It goes without saying that I am in full accord with my twin sister Alison.
Colin quoting the Nazi's self-definition of their doctrine as being founded
on rationality solicits an urgent reflection: that the claim was in itself
the ultimate historical
and philosophical evidence that "reason" as a definition is subjected to
interpretations and even be totally deprived of
any reliability, becoming a pretence, a calculated fake, programmatically
imposed on
others, conceived on a total
principle of brutality of irrational forces.
Therefore, the last thing we wish to acknowledge here is the Nazist's
program based on a supposed rational principle which was indeed false,
deceptive,
self-apologetic and self-justifying.
I do reinforce my belief that Nazism was based of
the worst irrationalist principles (no matter how
much the Nazi would revolt against this definition).
I have here in front "The absolute negation", an essay by Camus on De Sade,
( The Rebel - L'uomo in rivolta).
Reviewing Pierre Klossowski's interpretation on the Philosophie du boudoir,
Camus stresses how De Sade was able to show to the extremist revolutionaries
that the newly created French Republic had been achieved on the base of the
killing of the monarch, who for the monarchists corresponds to God.
Therefore, by sending "God" (and all his Saints) to the guillotine,
the revolutionaries deprived themselves for ever of the right to condemn the
crime of murdering along with the right of censoring the evil instincts of
men.
Don't you think that the anthropological value of this reflection is
remarkable? And makes in a way De Sade an anti death-penalty precursor?
Erminia
But this was another time, another age. Not now, in this
neo-prehistory of our times!
Erminia
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: self and unself Nazism De Sade - a lengthy post
> Colin (is it?) wrote:
>
> >Is reason, thus, grounded on unreason or is it, as arguably in the case
of
> >the Nazis, itself the ground of unreason? ( Rational Eugenics/Rational
> >Mass Murder> the irrational itself)Moot points. But I'm off to my
slumbers.
>
> Gillian Rose argues that "reason is forever without ground" (Love's Work)
> at the end of an impassioned discussion of the necessity for reason,
> which is weighted and also released by a tragic consciousness of its own
> groundlessness.
>
> I'm mangling her very elegant argument woefully: but I can see the point
> of Reason which understands itself to be fundamentally reasonless. Rose
> argues that Reason is how we work out right from wrong, reality from
> fantasy and how, ultimately, how we cope with the tragedy of being
> conscious at all (the problem with consciousness is that you can't win).
> The Reason which resulted in the insanity of the Nazis is a Reason which
> believed itself wholly and transparently justified and will not admit its
> fundamental reasonlessness. Consequently, how can it not erupt in
> madness? (You're right, the Stalinists were much more pragmatic -
> witness Stalin's reinstatement of the generals when it became clear that
> ideology wasn't going to defeat the Nazis. Any reading of how the Nazis
> ran things always induces in me utter disbelief, because so many
> decisions made no sense at all, even on their own warped terms.)
>
> Perhaps anything that represents itself as the unquestionable authority
> which fills in the vacuum left by God (which Reason certainly did in many
> cases) may not actually be Reason at all, but merely something that calls
> itself Reason.
>
> As might be obvious from my incoherent ramblings, my cold has resolved
> itself into a nasty flu and I am a delirious microcosm of climate change
> (hurricanes, polar ice caps and flaming deserts all in the wrong places).
> I simply don't feel capable of even beginning to wonder how you tell the
> difference between real and fake Reasons, if there is one.
>
> Best
>
> Alison
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|