"_______ is responsible for the Holocaust!"

Post Reply New Topic

I agree, and that's why it worries me when a guy talks about reading Mein Kampf as if it were a Book of the Month selection. Now there's the kind of reader who might seek out the diaries of imprisoned serial killers. Ignorance of certain things can actually be good for you.

I was reading Mein Kampf last night. I don't like his manner of prose. I have it in my library, which is ever increasing. He seems to have been influenced by a number of different sources.

The OP's assertion, that "the ideology was a sponge that soaked up every possible influence," would appear to be true, then. Hitler was an effective and persuasive public speaker, but perhaps his writing style didn't lend itself well to English translation. I can't say, since I've not read Mein Kampf, myself.

He sounds, distinctly German. I've read a lot of Germans, from Marx to Nietzsche, from Schopenhauer to Kant, from Goethe to now Hitler. I want to read Heideigger. Those Germans, they be crazy.

IN the kinds of certainty hitherto considered, the truth for consciousness is something other than consciousness itself. The conception, however, of this truth vanishes in the course of our experience of it. What the object immediately was in itself — whether mere being in sense-certainty, a concrete thing in perception, or force in the case of understanding — it turns out, in truth, not to be this really; but instead, this inherent nature (Ansich) proves to be a way in which it is for an other. The abstract conception of the object gives way before the actual concrete object, or the first immediate idea is cancelled in the course of experience. Mere certainty vanished in favour of the truth. There has now arisen, however, what was not established in the case of these previous relationships, viz. a certainty which is on a par with its truth, for the certainty is to itself its own object, and consciousness is to itself the truth. Otherness, no doubt, is also found there; consciousness, that is, makes a distinction; but what is distinguished is of such a kind that consciousness, at the same time, holds there is no distinction made. If we call the movement of knowledge conception, and knowledge, qua simple unity or Ego, the object, we see that not only for us [tracing the process], but likewise for knowledge itself, the object corresponds to the conception; or, if we put it in the other form and call conception what the object is in itself, while applying the term object to what the object is qua object or for an other, it is clear that being “in-itself” and being “for an other” are here the same. For the inherent being (Ansich) is consciousness; yet it is still just as much that for which an other (viz. what is “in-itself”) is. And it is for consciousness that the inherent nature (Ansich) of the object, and its “being for an other” are one and the same. Ego is the content of the relation, and itself the process of relating. It is Ego itself which is opposed to an other and, at the same time, reaches out beyond this other, which other is all the same taken to be only itself.

Ja. Try reading Hegel (if you haven't). Your head will lit'rally spin!

(I like the way the British say "literally".)

He uses language formally and extremely technically. (Aspie?)

From The Phenomenology of the Mind:



Day-am!! !

1. Internationalists are not nationalists. That's rhetorically impossible.

3. What, in your opinion, do "these people" have to hide? What are you implying here?

BS.

I asked first. Do you think it should be against the law in a free country to re-examine establishment interpretations of history?

Ja. Try reading Hegel (if you haven't). Your head will lit'rally spin!

(I like the way the British say "literally".)

He uses language formally and extremely technically. (Aspie?)

From The Phenomenology of the Mind:



Day-am!! !

Have you thought to ask why prosperous, developed Western nations – from former colonial powers such as Britain, France and Germany to smaller nations such as Denmark, Ireland and Sweden – have all decided, at the same point in history, to import millions of ethnically and culutrally distant immigrants from the Third World?