Friday, May 22, 2015


"If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue." G. K. Chesterton 

To speak of the morality of capitalism is to speak of the control of capitalism over the individual, as morality is the means whereby the capitalist gets the worker to regulate himself according to the capitalist's desires. He does this by indoctrination and by indirectly threatening the individual's stability. [The subtle violence of economic coercion.]  

Two axioms stand at the foundation of this moral tyranny:

1. The mindless command to work. The "duty" of the worker to perform tasks which are considered moral or else suffer the consequence of forfeiting his virtue. To not perform the "obvious, moral duty of labor" (according to the specifications and dictates of the capitalist) is to be an immoral man or woman. 

2. The deification of the entrepreneur, which comes in many subtle forms. The logic here asserts that individuals are responsible for social progress. Once this assumption (the sovereignty of the individual) permeates society this premise lords over the masses as though it were a morality from God (as though the entrepreneur had the authority of God). "These men and women are greater than us!"

The subtle implementation of these values, adopted by the individual and then imposed back on himself, are what account for the subservience of the masses. We have been taught not to question these precepts, but instead, to order our lives by them. We succumb to the cultural object of authority. In short, we have been trained to submit.

"I would also like to say something about the claim on behalf of the entrepreneur. Is it a fact that the entrepreneur makes the great body of inventions? He certainly has the habit of collecting and utilizing them, but he does not as entrepreneur make the main body of inventions. Neither does he make the main body of other industrial improvements. He is a middle-man in regard to these matters. Of course I do not pretend that the entrepreneur does not play an important part and does not deserve a certain share of the resultant gains, but he certainly does not in my judgment do all that is imputed to him here. The great accessions to our wealth are due not so much to monopoly of capital and labor and the organization of it as to specific applications of the natural sciences to methods of industry. That is to say, the work is commonly done by the servants of the entrepreneur who get a very small proportion of what would be equal in this theory to the actual value of the increased productivity which their labor creates. A great many inventions, including the greatest inventions of all, are not made for profit, and would be made if no profit attached to them. Those which do require some incentive of profit do not require the enormous profit which the entrepreneur is often able to take for them." John A. Hobson, The Dynamics of the Wages Question – Discussion; Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol.4 No.1, February 1903, pp.143-153.

What interests me is the substance of this claim, that a man who provides a vision is superior to those who help him realize it. What does it really mean to possess more capital (an accumulation that can be invested)? The moral insinuation, which is so subtly propagated by the capitalist, is that such a man or woman is morally superior. The capitalist is one who takes credit for work he has not done; he monopolizes the attributes of other people.

"The capture by the master-desire -- the powers of acting occupying themselves in its service -- constitutes therefore a dispossession of creative labor, dispossession not only of the monetary value of the product of labor through the capture of surplus-value by capital, but more generally, because capture is what defines all forms of bossing, with the dispossession of authorship [authorat]. Helped by the social mechanisms of personalization and institutional embodiment, bosses appropriate the symbolic profits of the collective creative labor of the enlistees, which they then attribute in toto to themselves. In all generality, the dispossession carried out by bossing is thus a form of recognition-capturing by the individual monopolisation of a fundamentally collective authorship: having hidden from view the work of all those who helped them..." Lordon, Willing Slaves of Capitalism pg.118, Verso 2014

The man who speaks of the sovereignty of the individual (in capitalist terms) does nothing less than trample the masses under his feet. So far from innovation, inequality and exploitation are what account for the entrepreneur... inequality and exploitation are what prohibit the creative potential of millions and millions of people. In this sense one is tempted to say that an entrepreneur is a man with no talent but lots of money! So far from furthering the progress of society, he is a man that stands in its way!       

The other thing to note is that the capitalist now exists in the paradigm of financial capital, which completely alters the material nature of the claim that he is taking a "risk." It is also important to define a capitalist as one who is and must be concerned with surplus value, which defines the necessity and nature of his actions. In this sense the capitalist lays down a morality for the workers, but is exempted from any kind of morality himself... or we could say, he considers profit to be the highest morality of all. Therefore, whatever it takes to realize surplus value (no matter how immoral) cannot triumph the supreme morality of profit, and must therefore, be considered moral no matter how immoral it might be. Essentially this means the capitalist must invest in situations which have the lowest possible cost of production. Essentially this means the capitalist must compete, in that he must realize surplus value, which means he is driven to the act of exploitation!


Saturday, May 16, 2015

The Scholar's Morbid Symptoms by Friedrich Nietzsche

"...I have just called to mind a recent experience that offers a very good illustration of the scholar's morbid symptoms. As such it might perhaps be hushed up, but it will amuse you because it is nothing more than the translation of Schopenhauer's essay "On Professors of Philosophy" into real life. In a certain town a young man endowed with quite extraordinary intellectual gifts, particularly in the direction of philosophical speculation, made up his mind to obtain a Doctor's degree. With this object in view, he gathered together the threads of his system "Concerning the Fundamental Delusion of Representation," which he had laboriously thought out for years, and was very happy and proud at the result. With these feelings surging in his breast, he submitted the work to the Philosophical Faculty of the place, which happened to be a university town. Two professors of philosophy had to give their opinion on his production, and this is how they acquitted themselves of the task: The first said that, though the work showed undoubted intellectual power, it did not advocate the doctrines taught at his institution; and the second declared that not only did the views not correspond with the common understanding of mankind, but they were also paradoxical. The work was consequently rejected, and its author did not receive his Doctor's degree. Fortunately the rejected candidate was not humble enough to recognize the voice of wisdom in this verdict nay, he was sufficiently presumptuous to maintain that this particular Philosophical Faculty was lacking in the philosophical facultas. In short, old man, one cannot pursue one's path too independently. Truth seldom resides in the temple men have built in her honour, or where priests have been ordained to her service. The good work or the rubbish we produce we alone have to pay for, not those who have given us their good or their foolish advice. Let us at least have the pleasure of scoring our blunders off our own bat. There is no such thing as a general recipe for the assistance of all men. One must be one's own doctor and gather one's medical experience on one's own body. As a matter of fact, we give too little thought to our own welfare; our egoism is not shrewd enough, our reason not selfish enough. With this, old man, let me now take my leave of you. Unfortunately I have nothing "solid" or "real," or whatever the current phrase among young business men is, to report; but you will certainly not regret that." 

Your devoted friend, 
Friedrich Nietzsche

 Letter to Freiherr Karl Von Gersdorff, April, 1867 Naumburg, April 6,


Friday, May 15, 2015


It is not the discovery, but the creation of powerful concepts; concepts that can be utilized in the service of stability and productivity [existential quality!]. In this sense many thinkers believe (if they merely probe deeply enough) they will discover the supernatural attributes of the universe. How much life has been wasted in the service of this romantic nonsense, blank idealism, desperate metaphysics?

As Deleuze and Guattari tell us, "The first principle of philosophy is that Universals explain nothing but must themselves be explained." What is Philosophy? pg.7, Columbia University Press 1994

The concepts we create eventually amount to knowledge and knowledge can lead to wisdom, as that which aids in the course of life. If one's knowledge is not the kind that can lead to wisdom then one is possibly wasting one's life.

As the Philosopher so is the Creator! 


Sunday, May 10, 2015

ON THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY (a letter to Peter Unger)

"You can’t do any of what people have thought of as philosophy. You just can’t do it, it doesn’t amount to anything. When you do it, it’s all puffery, puffery gone awry." Philosophy is a Bunch of Empty Ideas, an Interview with Peter Unger, June 16th 2014

Dr. Unger, it seems to me you make the mistake of equating all philosophy with analytical philosophy (which is a tedious hash of irrelevant noise).

(Contrary to your claim) there is a philosophy that matters; there is a philosophy that rises above the pedantic motions of the analytical game.

Where analytical philosophy ends, another philosophy, which seeks to actually transform the individual and the world, begins.

An example of this would be the philosophy of Nietzsche, as it pertains to the transformation and creation of the individual, or the philosophy of Marx, as it pertains to the transformation and awareness of social conditions.

Because the intellectual wants to be intellectual (which leads him down the road of sophistry) he learns too late the meaninglessness of that game which is comprised of formal abstractions... only later does he gather enough sense to ask the question of what matters in the context of life. And here he is met with the profound conclusion of transformation [a philosophy of transformation!] which can rightly be called, transformative philosophy* (--that which not only proceeds from life, but that which is equally directed back at life--). However (and this is a tragedy), because the intellectual arrives at this conclusion so late there is little time left for transformation; he thus commits all philosophy to the flames. 

respectfully yours,
Jersey Flight 

*Transformative Philosophy is informed by Transformative Literature, and Transformative Literature is that which affects life as opposed to merely offering man a list of vain abstractions. I have often asked myself the question as to what I should read given the tragic shortness of life. For a long time I pondered this question, eventually I reached the conclusion of transformative literature. Pending the nature of life (which is that of brevity and confusion) man has need of practical power, which precept is both individually and socially true. 

[Transformative Philosophy was a term used by Richard Rorty in his essay, Analytical Philosophy and Transformative Philosophy, Nov 10th 1999. Transformative Philosophy develops an image of philosophy as a transformative care for self and others.]     


Wednesday, May 6, 2015


"Philosophers today (like most other scholars) systematically narrow the scope of their questioning in order to get more precise and more certain results. This is analyticity, or a version of it anyway. The process of narrowing iterates repeatedly, until finally you’re discussing sub-sub-sub-questions of original questions which have been long forgotten. Beyond that, often enough the analytic method is further ornamented with fanciful counterfactual hypotheticals which themselves can become independent objects of study. The outcome of all this is a perfect Potemkin village of conditionally rigorous conclusions which are irrelevant to anything actual or actually imaginable." John Emerson, Why Analytic Philosophy Should Rankle Your Ass Too

In other words, what is the point? Where exactly does this analytical approach lead? The answer is to the Abyss. Eventually the "narrowing" has no place to go and so it leads to a debate over the rules of grammar, which eventually give way to the question of "context," at which point we are forced to admit the supremacy of "preference" in relation to our conclusions.

Analytical philosophers are merely pretenders... but even more, they do philosophy from ignorance... claiming to be the lords of clarity they are actually the lords of confusion (or perhaps it would be better to say, the lords of deception and irrelevance).

An analytical philosopher claims to be doing a certain thing in a certain way, in contrast to that which is the wrong way, and yet they are unaware of their own position (the point at which their process breaks down; the inability of their method).

If analytical philosophy teaches us anything; it teaches us that truth is a matter of preference, which is a matter of conditioning [enter here subjectivity]: it teaches us the inability of analytical philosophy to live up to the arrogance of its own claims. [ to be doing something more scientific and precise---- nonsense! disintegration by syntax! Grammatical subjectivity!]

To be an analytical philosopher is merely to confess one's ignorance in relation to the limits of philosophy.

{In contrast, that which has been deemed postmodern/continental is aware of the Abyss; is aware of the inability of philosophy to produce a certain kind of conclusion; hence, is not deluded by a rational vision of grandeur; understands that philosophy is poetry, and that style and creation account for progress and change.}

He that seeks to narrow, when he should be building, has left the track of life to engage a self-serving program of the ego sustained by irrelevant and useless distinctions (semantics which lead nowhere). But this should come as no surprise; for some men philosophy has never been anything more (and shall never be anything more) than a game. 

Analyticus: But my dear man, philosophy is a game!

Flight: I can see you are correct, but there are different ways and reasons to play this game. When I speak of philosophers playing games I am referring to abstract nonsense; I am referring to ways and reasons that have no bearing on reality. To solve a problem in this sphere is to solve an equation that has no bearing on life. Analytical philosophy is the game that leads nowhere. In my mind the greatest proof against analytical philosophy is the fact that it has made a conversation on theism possible! [see Analytical Theism] Surely this is evidence of its futility? After all, how valuable is a method which makes it possible to speak of the rationality of invisible unicorns?

I am well aware that you will say there is nothing here; that I am merely exaggerating or misrepresenting the true nature of analytical philosophy. And yet theism is a subject which should be long dead, but analytical philosophy (in its own special analytical way) has brought it back to life. No doubt it is still without substance, but when philosophy is not concerned with substance (as is the case with analytical philosophy) then the non-substance of theism can assert itself as philosophy.

Analyticus: My dear Mr. Flight, I suggest you go back to school and learn the substance of analytical philosophy, because the only thing you have provided here is an ignorant caricaturization.