KT Answers, pt.2: Peoples, Nations, Wars and Turning of Other Cheek
In the second part of our Q&A session we answer to questions about what is ethnicity (or people) and can it be defined, whereas Christian dictum of turning the other cheek is at odds with historical reality, why the political community should have origin that its member cannot re-create, how Internet based Right could just be a homosexual grooming operation and much, much more. Also we provide some thoughts on Schopenhauer and the way we discern between what is useful and what is superfluous for the kind of philosophy we practice on KT.
Special thanks to Han Fei for questions and Ivan Karamazov for his contribution in the comments.
As the podcast is hour long we provide timestamps:
0:00 On nature of ethnicity, nation and its relation to nationalism.
24:00 On morality in politics and the nature of Christian principle of “turning the other cheek”.
46:27 On Internet based Right and its peculiar homoerotic tendencies.
48:15: On Christianity and Manicheanism.
Listen on Spotify:
Listen on Mixcloud:
Listen on Youtube:
Branko Malić
Kali Tribune runs on reader’s support. If you found the above informative and/or enlightening, consider supporting us.
Branko take a look at this funny comic about Schopenhauer and Hegel. http://existentialcomics.com/comic/40
Schopenhauer’s marginalization in Western philosophy is due to the fact that his philosophy and aesthetics are indigestible for the European man. My mother, an Indian Hindu, raised me with the traditional orthodox teachings of the religion. So when I first encountered his philosophy, it really resonated with me. Beliefs such as desire as the cause of all suffering, the material world as illusion and our salvation through the denial of the Will to live are all teachings that I was already familiar with and accepted.
Schopenhauer’s great contribution to my thinking is his adjustment of these Vedic teachings for the modern man. It is impossible for a modern man to believe in the transmigration of the souls and reincarnation. These concepts are fundamental to much of Hindu-Buddhist thought, without a belief in these there is no escape from the cycle of rebirth and your suffering through this lifetime will reoccur through all your subsequent lifetimes (similar to Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence – but since Nietzsche saw suffering as valuable he didn’t see a problem with this). Schopenhauer’s teaching of attaining Nirvana through aesthetic bliss, which allows for the dissolving the illusion of the Self (atman) and uniting with the true reality (Brahman). Moreover, the concept of the Will is, as far as I can tell, an accurate picture of the driving force behind our desires. It is a mindless, aimless, non-rational impulse at the foundation of our instinctual drives, and at the foundational being of everything.
None of this is digestible for a Westerner, if you go on these transgressive forums on the internet. You’ll read Schopenhauer as being referred to as misanthrope nihilist, who’s philosophy is not relevant. Occasionally, I’ve seen them post his essays against women to promote misogyny and interpretations of his philosophy to promote suicide, antinatalism, etc. Whereas, I would argue if this philosophy were to be introduced to an Indian or East Asian, they wouldn’t have a difficult time digesting this. Nor would they turn to despair and start a cult against women and procreation.
With regards to Nietzsche, I see him as the Western (Greek) reply to Schopenhauer. Rejection of the Will, for the Will to Power. My passion for life will define my beliefs of reality. It’s a very brave and heroic philosophy, that I greatly respect. And where as Schopenhauer, did not follow a single word of his own philosophy, he is claimed to have had a large sexual appetite despite claiming that sex is the main evil behind the Will.
I just found your writings and YouTube channel by “accident”. Very interesting stuff.