Tag: Hitler

The Boss

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

You can’t study philosophy without dipping your toes into a little morality, or shall we say moralaki. Likely it’ll end up being a lot of morality but the Greek diminutive will make easing in a little less intense. Perhaps ‘The Boss‘ is not the ideal title either; sticking with the Greek theme the boss of western philosophy would likely be Plato or his invention Socrates were a poll ever conducted, and even from a contemporary stance it may not be the man in the picture either, but while reading him now it feels there could only ever be one god of philosophy and it must be Nietzsche. Yet to describe him as such would suggest totally missing the point of his ideas, and while Übermensch – a higher person – would make more sense he never saw himself as one of his own creations, which leaves us with some kind of depressed and insane rock star. Let’s just say he’s a big deal around these parts. So module two, Nietzsche and more precisely his Genealogy of Morality.

It’s early days and I’m just getting my head around some of his concepts. Seemingly he’s not a massive fan of Judeo-Christian morality. It gives power to the slave morality by putting a flawed value on weak concepts likes meekness. He believed this type of morality had a detrimental effect upon the advancement of the the higher person as it thwarted the development of human excellence. Too much focus was put on uplifting the weak herd at the expense of the potential of the higher person. In a sense the need to live by the rules of a morality which pushed empathy, selflessness and equality risked the higher person not fulfilling their potential, as they were forced to reign in their natural instincts. Think of some people who we class as great people, innovative genius’ perhaps, and without a doubt there will be an aspect of them and their single minded drive that falls foul of our sense of the good. Nietzsche’s point is seemingly that we shouldn’t force them to live by our own moral code, this universal moral code of good and evil, because people are quite clearly not universally the same. On the surface it is pretty clear to see why people dislike his non-egalitarian beliefs but it’s not a stretch to say there is an argument to be had for it. How much will become clear as I go through the module.

The influence of the great thinkers throughout history can only really become clear when you see which ideals of theirs have become commonplace within our general thinking. How many times have people reassuringly told themselves or others that if it doesn’t kill you it makes you stronger, well Nietzsche came up with that. He believed in the importance of the journey, especially if it involved a little suffering, and undoubtable saw little value in just being given the answer without having to work on it. Much of his life revolved around suffering, at the age of four he watched his Lutheran pastor father die from a devastating brain disease, and it was in these moments of suffering throughout his life he did much of his best work. It can’t be a coincidence that considering his own experience he believed moralities that held suffering to be a bad thing, to be so deeply flawed. Suffering for Nietzsche was a good and he put it to the test enough times.

He said without doubt his work would be misused in the future and seemingly the Nazi’s proved him right. They had a little help from his sister who edited and published some of his notebooks after his death to make him look as equally anti-Semitic and nationalistic as she was. While she may have been an old lady at the time she was a total Adolf fan-girl and he was more than happy to warp Nietzsche’s words to justify some Aryan master race bullshit. The truth was that Nietzsche hated nationalism as much as religion, yet spent the first half of the twentieth century mis-represented as a Nazi. Yet that’s the issue, as I said earlier he is very much open to interpretation to the point one esteemed Nietzsche expert will say he was anti-Semitic and other that he wasn’t. Who am I to know really after a few papers and a couple of podcasts.

Nietzsche spent the last eleven years of his life completely insane and died in 1900. In the late 1880’s just before being committed he wrote much of his best work. He wrote ferociously at this point almost as if he knew what was coming and just wanted to get his words and ideas out before it was too late. It isn’t a stretch to suggest there is a fine line between genius and crazy and seemingly Nietzsche lost that battle. He seems interesting though and while I have already made far more notes that this little introductory ramble would suggest, I look forward to attempting to really form an opinion on him as right now I’m likely just to be repeating the words of others if I try to make sense of the man. I’ll come back next time with something a little more detailed and philosophical, or at least an attempt at such.

Philosophy Now’s Question Of The Month

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

In the earliest days of this daily thing I’m doing, this experiment shall we say, I made suggestions for things I would write about. One suggestion was to answer a question from a magazine I subscribe to and don’t read enough of, Philosophy Now. It involves an evil and confusing question roughly every two issues which means four months and I think I may have answered one at some point on here although I think I didn’t give much of a shit to make it decent as I knew I had missed the deadline for entering. This one though I’m going to enter. I’ll still write it on here in my usual half arsed and rushed way first though just aware that I’ll be sending it in too.

Does History Progress? If so, to what?

Time certainly progresses. I feel slightly older today than I did yesterday. Of this I am fairly sure, or at least I have convinced myself of this truth. In that case yesterday is now history and the day before yesterday is older history. Yesterday though, the day before wasn’t as old as it is now. However is that history progressing, it still feels the same now as it did yesterday just a little fuzzier. Perhaps it’s evolving but that’s my memory that’s evolving not necessarily history itself.

What is history though if not just a series of memories. Even the version we write down only captures one take on events and that is open to interpretation. What happens when this version loses it’s appeal, the fashions of the modern age deciding they don’t like the historical narrative and give an event a new one. Surely then it has progressed to something new. Again it has evolved, but does that mean it has progressed. We must looked then at our understanding of the meaning of progress. To advance, to go forward. These are positive notions surely but histories changes don’t always feel positive, advanced or even evolved sometimes. What happens when they go sideways or backwards. Hitler made changes to the history of his country while he was in power, did they progress? For him they did, but now history would suggest otherwise.

So history can make subjective progress? Again that’s a version of an event. Objective history on the other hand cannot, but then we can’t say there is such a thing as objective history. It is only ever a story and someone must always be around to tell that story. So subjectively history progresses, but to what? I guess that depends on whatever the subject decides they want it to. Or we just accept it will always change into an infinite amount of possibilities and the change itself can subjectively be called progress. Not in the moving forward sense of course but in the something other than it was five minutes ago sense.

And that is my answer. I find them quite challenging if that’s not clear by now. I’m sure the one I did before was a little bit of a ramble with too many rhetorical questions too. I suspect rhetorical questions are not always a good thing, or at least too many of them. The other approach is to make it dry and over explain but you’ve only got a maximum of four hundred words and the other answers people tend to send in are not formed in that way. Like everything it is simply practise, everything is always practise.

Hitler The Humane

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

Hitler was an interesting character. Strange opening statement I admit but I got your attention. I imagine he was quite the complex chap. I was thinking about him today, not nostalgically just thinking. We learn about Hitler in school and then in regular programmes or cultural references. Ultimately we alway learn about him as being evil personified. This isn’t me about to defend the man, he was responsible for the suffering of millions, but beyond him being a vegetarian and nature lover we never hear much else about his character than he was evil. We’ve created this monster who we hear had no redeemable qualities, even the vegetarian nature lover doesn’t get talked about because it would conflict with the desired narrative.

It’s strange, I feel that I can’t say anything except for bad things about him otherwise I must be an apologist for all his atrocities. And why would I feel the need to defend such a man. I’m not though because to do such a thing would be an attempt to humanise him and this is exactly what people aim not to do. I don’t know what good things he did in his life or what kind of person he was before whatever series of traumatic events happened that led him on this path, but i doubt he wasn’t born evil. We have dehumanised him to such an extent that he is seen as offering nothing positive but he was followed and loved by a nation, they weren’t all just scared of him or manipulated. People wanted to follow him and did. There is a very powerful narrative we follow surrounding him.

This could go for countless despots, I’m sure Stalin loved and cared for his grandchildren. I’m sure Pol Pot once held a woman in his arms that he loved and who loved him back. I’m sure even Pinochet laughed at a joke once. And let’s not forget Hitler taking a walk in a meadow, picking flowers, watching deer romp and coming home to a tofu steak. The point is not one of defence because these were abhorrent men but more of the complex nature of narratives and the human condition. It’s strange to think of people who have committed such crimes as having humanity but they weren’t total evil one hundred percent of the time. These are extremes but it’s always interesting to step back from an idea and see the long formation of a particular narrative surrounding it.

The Ballad Of Johnny Longstaff

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

There was a time when men were men said the romantics ignoring the fact that these were tough men through circumstance and necessity. The period of time that stretches from the beginning of the First World War to the end of the Second is one that has filled the imaginations of even the most derelict of minds. For my generation and those slightly older this is a period that we can look on and imagine our grandparents struggling to survive in. It is this connection that allows for an appreciation that others in later years will perhaps not have and it was with these thoughts that I pictured my own grandfather when watching and listening to the story of Johnny Longstaff by Teeside folk band The Young’uns at the Traverse Theatre in Edinburgh. 

Johnny Longstaff was born in Stockton-On-Tees. He lived in a time when work really was scarce and a day without food common enough to be normal. He joined the marches to London 1934 as a fifteen year old demanding the opportunity to work and decided to stay. 

While in London he found himself joining various union movements and was present at the infamous Battle of Cable Street in which the original anti-fascist movement stood up against and beat Oswald Moseley’s fascist Black Shirts.

With this he heard of and met others heading out to Spain to fight Franco and his fascists. He was only seventeen and risked arrest because of the governments non-interventionist policy but signed up and headed out to Spain regardless.  

While out there he fought for the International Brigade. Civil Wars are by their nature brutal conflicts and the Spanish Civil War was certainly this. He buried friends who were killed next to him, spent days without food or water, endured the hottest and coldest of conditions and generally struggled through the horrors of war culminating in his presence at the infamous and horrific battle for Hill 481. 

He survived the war and was sent back with the rest of the International Brigade at the end of 1938. He signed up to fight Hitler in 1939 but this was denied on the grounds that he had broken the law by fighting in the Spanish War. In 1940 though he tried again and this time was allowed in. He survived the war and went on to live a rather normal life in the civil service before dying in 2000 at the age of eighty-one. 

The performance was incredibly inspiring and I left with an intense fire burning inside. I have attempted in this blog and recently in general, to try understanding the other side of the argument. It can help us understand our own position on issues as well as equip us with the tools to fight. The same must go to fascists and racists but it’s hard to understand their opinion when so deplorable. This show certain left me with the feeling that I don’t need to understand their perspective, their hate just needs destroyed. We live in a time that has seemingly forgotten the horrors of that time, of the rise of fascism and the very real threat it posed to the world. The Spanish Civil War was a fascinating fight between the fascist right and the socialist, anarchist and communist left that the Second World War could never be. While the Second war may have been one of ideologies, it was still one of Empires unlike Spain which really was a battle of ideas. These were men of a different time. It was hard and it was that that toughened them up. It is easy to romanticise the period but it does make you realise how soft we are in modern times. We mustn’t forget the past. We mustn’t forget those who fought the hatred of an ideology because while times may have changed, the more we forget the more likely we are to have to fight that ideology all over again.