We usually point out how modern philosophy tends to invert traditional philosophical questions. So why not do it the other way around? In this podcast we examine the supposedly fundamental metaphysical question, as proposed by Martin Heidegger in his 1929 Freiburg lecture “Was ist Metaphysik?” and come to conclusion that it is not as “fundamental” as it seems.
A lot of buzzwords floating through communication channels from academia to caffeteria seem to rather obscure than reveal their correct meaning. One of those words is “socialism”, quite popular and prevalent -ism both to be praised and reviled, depending on which side of popular political debates one takes. But what is the reality behind the -ism? In this podcast we inquire about precisely this: what were and, we would argue, still are the basic outlines of socialism as a quite well defined form of modern metaphysics, something most of its proponents and enemies rarely recognize let alone understand.
In today’s KT podcast we address a number of issues related to the deeper significance of the shift in mentality produced by the advent of Internet. We point out the peculiar instability of political and religious convictions people acquire online and try to offer some guidelines to understanding whence this quality of fleeting unreality that nevertheless informs lives of the real people to an increasing extent. For this purpose we once again throw an analytic glance of the ultimate metaphysical subversive – system thinking and its ability to represent the unreal as real.
In the third and final part of our series, we offer some examples of how Hegel’s idea of absolute modernity as fulfillment of all ages is mirrored in later spiritual forms of modern age which, at the first sight, seem to be quite non-Hegelian.
KT presents new series of podcasts on Hegel’s speculation as a prototype of modern metaphysics. It will include reflections on some remarkable spiritual forms of modernity and their disturbing congeniality with its “dark side”...
Political debate or, rather, debate about politics can resemble the labor of Sisyphus – nothing particularly new about that. However, what if we would claim that in present circumstances, with chatter jamming all communication channels, conversation is in fact impossible on principles?
In the second part of our Q&A on corrosive influence of Heidegger, we turn to actual (not in the sense of presence, but in the sense of energeia) texts, i.e. to concrete examples of how he misinterprets Aristole’s notions of energeia, kinesis, entelehia.
We conclude with overall evaluation of Heidegger’s influence and remarks on low grade philosophy found online.
In this episode of our regular q&a podcast we answer reader’s questions about the influence of Martin Heidegger on Internet based rightist identiterian movements. In the first episode we give an outline of the current state of Heideggeriana in the mainstream academia which seems to lead us to conclusion that Internet fringe apparently understood him far better than his academic followers and interprets. This was made clear mainly by finalization of Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe and publication of the so called “black notebooks” – diaries which, judging by his own evaluation, contained Heidegger’s most intimate thoughts and the central point of his philosophy. As the end result is that it is now obvious that he was indeed a committed national socialist, at least in the sense of what he understood as meta-political essence of national socialism, and that this is also at the very least quite close to his project of the destruction of traditional metaphysics, the sizeable chunk of contemporary philosophers now seem to realize how they have been building their academic houses quite near the entrance of the underworld, if not even somewhat further down the hole.
In the new episode of our “Ask Kali” series, we address MT White’s remarks and questions on the subject of Stoicism and peculiar attitude contemporary psychologists hold towards what is considered to be “ideology of masculinity”. Whereas the very fact that American Psychologists Association can indulge into such semantic nonsense as defining “masculinity” – or even “masculinities” – as ideology rather calls for the application of flame thrower, than that of the rational argument, we, as rational creatures, cannot help but try to argue the point instead.
