FAQs
Location
Bio
this is a draft of an article I'm working on called "Horror and the Philosopher."
HORROR INTRODUCES THE PHILOSOPHER TO POLITICS
The pressing question for me is the problem of horror. This is a philosophical question, not political or ideological. However, the status of the philosopher as a stranger in society is itself political, because that form of life produces new thoughts which may dissent from the State. He is suspected by the State, and he probably even suspects himself. He cannot survive too well in more authoritarian countries, so it is the liberal society that produces the philosopher -- as opposed to the pamphleteer or the polemicist. Liberal society educates him to fear no truth, so he underestimates the danger of thinking, that is, he underestimates his own dangerousness. Of course, education is limited and limiting in its function and its scope, including its responses to the realities of horror in the world, especially the horrors of the State. Nevertheless, the time comes for too many when they are confronted with undeniable unforgettable horror where the State is involved. Then the philosopher can become political, and dangerous to the State or other powerful interests and forces, as his attention is directed to the discovery of a horror that is inseparable with his own identity. Even when the danger is revealed, the habits of thinking and individual autonomy are not accustomed to being overpowered by perceived threats, whether they are cultural threats, threats from individuals or the mob, or threats from the State. (Consider the free-wheeling discussion on blogs and internet forums.)
It is an existential question to ask, What is a monster? Who is a monster? Am I a monster? If there are monsters, must there also be heroes, even heroes who are other monsters? In movies, monsters can be heroic, by defeating an even more horrible monster (like the Predator in Alien vs. Predator, or King Kong). Horror is power dominating powerlessness. Primal injustice. Slavery. Torture. Rape. (Even sometimes prisons.) Situations of no escape, except in the movie where the hero breaks free and destroys the powerful monstrous foe (like James Bond). The sociopath identifies with cruelty and feels no fear or sympathy or horror. In my version of Spinoza's question, does the presence of sympathy for others in oneself and revulsion to horror make someone a better person than the sociopath who feels nothing? Is an act immoral because it disgusts and revolts?
So this is no anarchist polemic. I am also concerned with these related problems: the politics of the mob, the psychology of animal aggression, criminality, gangsterism, domestic violence, and every kind of potential for cruelty in nature and society.
(coming soon ... "HORROR AND MENTAL ILLNESS" and "PROPER RESPONSES TO HORROR")
