Oliver Leaman

I got like half way through where for various reasons I lost steam. I mean it's a perfectly good summary of a lot of different philosophical stuff from around the world but often because it can only be a very short summary of each it gets hard to keep up and it's very hard to keep track of many philosophies which clearly have big differences but which appear very similar if you don't understand the concepts well and when they're not explained in detail. So after a while a lot of what's written appears almost redundant because you can't really get a grasp on the differences between these philosophies. Which is frustrating. It's a lot my fault of course and I appreciate the effort and know it's a hard thing to do well. Oh well.

Couple of stunning lines in this that I want to remark on because my only philosophy knowledge is Marxism and that Nietzsche sucks.

He remarks of Nietzsche "It was as if Nietzsche anticipated Nazism (and he was of course falsely linked to the Nazi message, as if Goebbels and Goering and the like could possibly be mistaken for Nietzsche's classically inspired idea of the superior human being)" ! Apparently the Nazis were bad because they were not superhuman *enough*. The message of Aryan racial superiority would have been ok if it was true. This is some sick shit. He talks about Nietzsche's idea of "slave morality" but doesn't criticise it and doesn't mention his idea that it's all traceable to Jewish influence. Hmm.

The short Marx section is a pretty decent short summary. And then he mentions Lenin, and we get this:

"It is this system [Marxism-Leninism] which in 1989 largely collapsed amid disillusionment. One main reason for this is that Marx's own devaluation of legal institutions and democratic values paved the way for a ruthless State machinery and command economy which created a vast amount of human suffering...

One of the themes, specially of Lenin, was the importance of praxis for understanding. The way to the truth lay through Marxism. This doctrine made Marxism virtually unfalsifiable."

My problem isn't with the line about "ruthless State machinery" but the justification given for it is so weak. It's very hard to say that "devalued democratic values" given his entire concept of a new society was sort of about ultra democracy and "devaluation of legal institutions" is funny because yes he "devalued" bourgeois legal institutions and thought we should build something new but also it implies that somehow "legal institutions" don't do bad things, as if the USSR didn't have laws and a sophisticated policing and justice system. It's absurd. And of course it's interesting to contrast with Nietzsche - his devaluing of democratic values ie insisting democracy is evil and bad doesn't get a mention at all.

The second part is funny because that's not really what praxis means but also because in a book about philosophy "falsifability" rarely comes into things. It'd be hard to falsify Plato's philosophy of forms, for example, and he'd never even think to say it. It's just interesting to me the way Marxism is talked about in ways that don't aid understanding at all.

… (altro)