Is one speaking accurately when they are speaking from the heights
of despair? This depends on the foundations which lead to the conclusion
of despair. From this vantage some can see reality more clearly, while
others are simply more deluded (such as those who have a contrived
despair which has its origin in superstition and idealism).
When
man posits an impossible ideal world (born and sustained in the imagination) that runs contrary to reality, and
then uses this ideal to condemn reality, he is a danger to the species.
Ideal worlds are childish, man must learn to create quality by using
intelligence, those who reject this premise are a danger to the species.
How does one avoid sorrow? Tragically,
the answer is by hoarding and stealing wealth, but this is only
necessary because man has constructed his world on a hierarchical
stupidity; something he postulates as "given intelligence."
How
can a conscious idiot continue to live among idiots? The real answer is
that he cannot unless he has some kind of advantage -- or at least
something to sustain his quality. In truth, this is all life is about,
quality!
We have been told by philosophers
that we should consider life as a prison, but this is unacceptable! If
self-negation was brought to the forefront, divorced from emotive
considerations, made lawful by every society, perhaps then the world would
begin to understand quality. What if every life lacking this vital
attribute negated itself? The world would have no choice but to alter
its value-structure, but we cannot get here because superstition and
false values stand in the way.
It's a
tragedy that none understand the place and value of polemics because
none have isolated the concept, but it's an even greater tragedy (when the
discovery of polemics leads to the conclusion) that it's too late for
the implementation of polemics. Polemics must be deployed at the right
time if they would serve to prevent the proliferation and supremacy of
barbarism. The most tragic consciousness of polemics is that they are
time-contingent.
Where does this leave the
conscious polemicist? He must watch culture fall off a cliff because of
the failure of intellectuals; because in their arrogance and
self-righteousness, they refused the responsibility to engage culture
when they still had the chance, now the intellectuals must watch culture
fall prey to the impulse and anger of barbarians.
Where
does this leave the conscious man? (We can't even answer this question
without falling into danger!) Oh Benjamin, how we identify with the
finality of your sorrows!*
The prejudice of philosophers has to do with, at first, the lie of their forms and after that the error of the content they deduce from these forms. The supremacy and value of these forms comprise the identity of their presuppositions, errors that lead the world astray generation after generation. Woe to those who expose them -- the wrath of those who celebrate them, who rely on them for cultural-credibility and psychological comfort, will fall on them like an axe against the pulp of a frail tree.
*A reference to the suicide of Walter Benjamin
-
-
-
