Peter Sloterdijk

[Anonymous No.15073653]

He's probably the most important philosopher currently active. So how come he's never talked about on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.15073667]

>>15073653
that's not sam harris..??

[Anonymous No.15073674]

>the most important philosopher currently active

[Anonymous No.15073680]

>>15073653
Because he's only gained currency this millennium and this piece of shit board is perpetually unaware of what's best right now.

[Anonymous No.15073693]

>>15073653
Ive only read you must change your life, I don't really find his ideas that profound so far

[Anonymous No.15073709]

>>15073674
You're in every thread now.

[Anonymous No.15073722]

because his work can be boiled down to 'try hard in life to become extraordinary because... um yeh, just do lmao :)'

not that profound.

although also because trying hard to become extraordinary and having that message resonate while also frequenting this shit-hole board of twats doesn't really go together

[Anonymous No.15073734]

>>15073653
That ain't Goonan, mate

[Anonymous No.15073741]

>>15073709
If you though Guenonposting was a wild ride, just wait till Jorjaniposting takes off

[Anonymous No.15073756]

>>15073741
My filters can't wait.

[Anonymous No.15073790]

>>15073741
Is Lovers of Sophia worth reading?

[Anonymous No.15073802]

>>15073790
It's ok. There's a few good essays. The Plato one is good. Kafka one is excellent. Wouldn't highly recommend the book over all. Get P&A instead, or Iranian Leviathan. If you've read the Blind Owl then check out Novel Folklore which is a really interesting book.

[Anonymous No.15073812]

>>15073653
Not that important; his ball-thingy is somewhat interesting, but "active" philosophers tend to be the most plain and boring to read. There are exceptions but he's not one of them

[Anonymous No.15073825]

>>15073674
He's an idiot.
>>15073802
His works are just sensationalist propaganda backed by poor research.

[Anonymous No.15073830]

>>15073722
its not much of a revelation, although i still see the value of these kinds of works in a general sense

[Anonymous No.15073875]

>>15073653
because he's not important and just repeats heidegger?

[Anonymous No.15073879]

>>15073830
The 'revelation' is what he subverts in the category 'classic philosophical and psychological memes' and how he updates them to display the 'situation now' very convincingly. The few readers in this thread have not read beyond YMCYL and/or NA..

[Anonymous No.15073883]

>>15073875
Laughable. Few have read Heidegger as well as he has.

[Anonymous No.15073893]

>>15073875
he advances Heidegger, he doesn't repeat him. Too influenced by Deleuze to be a wholesale Heideggerian as well

[Anonymous No.15073937]

>>15073879
Is the Spheres trilogy worth reading?

[Anonymous No.15073958]

>>15073653
im wondering how something like genetic determinism would go hand in hand with his work

[Anonymous No.15074052]

bump

[Anonymous No.15074057]

>>15073883
tenured academics say the same about derrida

>>15073893
>Too influenced by Deleuze

so he's a cowardly hack with nothing to say

get real, there is NO good contemporary philosophy, NONE of it will be remembered in 10 years

[Anonymous No.15074095]

>>15074057
yeah bro how dare philosophers be influenced by other thinkers why can't they just think original thoughts like my main man Neechee he definitely wasn't influenced by anyone.

[Anonymous No.15074113]

>>15073893
>he advances Heidegger
How so?

[Anonymous No.15074116]

He isn't well liked by the establishment so he doesn't get any promotion, there's quite literally a concerted effort to attack him in the German press.

Also his lack of authenticity is a problem.

[Anonymous No.15074133]

>>15074116
/lit/ isn't ready to learn about how deep the rabbit hole goes on corporate sponsored philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15074137]

>>15074116
>lack of authenticity
wat mean

[Anonymous No.15074140]

>>15074095
not what i said at all...keep seething that philosophy hasn't produced anything of value since heidegger

[Anonymous No.15074146]

>>15074116
he's controlled opposition

FUCK sloterdijk

[Anonymous No.15074152]

>>15073812

>his ball-thingy

hehe. That thing is fucking 4,000 pages or so though, how much of it have you even read.

[Anonymous No.15074167]

Can he keep up with Guenon pbuh?

[Anonymous No.15074173]

>>15074146
He's a coward, he doesn't punch back, ever.

[Anonymous No.15074174]

>>15074140
>t. didn't understand Derrida and is eternally pissy about it

[Anonymous No.15074185]

>>15074173

Sounds about right for a German.

[Anonymous No.15074196]

>>15074174
derrida is just a repetition of heidegger but purified and neutered

[Anonymous No.15074284]

>>15073879
i meant to say that his work has value in a broader sense, the problem for me is that it doesn't seem grounded at all

[Anonymous No.15074296]

>>15074137
He's half Dutch

[Anonymous No.15074332]

>>15073879
i meant to say that his work has value in a broader sense, the problem for me is that it doesn't seem grounded at all

[Anonymous No.15074451]

bump

[Anonymous No.15074544]

>>15074152
Just the first 2, and the third is far in my list of priorities. It's just 2000 pages though

[Anonymous No.15074675]

>>15073653
Philosophy is over. You're in your basement and it looks like shit. You think about how you could fix it up. Then you do it. It takes a long time but in the end it looks okay now. It's not great but it's fine and there isn't really anything else you could do. It's a sinking feeling in the gut. You've been fixing up the basement for so long. It still doesn't look great. So you start doing tacky shit like LED lights and artistic mirrors. Pretty soon the basement gets crowded with junk you bought for your basement and now you clear out the stuff you don't need all weekend. And then start again decorating it with colorful garbage. The basement looked fine a long time ago. Philosophy: LEDs hung around a mirror in the basement.

[Anonymous No.15074733]

>>15074675
Interesting take on what I assume is your impression of Sloterdijk's philosophy: the fact of the matter however is that this is what it's come to and that it's the human nature meme 'to keep on keeping on'. Need help with that box?

[Anonymous No.15074878]

>>15073937
Yes. If you can do it.

[Anonymous No.15074915]

>>15073653
I've read a fair amount of Slaughter-dyke and participate in Slots threads but lit don't read so there's not really much to say. Read him if you want or don't if you don't.

>>15074113
Maybe you should read his book "Not Saved: Essays After Heidegger" for a complete answer to this question?

[Anonymous No.15074979]

>>15074057
>tenured academics
I practice a trade, anon. I work with my hands even when I'm not working with my hands.

[Anonymous No.15075530]

>>15074675
based

[Anonymous No.15075536]

>>15073653
because left wingers don't read him and right wingers don't read

[Anonymous No.15075567]

>>15075536

Neither of these are true.

[Anonymous No.15075677]

>>15075536
>am right wing and read Slot
Wow! Looks like you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.15075729]

BASED SLOTERDIJK

going through Bubbles atm, love everything I've read by him so far

[Anonymous No.15075740]

>>15074915
give me a quick rundown

[Anonymous No.15075756]

>>15075536
>sloterdijk
>right wing

choose 1

[Anonymous No.15075766]

>>15074196
how can 1 man be so wrong

[Anonymous No.15075802]

>>15075567
>>15075677
>>15075756
>what is the AfD
>who is Marc Jongen

[Anonymous No.15075806]

>>15074173
Why should he care?

[Anonymous No.15075816]

>>15075802
>I asked Sloterdijk about Marc Jongen, a former doctoral student of his who became the AfD’s “party philosopher” and recently took up a seat in the Bundestag. “In a perfect world, you are not responsible for your students,” he said. “But we live in a half-perfect world, and so now people try to pin Jongen to me.” I asked if there was any common ground between him and Jongen, and he replied with an emphatic no, calling Jongen “a complete impostor.” He went on, “He came to the university to study Sanskrit classics like the Upanishads, but then he gave it all up. A political career is the way out for him.”

BTFO

[Anonymous No.15075832]

>>15075816
>the far-right in Germany take your idea of psycho-politics and your relentless shilling of Carl Schmitt and apply it to the real world
>NOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT, DON'T TAKE ME AT MY WORD!!!!! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME THE CENTRAL FIGURE FOR THE POPULIST RIGHT MOVEMENTS I'M DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR!!!!! I'M TOO EDGY TO BE CONSERVATIVE NOOO

[Anonymous No.15075899]

>>15075832
You know who else writes about "psycho-politics" and Carl Schmitt? Derrida. And Agamben. Are they also "far-right?"

Sloterdijk publicly denounced Jongen, the Afd, and often shits on fascism in his books. Give it up. The only semi-credible critique from the Left is Habermas' argument surrounding Sloterdijk's genetic speculations. But this only makes Sloterdijk a "conservative" in a much more abstract sense than what any idiotic neo-Nazi is capable of grasping.

Also, where does Sloterdijk talk about Schmitt? I've read Critique of Cynical Reason, Bubbles, and many of his smaller books and I can't remember Schmitt ever coming up. I'm genuinely curious about the connection you're making, if you can actually back it up.

[Anonymous No.15076387]

>>15073674
Correct.

[Anonymous No.15076860]

bump

[Anonymous No.15077170]

>>15075729

How is he at a Kraftwerk concert and in line to buy a record and holding a drink in a place which is a bar but isn't all at once? Is this some third level of cynicism?

[Anonymous No.15077518]

>>15075740
No.

[Anonymous No.15077597]

>>15075899
>AfD
>fascist
I wish

[Anonymous No.15077638]

>>15073653
Because he writes in German and most of his stuff isn't translated yet.

[Anonymous No.15077663]

>>15077638
Are you calling the other anons liars or germans?

[Anonymous No.15077691]

I like his conception of anthropotechnics where he basically throws together "being a religious person" with "someone who goes to the gym" as basically different manifestations of "i need to have a routine and base values around it", which completely levels out the conventional sociology around these things but it's compelling because, IRL, we all have friends who are like either and really you can't much distinguish them except on the (already Nietzschean, I don't know why Heidegger figures so grandly here as an immediate precursor over Nietzsche who seems to be the categorical progenitor) ahistorical ground of different lifestyles.

[Anonymous No.15077707]

>>15077691
everyone technically has a routine

[Anonymous No.15077709]

>>15075899
I mean, Marxist critics of Derrida and Agamben have called them shills for the counter-enlightenment, the new right, bourgeois ideology's "intelligentsia" and republic of letters, since basically forever. Same with anyone camped near Heidegger.
>Are they also "far-right?"
They're definitely all bourgeois thinkers

[Anonymous No.15077715]

What are the best reads into his philosophy

What are his most essential works

Who are his biggest living critics

[Anonymous No.15077723]

>>15077707
sloterdijk absolutely btfo

thread over

[Anonymous No.15077732]

>>15077723
not arguing, just wanted to know what the means to the end of his thought was

[Anonymous No.15077736]

>>15077707
But does his importance come from novelty or the fact that he is making a timely repetition of true statements, a la Jordan Peterson, who is like a massive pinterest quote wall moving through youtube videos and podcasts.

[Anonymous No.15077737]

>>15077736
And does this repetition in itself constitute the very routine of anthropotechnics aka is his book and work itself the same thing manifesting into his own bank account thru royalties

[Anonymous No.15077764]

>>15077707
the book title is self-explanatory

[Anonymous No.15077793]

>>15077737
its about using self-actualization through routine in the face of ambiguous risk in relation to the environment, correct? But how one does go about in the face of risk in relation to his intrinsic nature, what has already been determined?

[Anonymous No.15077828]

>>15077715
spheres

[Anonymous No.15079371]

>>15075740
>give me a quick rundown
He's really not that kind of thinker.

[Anonymous No.15079914]

I appreciate the Sluty threads since I'm currently reading Spheres I after finishing critique of cynical reason and looking forward to the rest of the spheres.
His writing style is very easy for me and it is an actual joy to go trough the books. There is always something knowledgeable to be learned from the many points he makes and examples he cites. I barely feel that he is rambling like some critics say.
He garnishes his texts very liberally with pictures of this and that which makes ,for me at least, the topics more engaging since your mind can reflect on these things temporarily and form its own new connections to similar things and symbols.

[Anonymous No.15079928]

>>15075899
>this only makes Sloterdijk a "conservative" in a much more abstract sense than what any idiotic neo-Nazi is capable of grasping
so your argument against him being a conservative is that he's a conservative not a neo-Nazi? are you having high

[Anonymous No.15079937]

>>15079928
... fever delusions?

[Anonymous No.15079955]

>>15075899
He literally brought up Schmitt's notion of the state of exception regarding refugees, claiming their very presence should count as justification for the state to ignore constitutional rule...

[Anonymous No.15079968]

>>15073693
>>15073722
>>15073830
>>15073879
so he's basically self-help. amazing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15080895]

unironically zizek

[Anonymous No.15080988]

>>15079968
>I know nothing about the subject but I'm still going to give my worthless opinion as though anyone gives a shit

[Anonymous No.15081025]

>>15073653
does anyone use having read this Sloterdjik fellow as a status symbol? that should answer your question

[Anonymous No.15081234]

>>15080988
lol

[Anonymous No.15081296]

>>15077709
It seems like you're only definition of right-wing is "not an orthodox Marxist" so there's not much to say except that this view is narrow-minded and useless.

>>15079928
lol I never said he wasn't a conservative -- I am saying he's not reactionary, right wing, or a Neo Nazi

>>15079955
No he said literally the opposite, which is that refugees instead of the state are now the ones who can determine a state of exception. This argument still lends itself to conservative conclusions, but not at all in the way you are describing.

Sloterdijk believes that the European welfare state cannot survive endless immigration (Zizek also says this, it's not an original thought) but he also lowkey hates the welfare state. For Sloterdijk the welfare state binds classes through resentment, through taxation and government assistance, and he'd rather see some kind of patronage system established. Obviously this makes him a target for traditional democratic socialists but I think his writings could be read as radically communistic.

[Anonymous No.15081456]

>>15081296
>For Sloterdijk the welfare state binds classes through resentment, through taxation and government assistance, and he'd rather see some kind of patronage system established
true retardation. he doesn't actually believe this, he just thinks it's an idea that's stupid enough to be unique enough to make him stand out, but capable of being clouded in hundreds of pages verbosity to make pseuds respect him.

[Anonymous No.15081473]

>>15073802
Can you please give me specifics on the essays on why they are good or bad?

[Anonymous No.15081483]

>>15081456
Please use a tripcode so I can filter your contributions.

[Anonymous No.15081493]

>>15077518
can’t do it huh?

[Anonymous No.15081535]

>>15081296
>lol I never said he wasn't a conservative -- I am saying he's not reactionary, right wing, or a Neo Nazi
conservative is a synonymn for right wing. the definition for right and left came from the French revolution, where on the right side of the gym sat the reactionary monarchists who wanted conserve social order, on the left sat the progressive liberals who wanted to revolutionize social order. that is literally the whole distinction, do you want to conserve and/or reverse society, or do you want to change and/or advance it.

[Anonymous No.15081636]

>>15081456
wow I sure got some terrible responses to that post

>>15081535
Yes, I know. But, big surprise, this simplification has become problematized in a million different ways. For example, in light of Nietzsche's idea of the Eternal Return (probably the single most important concept if you want to understand Sloterdijk) what the fuck does it mean to go forward or back? The preface to Bubbles posits Sloterdijk's position very explicitly: the limit of our world is the limit of our transference (to the womb). This is a conservative position in a very radical sense, which has nothing to do with fucking feudalism or whatever.