by Peter Kropotkin » Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:43 pm
so in facing Heidegger, one struggles with this question of "being"
what is "being" and how does it impact us?
being = I AM....
there are questions about time within the "I AM".....Past and future....
"I WAS" and "I WILL BE"...and questions about space, "I AM HERE"
VS, questions about "I WAS THERE" "I WILL BE THERE"...
but in a very real sense, these are not philosophical questions, but
grammatical questions, language question..."I WAS THERE"...
one could say, "I WAS HERE" and still be correct..
we are exploring our location via grammatical questions, language questions...
The way to explore these questions, philosophical is to add a "WHY"...
"I AM HERE, BUT WHY"..... "YOU ARE THERE, BUT WHY?"
What Heidegger did was explore the relationship of being to human
beings.... but Kropotkin is interested in something else....
"I AM" but what am I to do? The questions of existence is less interesting
then the questions of what are we suppose to do in this existence....
If you can ask being questions, you exists.... but what should you doing while
you are existing?
we have others... out there.... who impact our lives, every single day....
"I AM" but we are human beings and we are social creatures... we exists
within the social, collective activity of existence... I can no more be alone,
then I can fly.... the "OTHERS"......the modern realization is about "THE OTHERS"
In the past, "THE OTHERS" were a given, you had the church, the state, our social
lives.. all impacted by "OTHERS"...and every single one of them, were simply
a given, one was part of society.. to separate out oneself and the society,
wasn't done.... if you thought of one, you thought of the "OTHER"....
now one might bitch about the role or place within that society or system,
but one didn't separate oneself out from that society or system, be it
the state or the church or the social aspect of being human......
one could almost say, Modern history began with Descartes but not
how you might think.... Descartes was one of the first to approach or
understand who we are outside of the "OTHERS"...
"I think therefore I am"
this question lies outside of any relationship we have with '"OTHERS"
there is no question of a relationship with the state or the church or
our social engagements....
now think of say, Marx... it is entirely about our relationship with "OTHERS"
what is our relationship with other beings, what is our relationship with
the state, what is our relationship with commodities....
what is our relationship with money?
there was no attempt to separate or disconnect human beings from
another... it was a given that we are in a relationship, the question
was, what kind of relationship did we have with each other? and Marx's
answer was an "economic" relationship...
then we turn to another who had no questions about our relationship with
others, his questions turn around our relationship with ourselves and god,
Kierkegaard....his questions didn't involve our connection with each other
or our connection to the state or to the church... it was about our relationship
we have inside of ourselves with ourselves or with god....
In K. there is no others to think about..
Now think of Nietzsche, his questions aren't questions of others, or our
relationship with the state or with the church...he was trying to find a new
morality given our old morality had turned into dust with the "death of god".....
upon what basis shall we interact with each other, given 2000 years of
our understanding about what it means to be moral was no longer there....
for N. the questions was about Morality, and his focus was on the concept
of morality, not on our connection with each other or with god....
or our relationships we have with the state or the church or in our social
connections we have......but with Morality as an intellectual concept....
Nietzsche didn't deal with people down in the mud dealing with existential
questions of existence.......but it wasn't tied into our relationship with
the state or with each other or the church... it was about our
own personal relationship with the concept of morality....
the existentialist of the 20th century, Sartre and Camus and
and even Heidegger, they were less concerned about the
the given relationships we have with the state, the church,
and the social relationship we have, family and the like.....
existence before the various revolutions was about our relationships,
that we never questioned, with the state, the church, our social
relationships.. family and the like...
human existence is about our relationships with the various "others"
but then after the political revolutions of 1776 and1789, we slowly
turned to thinking about ourselves as individuals, not connected to
the "OTHERS"...What does it mean to be human, apart from the
relationship we have with the state, the church, society at large?
we can see how far we have come with the militant anti-government,
anti-human, anti-social crowd that hold that their own individual rights overrule
and supersede, any rights I may have or the government may have......
this type of hyper individualism wasn't possible before the Modern age......
no one in the Ancient world would have said this and no one in the Medieval
world would have done it, but millions now consider it their right to their
own hyper individualism that exists today..... anti-vaxxers for example...
their own rights supersedes society right to protect itself and to protect
society at large......
this is the modern world....hyper individualism without regard to what it
does or might do to us.. or the society at large.....
we have taken "I AM" to be greater then "WE ARE"......
or "YOU ARE"....In direct opposition to everything human beings
did or believed in since the beginning of human existence....
and so we return to one of my points, what is the relationship
between myself and my society? how do we connect?
what am I to do? is my "do" about myself or my government, state,
church, social relationships? How do we connect to each other
and in what fashion?
what I am calling for is an appraisal of who we are and what is
our connections, relationship is to each other?
and then we ask, why? why this connection or this relationship to
each other and to the society/state as a whole?
with every answer must come a "why".....
Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....