Thanks for reading and for the comment. I dont think you misread anything.
This wasn't meant to be a comprehensive statement, it was in fact originally a journal entry from a past time which I decided to post. I think that since philosophy can no longer sufficiently register history it has effectively been dominated by it; it has failed to live up to the task set by its own history (to overcome itself and its history, since for philosophy to realize itself-- i.e. in the Good life--would mean for it to become superfluous. It has become superfluous, but in a totally inverted sense). While it still may be necessary, its presence needs to in some sense be justified lest it be a mere scholastic, reclusive domain which has no real social efficacy. If philosophy cannot assert itself in the classical sense, as a historical force (where in Greece it was a real force politically, socially, religiously) then it is impotent pedantry and hobbyism. This is also why I think the more classical idea of reason which you suggest, while individually practical in terms of how one lives their own life, cannot be the starting point if there is to be any philosophy today: the genesis of philosophy is for me in bodily experience. The ultimate limitation on logic is that it does not and perhaps cannot assimilate action as a logical category--meaning the dynamic manner through which philosophy manifests itself historically is not accountable for within totally rational parameters, which is not to minimize the importance of reason, but merely to say that a reason which is unconscious of the body is unrational. My point on it being a perversion is only in this sense, not in absolute terms. To discern the possibility of philosophy today is to discern potentials of experience which forcibly exhaust conceptuality and render new conceptual horizons possible. I hope that makes sense.
I am unfamiliar with Howard, and have yet to read any Conan. I wasn't aware that these topics were addressed in his books. I will definitely give it a look. Thanks for the recommendation.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your points.
I have read some of your other work, too, by the way. Brilliant stuff!
You highlight a crucial problem here. I think most intellectuals notice it in other fields, too. In this age of immense human potential, there's a great cultural stagnation and collapse. For example, art is everywhere, but it's commodified -- something to be passively consumed rather than lived. It is the attitude of the audience that is the main problem, which is experientially escapist, hyperironic, surfacelevel, stimulation-seeking, consumerist, passive -- art is enjoyed for its vibe, its aesthetics, rather than engaging with its meaning, what it's actually saying; it rarely transforms anymore, and if it does it's unconsciously.
If it did we would at least have some sort of rebirth of philosophy right now, since we have blockbuster media like Blade Runner, Fight Club, Cowboy Bebop, South Park, and so forth, confronting the core problems in our society. Instead, we have huge numbers of people obsessing over meaningless details of Harry Potter or Sanderson books in fandoms.
Since the consumer becomes the artist, it's only reasonable to think that this will get worse, as only the most hardened and noble iconoclasts will remain, crafting for the very few who truly understand or feel.
We desperately need this rupture. But I can't help but think the catastrophe it would require to bring such a change about would already be too destructive in nature for it to be desirable or reasonable. Maybe we need artists that exert as great an influence as the Greek tragedians did, or some other Dionysian force.
"The ultimate limitation on logic [...] My point on it being a perversion is only in this sense, not in absolute terms."
Ah, yeah, that makes sense. Though, as a rationalist*, I cannot agree completely. I do agree that action cannot be fully grasped throughout history, but I think this is more a symptom of the speculative nature of history, than a lack of reason's potency. Everything is causally explicable, this being an empirical fact; therefore too: action, impulse, emotion, intuition. I also agree that a reason that isn't concerned with the body directly or indirectly is irrational.
"I am unfamiliar with Howard, and have yet to read any Conan. "
Ha, I envy you!
Btw, be aware that the later editions of his short stories are heavily altered by lesser pens -- safest to read the originals (be it online or in the Del Rey editions).
* I hesitate to grant myself such label, for my knowledge of both rationalism and philosophy as a whole is still broadly developing; thus to acknowledge its fluidity and possible pretense, though I can defend and have written a fair bit in the rationalist tradition -- however, I'm highly critical of Enlightenment rationalism, ig it's more in line with Nietzschean or a Douglas Adams-like rationalism.
Though I had some trouble finding clarity, as my knowledge of the concepts and ideas you gesture toward is still limited—especially since the piece consists mostly of assertions rather than clear argumentation.
You write that "its history has disposed of itself." I'm curious: do you mean that philosophy has lost its cultural significance (which it certainly has), or that it has also lost its significance to the individual? Especially since you go on to assert that "reason is a perversion of sensuality," rather than a higher expression of it.
I think it's not difficult to argue for philosophy's necessity in today's world saturated by technology and simulation, where the hyperreal targets, directs, controls and limits the expressions of our Will to Power: our curiosity (think of games, fandoms and social media), passion, emotion, intellect, creativity, etc.
In this context, reason is not a sterile force—it becomes a tool of purification, helping us resist these perversions of sensuality, and guiding our instincts toward meaning.
In fact, reason can deepen our primal instincts. It sharpens joy, elevates wonder, transforms suffering, and so forth.
This is beautifully illustrated in Kurosawa’s samurai films, such as Sanjuro and Seven Samurai—where reason doesn’t replace strength, but elevates and disciplines it. We see how the need for strength, unguided by wisdom, can lead to destruction. But guided by insight, it becomes a path of self-overcoming—of transcending life. Nietzsche wanted reason to serve the primal, not replace it.
In this light, I wonder if you're leaning toward Howard’s stance on savagery vs. civilization? If you haven’t read the original Conan stories, I highly recommend them. They carry a surprising depth—great prose, structure and philosophy. (PotS, TotE, QotBC, are great starting points, available for free on ProjectGutenberg)
I haven’t gone deeper into all the topics raised, since I can only guess at the fuller arguments behind some of your claims—and given that English isn't my first language, I didn’t want to misread or misrepresent them, if I haven't done so already :/
Thanks for reading and for the comment. I dont think you misread anything.
This wasn't meant to be a comprehensive statement, it was in fact originally a journal entry from a past time which I decided to post. I think that since philosophy can no longer sufficiently register history it has effectively been dominated by it; it has failed to live up to the task set by its own history (to overcome itself and its history, since for philosophy to realize itself-- i.e. in the Good life--would mean for it to become superfluous. It has become superfluous, but in a totally inverted sense). While it still may be necessary, its presence needs to in some sense be justified lest it be a mere scholastic, reclusive domain which has no real social efficacy. If philosophy cannot assert itself in the classical sense, as a historical force (where in Greece it was a real force politically, socially, religiously) then it is impotent pedantry and hobbyism. This is also why I think the more classical idea of reason which you suggest, while individually practical in terms of how one lives their own life, cannot be the starting point if there is to be any philosophy today: the genesis of philosophy is for me in bodily experience. The ultimate limitation on logic is that it does not and perhaps cannot assimilate action as a logical category--meaning the dynamic manner through which philosophy manifests itself historically is not accountable for within totally rational parameters, which is not to minimize the importance of reason, but merely to say that a reason which is unconscious of the body is unrational. My point on it being a perversion is only in this sense, not in absolute terms. To discern the possibility of philosophy today is to discern potentials of experience which forcibly exhaust conceptuality and render new conceptual horizons possible. I hope that makes sense.
I am unfamiliar with Howard, and have yet to read any Conan. I wasn't aware that these topics were addressed in his books. I will definitely give it a look. Thanks for the recommendation.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your points.
I have read some of your other work, too, by the way. Brilliant stuff!
You highlight a crucial problem here. I think most intellectuals notice it in other fields, too. In this age of immense human potential, there's a great cultural stagnation and collapse. For example, art is everywhere, but it's commodified -- something to be passively consumed rather than lived. It is the attitude of the audience that is the main problem, which is experientially escapist, hyperironic, surfacelevel, stimulation-seeking, consumerist, passive -- art is enjoyed for its vibe, its aesthetics, rather than engaging with its meaning, what it's actually saying; it rarely transforms anymore, and if it does it's unconsciously.
If it did we would at least have some sort of rebirth of philosophy right now, since we have blockbuster media like Blade Runner, Fight Club, Cowboy Bebop, South Park, and so forth, confronting the core problems in our society. Instead, we have huge numbers of people obsessing over meaningless details of Harry Potter or Sanderson books in fandoms.
Since the consumer becomes the artist, it's only reasonable to think that this will get worse, as only the most hardened and noble iconoclasts will remain, crafting for the very few who truly understand or feel.
We desperately need this rupture. But I can't help but think the catastrophe it would require to bring such a change about would already be too destructive in nature for it to be desirable or reasonable. Maybe we need artists that exert as great an influence as the Greek tragedians did, or some other Dionysian force.
"The ultimate limitation on logic [...] My point on it being a perversion is only in this sense, not in absolute terms."
Ah, yeah, that makes sense. Though, as a rationalist*, I cannot agree completely. I do agree that action cannot be fully grasped throughout history, but I think this is more a symptom of the speculative nature of history, than a lack of reason's potency. Everything is causally explicable, this being an empirical fact; therefore too: action, impulse, emotion, intuition. I also agree that a reason that isn't concerned with the body directly or indirectly is irrational.
"I am unfamiliar with Howard, and have yet to read any Conan. "
Ha, I envy you!
Btw, be aware that the later editions of his short stories are heavily altered by lesser pens -- safest to read the originals (be it online or in the Del Rey editions).
* I hesitate to grant myself such label, for my knowledge of both rationalism and philosophy as a whole is still broadly developing; thus to acknowledge its fluidity and possible pretense, though I can defend and have written a fair bit in the rationalist tradition -- however, I'm highly critical of Enlightenment rationalism, ig it's more in line with Nietzschean or a Douglas Adams-like rationalism.
Great post!
Though I had some trouble finding clarity, as my knowledge of the concepts and ideas you gesture toward is still limited—especially since the piece consists mostly of assertions rather than clear argumentation.
You write that "its history has disposed of itself." I'm curious: do you mean that philosophy has lost its cultural significance (which it certainly has), or that it has also lost its significance to the individual? Especially since you go on to assert that "reason is a perversion of sensuality," rather than a higher expression of it.
I think it's not difficult to argue for philosophy's necessity in today's world saturated by technology and simulation, where the hyperreal targets, directs, controls and limits the expressions of our Will to Power: our curiosity (think of games, fandoms and social media), passion, emotion, intellect, creativity, etc.
In this context, reason is not a sterile force—it becomes a tool of purification, helping us resist these perversions of sensuality, and guiding our instincts toward meaning.
In fact, reason can deepen our primal instincts. It sharpens joy, elevates wonder, transforms suffering, and so forth.
This is beautifully illustrated in Kurosawa’s samurai films, such as Sanjuro and Seven Samurai—where reason doesn’t replace strength, but elevates and disciplines it. We see how the need for strength, unguided by wisdom, can lead to destruction. But guided by insight, it becomes a path of self-overcoming—of transcending life. Nietzsche wanted reason to serve the primal, not replace it.
In this light, I wonder if you're leaning toward Howard’s stance on savagery vs. civilization? If you haven’t read the original Conan stories, I highly recommend them. They carry a surprising depth—great prose, structure and philosophy. (PotS, TotE, QotBC, are great starting points, available for free on ProjectGutenberg)
I haven’t gone deeper into all the topics raised, since I can only guess at the fuller arguments behind some of your claims—and given that English isn't my first language, I didn’t want to misread or misrepresent them, if I haven't done so already :/