional critique of modern scientific thinking without offering a clear alternative).
However, I was disappointed that most of the arguments were based on a selective analysis of texts by Heidegger and Nietzsche, without establishing a strong historic or empirical link between their thinking and that of Fascists/Nazis and the far right. From the title of the book, I would have expected also an almost sociological analysis of the values held by the far right and how they relate to Nietzsche/Heidegger. Hence, just 3/5.
The book makes a convincing case together with some other analyse I've seen that these proto-existentialist thinkers' ideas are a moral and philosophical minefield, and cannot form the basis for a constructive life attitude/philosophy in the modern world, despite their influence on French existentialists such as Sartre who may have synthesized a positive life philosophy out of them (I won't comment on the post-modernists, obviously their intellectual nihilism can at best serve as an occasional critique of modern scientific thinking without offering a clear alternative).
However, I was disappointed that most of the arguments were based on a selective analysis of texts by Heidegger and Nietzsche, without establishing a strong historic or empirical link between their thinking and that of Fascists/Nazis and the far right. From the title of the book, I would have expected also an almost sociological analysis of the values held by the far right and how they relate to Nietzsche/Heidegger. Hence, just 3/5.
August 28, 2018
This is a good, short book for general audiences. Beiner argues that despite leftist efforts to rehabilitate them, the political philosophies of Nietzsche and Heidegger are best understood in their situation in history, as part of anti-democratic intellectual movements of the far-right, and that their popularity with contemporary neofascists is not the result of eccentric misreadings. While the book itself is short and conversational in tone, it draws on some of the best left critiques of Heidegger and Nietzsche, while also engaging persuasively with the primary texts. Written in the wake of Brexit and Donald Trump's election to the US presidency, the book calls for a reevaluation of the tacit agreement by leading liberal political theorists, Rawls, Rorty and Habermas, with Frances Fukuyama's proclamation of the "end of history." My only complaint is that he doesn't address Malcolm Bull's recent book, Anti-Nietzsche.
October 16, 2021
At a time when liberal democracy in America and in Europe is being threatened by far right wing elements, Beiner's Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right, is a MUST-READ. If you want to understand the intellectual roots of the American Far Right, which now amalgamates the KKK-types with the Neo-Nazis thanks to Trump, you need to get a copy of this very interesting and provocative study of far right wing thought. Now more than ever is Beiner's book relevant to comprehending how it came to be that the US, the head of an allied effort in WWII to destroy Hitler's regime, now is plagued by a far right wing movement that embraces Hitler's Nazism and joins it to nostalgia for the Old Confederacy. Beiner argues that far right wing thought is a rejection of the rationalism of The Enlightenment and indeed also a repudiation of the very principles which animated the Founders of the US. 5-stars
May 6, 2018
A brief book about the antiliberalism of Nietzsche and Heidegger. It is currently common to assume that Nietzsche and Heidegger provide a radical criticism of modernity (liberalism, capitalism, Enlightenment) that can be used for "leftist" purposes. The author drives home the simple fact that their criticism is fundamentally reactionary, which is very naturally being used by current far-right ideologues such as Aleksandr Dugin. The book assumes too much familiarity on part of the reader with Nietzsche. The part about Heidegger is much better, and renders a plausible brief description of his ideas, and, importantly, the problem that is the driving force behind Heidegger's thinking. It is here that Heidegger's nazism becomes understandable. Beiner shows convincingly that there is no way to separate Heidegger's philosophy from his political ideas.
February 23, 2022
We read something of Beiner's in a Poli Sci class in my undergrad, and I liked him. I was reading Nietzsche and then found that Beiner had written this.
I will say it lacks depth—to be expected from such a short book. Essentially it's a brief overview of some of the most dangerous parts of Nietzsche and Heidegger's philosophy, which I liked. It's an interesting discussion in general. He didn't really talk about *why* these philosophies have been so appealing, and only briefly touches on why we ought to avoid them, except with the obvious allusion to the Nazis
I didn't like that Beiner seemed to quote liberally from The Will To Power given its controversial whether it should be attributed to Nietzsche himself.
Overall a pretty good book
I will say it lacks depth—to be expected from such a short book. Essentially it's a brief overview of some of the most dangerous parts of Nietzsche and Heidegger's philosophy, which I liked. It's an interesting discussion in general. He didn't really talk about *why* these philosophies have been so appealing, and only briefly touches on why we ought to avoid them, except with the obvious allusion to the Nazis
I didn't like that Beiner seemed to quote liberally from The Will To Power given its controversial whether it should be attributed to Nietzsche himself.
Overall a pretty good book
November 19, 2022
Why and how Nietzsche matters today and why people do prefer other ideologies than liberalism. A short and read worthy treatment of the dangers of totalitarian ideologies and why liberals can never win under the assumption that everyone just wants a happy life. People search for meaning and a moral prerogative, and this must be understood as the fundamental basis of any philosophical or political disagreement.
July 9, 2021
"Higher education in a liberal society involves teaching great representatives of the liberal tradition as well as great enemies of liberalism. Is that the glory of liberal pedagogy, or is it its Achilles' heel? The sober truth is: commitment to a liberal education doesn't guarantee a commitment to liberalism."
June 19, 2025
Good book dissecting Nietzsche´s and Heidegger´s thought and philosophy to show their reactionary nature and why the far-right loves them.
The problem in this book is that you have to have some understanding of philosophy to fully comprehend what all the people mentioned here are saying and why some interpretation of the sayings are better than others
The problem in this book is that you have to have some understanding of philosophy to fully comprehend what all the people mentioned here are saying and why some interpretation of the sayings are better than others
May 2, 2025
thanks for summarizing heidegger
February 2, 2021
This book was interesting, but also odd and difficult to read in places. Some things were new to me but others like the book "Germany abolishes itself", I remember. Also, I came across this claim that Nietzsche was misunderstood and misappropriated and all, but considering what and how he wrote, is that really a good assessment to make?
And Nietzsche seemed to have a real hate boner for modernity, equality and liberalism. Furthermore, he was going on about nobility but never actually stated what that was supposed to be. He sounds like a guy who wants anguish and suffering because it is all so glorious to him to overcome it. Sounds like he was easily bored. He not only despised modernity and advocated for class and caste separation but was full on board with the Laws of Manu?
And from the chapter on Nietzsche, the book comes to Heidegger and here is where the problems started. Not that it stated that Heidegger was so involved with the Nazis but this stuff on Heidegger is much more difficult to understand than that on Nietzsche. And in what way is LA the epitome of Seinsvergessenheit (forgetfulness of Being) in the author's mind? And why is the Black Forest the opposite? I still have no clue.
I know why Heidegger's works were temporarily doctored to then decensor it later on, but didn't it bother anyone that he didn't even relinquish his Nazi party membership?
Well, I hope Freud is read more critically."
In the end, I must ask: Why does he only point towards rightwing antiliberals specifically, are there no leftwing examples?
And Nietzsche seemed to have a real hate boner for modernity, equality and liberalism. Furthermore, he was going on about nobility but never actually stated what that was supposed to be. He sounds like a guy who wants anguish and suffering because it is all so glorious to him to overcome it. Sounds like he was easily bored. He not only despised modernity and advocated for class and caste separation but was full on board with the Laws of Manu?
And from the chapter on Nietzsche, the book comes to Heidegger and here is where the problems started. Not that it stated that Heidegger was so involved with the Nazis but this stuff on Heidegger is much more difficult to understand than that on Nietzsche. And in what way is LA the epitome of Seinsvergessenheit (forgetfulness of Being) in the author's mind? And why is the Black Forest the opposite? I still have no clue.
I know why Heidegger's works were temporarily doctored to then decensor it later on, but didn't it bother anyone that he didn't even relinquish his Nazi party membership?
Well, I hope Freud is read more critically."
In the end, I must ask: Why does he only point towards rightwing antiliberals specifically, are there no leftwing examples?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews