Heidegger

> michaelP wrote:
>
>>> One of the students came to the attention of the authorities almost
>>> immediately after the shootings. Sledge said Woodham, upon arriving at the
>>> school last Wednesday, gave him notebooks of writings that seemed to include
>>> an explanation for the killings. Sledge provided copies of one page from the
>>> notebooks to several reporters.
>>>
>>> “I am not insane,” the page reads. “I am angry. I am not spoiled or lazy,
>>> for murder is not weak and slow-witted. Murder is gutsy and daring. I killed
>>> because people like me are mistreated every day. I did this to show society,
>>> ‘Push us and we will push back.’ “
>>>
>>> The page ended with a passage from Nietzsche that asked, “How shall we
>>> comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?”

mP:
>> But this notion of revenge from resentiment and simple frustrated anger is
>> exactly what Nietzsche would never have sanctioned; also, the “murdering” in
>> the (mis)quoted {I mean, misunderstood to the point of insane reversal}
>> surely refers to the metaphysical killing of the Platonic idea (as be-ing),
>> the upside-down turning of Platonic metaphysics (as poetically rendered by
>> Nietzsche in his ‘death of god’), and certainly not imbecilic murderous
>> rampages (laughably ‘justified’ by misread, misunderstood, quotes
>> from/references to poor Nietzsche) of the kind reported. My feeling is that
>> Nietzsche wouldn’t have wiped his arse with such reports…

Ant:
> I agree, imbecilic rampages … but what about *daring* ones? The
> parallel in Heidegger: not a mechanized holocaust … but what about an
> *authentic* one? So I think your nuance may be accurate and yet
> superficial, since even if the two murderers had one component of
> ressentiment, wasn’t there also an authentically Nietzschian recognition
> by both of them? Or is it an utter coincidence that both received from
> him their inspiration?

Anthony, so many have employed/exploited Nietzsche (and Marx, Jesus, and
Heidegger {e.g., those also imbecilic neo-nazi skins who are quoted with
utter reverence in their references by one of our very own listers}, etc)
for their rabid inspiration (although the Fin did also say that no-one
should blame his actions on what he read), but given the (yawn yawn
ubiquitous) imbecilic violence of their expirations, why should anyone take
their words for anything? Of course, Nietzsche might now be grinning wryly
at the self-predicted irony of his own self-prediction of his words being
fundamentally misunderstood; but even then he supposed (correctly) that it
would be intellectuals who would promulgate the misunderstandings and not
(also) the likes of murderous Finnish imbeciles or murderous Nazi imbeciles
(etc). It’s so fucking easy to quote Nietzsche without an inkling of what is
actually said; that they (Nietzschean soundbites) have become so many
cliches is part of the irony that surrounds this ludicrous framing of
Nietzsche; worse still is the credence that is asserted of violent (and
deeply disturbed, sad) morons, that they say something (rather than looking
again at what Nietzsche was saying).

Good night

michaelP

Posted on Sunday, November 11th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback