The Joyful Wisdom of Nietzsche – Fish and Chips

To Wu Shuhua, with immense love and gratitude.

——————————————————–

I took to wandering the beach one day, leaving behind my home and the lake of my home, and have walked beside the ocean ever since. Not too long ago, I came across an old crab with a crusty shell but gentle manners. He had an odd habit of wandering forward and backward, backward and forward along the coastline, a hermit on his own journey. We, ape and crab, said hello to each other. I hunted fish for us to eat and we conversed while eating lunch for it was noon.

Crab – I have seen many people wander the beach in my day; by chasing the endless coastline they came, they saw, they conquered every land in the world, but they never knew where they were going. Where are you going? Do you run on ahead? As a herdsman, an exception, or deserter? 

Ape – How can anyone fully answer questions this profound? I doubt even you can! I can only be as honest as possible in both my knowledge and ignorance. I once joined a band of rebels years ago in a fight to liberate our troupe from our chiefs, who are vicious, obese, ugly apes, so powerful yet so stupid they are burning our very forest to ashes. Yet the rebels care more for cutting open their chiefs in revenge than saving the forest herself and they only succeeded to disembowel each other. I deserted my comrades but with a heavy heart; a large question mark still hangs over the fate of the forest. 

Crab – You lack the heart for politics. You cannot be a true believer. This is true no matter what duties you think you owe to other apes or the forest. I live in the ocean where no fire can touch me. I travel in the deep past or in the far future but rarely stay in the present. But what of your present?

Ape – I would like to think of myself as an exception but I may just be part of a larger movement, which I fear cannot be avoided even by the cleverest of apes. I may just be part of a larger “progressive” movement within my troupe, where some outcast apes are gaining more acceptance and power among our chiefs while other outcasts are breaking away from the troupe to live on their own terms. You, hermit crab, were once an ape and are also part of a movement, a movement we call “existentialism”. But I don’t care about movements you may have inspired by accident – all movements of history are merely accidents – but about you.

Crab – But what about you? Are you genuine or only an actor? A representative or that itself which is represented? 

Ape – I can lie and make riddles when I feel I must but I am too ingenuous to act, for better and worse. I, my life and work, represent a war; my body is a battlefield where the muses and other spirits compete for various honors and duties. I am their work of art. My work of art is a dream of someone else’s dream, a ghost of a ghost, a metaphor of a metaphor. This truth applies to everyone. I don’t know any of these wily women well and I may never be able to do so. 

Crab – Ah, yes, Life is a woman! The organism is an organization, a society, after all. I notice your feet are heavy. You forgot to stretch this morning, or did you just now decide to go the gym? The more you write the more you practice running. One day your feet will grow wings and you will be able to dance well, but you must keep your eyes peeled. Do you look on? Or who sets to work? Or who looks away, turns aside?

Ape – I’ve been setting to work for years now but it made me absent minded. I didn’t look on enough because I did not believe there was much ahead. I did not believe I had a future in this world but slowly that is starting to change.   

Crab – Do you want to accompany or go on ahead or go off alone? One must know what one wants and that one wants.   

Ape – I want to go on ahead but no longer alone. I am tired of being alone. I need more friends. But I do have company with a woman I love. I would like us to travel together through life, accompanying each other, supporting each other. What do I want? I want to validate myself through my work. I want to be as powerful an artist as possible. I want to save the forest. I want a companion and friends. I want to love this world, this life, and all her people. I want so many things, so very many things. 

Crab – It is good to sprint but don’t forget to eat well, sleep well, and organize your day well. Don’t trip on a pebble and fall flat on your face. You are young and impatient. You should focus more on growth and the journey itself than on the goals and perfection. Even at the age of thirty one is a total novice in regards to high culture and the most important questions, the greatest of life’s riddles [1]. Take my example; I embarrassed myself by following an actor and a saint by the heel, like a little poodle, only to turn on them.  

Ape – What about all the questions you asked me [2]? How do they apply to you? It is now your turn in the hot pot.

Crab – I was once a deserter, now an exception, but I became a herdsman to some, which I loathe – I would rather be a buffoon. I represent life, or rather does she represent me? I look on and set to work but, alas, sometimes I have poor eyes. I go on ahead and go off alone. The beach is my desert, my forty days into the wilderness. You will not be able to cook me for dinner. My shell is too hard.

Ape – We’ll see about that. Be careful. I may one day fly past you.

And so ape and crab parted. The crab returned to the waves while I walked on ahead. 

Works Cited:

  1. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971, 75.  
  2. Ibid, 36-37.

Advertisements

Chomsky Foucault Debate – Review

download

Two titans, King Kong Chomsky and Fallout Foucault, met in the Netherlands on November 1971 to battle to the bitter end. It was the clash of the century; the analytic philosopher against the continental philosopher, the two schools of modern leftist thought went to war. A mighty crowd gathered to watch the two gladiators fight to the death and…

Nothing really happened. I’m surprised people even talk of Chomsky and Foucault as debating each other. It looked to me more like two pretentious hipsters discussing philosophy at a Starbucks. – I mean, Cafe Harwich. Starbucks is for noobs. We’re dealing with level 80 warlocks here. – It was as if a being from Mars and a being from Venus met each other. They get along great and agree on many things, but sometimes they simply don’t see eye to eye.

THE BASICS
Chomsky and Foucault have different methods of approaching things. Chomsky is what snobs call an analytic philosopher, like a classic Enlightenment man is science. He approaches problems with a strong bent on reason and the scientific method, in essence an optimist un believing people can solve even the most difficult problems if they are persistent and principled. enough. He is somewhat dry and boring in his work but he is the practical man you can count on to do the political work.

Foucault, in contrast, is what eggheads call a continental philosopher. He belongs to a large continent of thinkers who come from diverse schools of thought, from Theodore Adorno to Simone de Beauvoir. But they all have some things in common: they focus on critiquing the issues of the 20th century in ways they feel the thinkers of the Enlightenment have not yet considered. Most were deeply inspired by Nietzsche, like Foucault himself, and expanded on Nietzsche’s thoughts to fight their battles.

Chomsky and Foucault assume a unique relationship in their debate. They are not opponents. Chomsky is like the scientist who, after decades of careful tedious research, has refined his body of work into several relatively solid theories. Foucault is like the skeptical philosopher who is not too certain about what science exactly is. They collide head on, nor do they try to refute each other, but build on what the other person said, despite their differences.

HUMAN NATURE?
You can split the debate into two halves: one on human nature, the other on leftist politics. Chomsky basically says some kind of human nature exists, since children construct language within certain limits no matter what culture they are from [1]. Chomsky thinks science helps us progress in knowledge and build better societies. The progress we make is far from simple and linear; we walk on a winding road in a dark forest but we are getting somewhere [2].

Foucault thinks a people’s culture and power relations play a much bigger role in determining what “human nature” even means. Before the eighteenth century, people had no real sense of “human nature”. They imagined a vast hierarchy with minerals at the bottom, then plants, animals, women, men, and scholarly man at the top. They never considered plants and animals to even have a “nature” that could be compared to humans. Only with the advent of modern science, when people compared humans to other animals like they were similar things, did they did they conceive of a “human nature” [3].

As for science, Foucault points out that as we develop new theories and methods in the sciences, some worldviews, or perceptions, die off, and therefore become shut from us, while we develop other worldview. The alchemist’s mystical experiences of the world, of human nature, and sense of occult divine order in creation, are cut off from us. We don’t explore that line of reasoning anymore [4].

And how does Chomsky respond? Well, bringing up our different worldviews throughout history is a sound critique, but it doesn’t disprove anything. No matter where you travel in time or what you believe, humans will always have certain basic traits and act in certain basic ways. We will always be bound by certain severe limits. Even a Martian, if she visited earth, would see us behave in predictable ways, similar to how we observe other animals behaving in predictable ways [5].

To get really basic, we eat, have sex to continue the species, and die of natural causes around seventy. We also have a huge blind spot in the center of our vision. To get more advanced, our brains are made in specific ways: we are terrible at math and logical reasoning but are very good at association. We easily remember hundreds of human faces while a computer struggles to tell a human face from an electric socket.

We separate people into “us” groups and “them” groups out of habit, even for things as trivial and meaningless as skin color and zodiac signs. We are extremely biased in favor of “us” and against “them”. And as Chomsky stated, the way we learn language and therefore even the way we think is limited in certain ways.

Chomsky says some harsh words about behaviorists, or people who tend to wave human nature aside as something that just comes from the environment. Behaviorists have no real theory of their own but say “the environment” as a cop out for any theory that suggests some kind of human nature. Chomsky thinks this is bad for scientists since it impedes their studies [6].

POLITICS?
When it comes to politics, Chomsky stands on more shaky ground. This does not surprise me, as every philosopher with a system will have problems putting it into practice. It is David Hume’s old problem; you can’t cross the bridge from “is” to “ought”.

Chomsky speaks of how, one day, we could organize anarchist societies made of equal mutual factions that balance each other out. This runs into a problem, as anarchists since William Godwin have been thinking of how a society with no fork of oppression could exist, but none of them put such a society in practice.

But in Chomsky’s defense, Chomsky says it is important to think about ways people can live with each other without a state, even if the ideas are imperfect. Capitalism is exploitative and dehumanizing; it cannot be justified. We have to try better, to make a world where human living and working are more meaningful [7]. Like a scientist, an activist has to draft different theories and put them into practice, and learn from experience. There is no way around trial and error, but “playing it safe” by refusing to change anything is a danger in itself [8].

Chomsky moves on to justice versus the law, saying it is morally right to break a law if the law is unjust and you are pursuing a higher justice. This begs the question of how one figures out what is more just than something else, and Foucault points this out. Ever since Nietzsche, no one really knows what a moral is, or how you could defend a moral as somehow being valid, something you can fight and die for [9].

What exactly is justice? To Foucault, it means different things to different classes of people. But it is the ruling class that has the power to turn it’s wants and values into law. The ruler’s morals become the morals of the state in general, and this is what creates justice. It’s your sense of morals combined with your power to enforce them, directly or through the law. You can even see this political process in institutions such as education and psychiatry [10].

Even the proletariat, a class of people Marxist advocate for, got their moral ideals from their bourgeois rulers. It is good for a man to be educated, productive, free thinking, and having the freedom to choose, as opposed to being a cog in the capitalist machine. But having a high education, being productive, being a free thinker, and having personal freedom are all bourgeois values [11].

Chomsky has a nuanced take on international law. Clearly, international law was created by the most powerful businessmen, politicians, and military leaders of the world, and they designed the law to serve them first. But the laws themselves can be positive, and activists can adopt the ideas behind them to try to make a better world. Chomsky brings up the Nuremberg Trials, how world leaders used the lessons they learned from the Trials to improve international law [12].

WRAP UP
Two little professors live inside me, Continental Bogdan and Analytical Bogdan. Continental Bogdan is so skeptical of everything he thinks every part of human life is a mental construct, and therefore not truly real. All he knows is that he knows nothing else. Analytical Bogdan mostly agrees but is more practical. Yes, our thoughts and values will always be made-up. So? Some actions help us, others hurt us. Some things work, some things don’t, and we have lots of work to do.

Chomsky and Foucault believe in a similar kind of activism. The activist must challenge unjust power structures, and the pervasive assumptions that let them exist, wherever she can find them, and take them apart. Politics and philosophy are very closely tied together, as both men know very well. Foucault says in the debate, “How can I not be interested in politics? Everything is somehow political and relevant to me.” The best way to leave the debate is to ask ourselves, “What do we do now.”

Citations:
1. Chomsky, Noam, and Michel Foucault. The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature. New York, London: The New Press, 2006. 3-4.
2. Ibid. 36.
3. Ibid. 6-7.
4. Ibid. 18.
5. Ibid. 23-24.
6. Ibid. 34-35.
7. Ibid. 38.
8. Ibid. 45.
9. Ibid. 46-47.
10. Ibid. 40
11. Ibid. 43-44
12. Ibid. 48-49

Human, All Too Human – Review

imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-Sth2qm2hdK4

In Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche continues his quest to remap the human world. Like in Daybreak, he studies humans through psychology and arrives to naturalistic conclusions, but creates a more defined worldview of sorts. Human, All Too Human was published before Daybreak, believe it or not, but it looks more put together than its counterpart. Nietzsche may have wanted to pose the problems he observed first, then searched for answers.

We could rename Human, All Too Human as “Human Limits” or “Catch 22”; such are the biggest ideas of the whole book. We are odd and somewhat befuddled apes, very proud of our sapience, yet we can never breach certain walls. And do not even mention metaphysics – for shame! – our greatest error throughout history. Has another animal on Earth ever been as wrong as we are? Nietzsche is an optimist, but a savvy one. He demands we do nothing less than overcome our human nature, a feat for a superhuman, an Ubermensch.

Walls
Language is a wall that separates humans from the world. Language, a skill almost to unique to us and our hominid ancestors, helped us master the world but cut us off from it. As we developed language, we created a separate world of abstract concepts. Words and numbers are symbols that represent ideas, but ideas are not real. Logic itself is a language game. You can observe the height of a redwood tree but you cannot observe 360 feet. Two bubbles exist, one of symbols and the ideas they represent, the other the real world. We live in the first bubble.

If you want to go to an extreme, recall David Hume’s famous argument. Your brain detects electromagnetic waves from the eyes, pressure from the hands, and chemicals from the tongue, then it interprets it as a kind of information, then uses the information to recall a concept. At last, you understand you ate a delicious red apple. But eating forbidden fruit comes at the price of knowledge. The apple does not exist; it is just an idea in your head. You do not exist either.        

To be specific, Nietzsche claims we invented language as a way to gain leverage over an immense scary world we did not understand. Over time, we bought into the hype and presumed mere ideas and names as eternal truths, “faith in ascertained truth” [1]. We invented magic and gods for a similar reason, to gain some control of the world. If spirits sapient like we cause stones to fall or rivers to flood, we can haggle, cajole, or beg them to get what we want [2]. What is magic but symbols we manipulate to create reality?

Ah, Truth, that strange creature we chase after. But she is a very different species than we are. An ape and an idea as subtle as Truth cannot see eye to eye. We evolved in the African savannah, after a great drought destroyed the lust Eden of forests, during a time of great starvation. We evolved eyes with huge blind spots to see the cave lion before she devours us, not to see quantum fields. We evolved a fragile brain that judges in haste and fears the unknown, not a brain that puts bias aside to reason clearly.

The things we call our “worldview” and “personality” are both founded on errors. We formed a worldview because we had to satisfy our needs, passions, and desires. We did so since a young age by absorbing a limited amount of facts we needed and turning them into ideas we needed; all that without accounting for an entire society of people who indoctrinated us so we could function. Our personalities are formed from traumas and hardships, which cause us to form habits as a way of coping and build a wall called the ego to separate us from other people.

Worse yet, we need to hold on to values to have a fulfilling life, yet values make us biased by their nature. We tend to twist facts into a narrative, like we often do when studying history, to justify our values. We value the life of our species and assume that life progresses in a meaningful way by default, but does it? We left Africa to travel the world by following the coastline, walking along an endless beach. We have not changed much. We still walk the same beach, always searching. Because of our nature as living creatures, “human life is deeply involved in UNTRUTH.” [3] A wall separates truth from value.     

And what of science? Does she not help us see the world in an objective way? Yes, but she can only help us as an equal. She cannot give us the truth on a plate. Nietzsche states science has no goals, not a value but a method. People who think science has any inherent value or purpose are wrong. We sometimes use science only to discover a truth, but more often we use science to achieve a certain purpose, and even holding the truth a good thing worth discovering is a value.

Science has indeed improved our quality of life, and promoted the welfare of humanity, but she never intended it [4]. We created the scientific method from Enlightenment values, while looking at the world in a more methodical and skeptical way created Enlightenment values. Side by side, we have walked with science along the beach for the last 400 years or so. There is a lot of serendipity in all this.

Nietzsche even muses if it is better for humans to be ignorant and happy of human nature. What is the point of gaining some limited insight if you are miserable? If you do good works and do not think too hard about mysteries that will never be solved, than the welfare of human society is promoted [5]. We reach another wall, another dead end, with science on one side and human happiness on the other.

Effect and Cause
Let us turn to metaphysics, the proud domain of the philosophers. Nietzsche is consistent in his statement; metaphysics is an error of reason. We mixed up cause and effect. Observe a basic error in the tradition. The philosopher looks at the human right now, living in a specific time and place, forged by so many of the different political, religious, and economic factors of the moment, and says, “This is human nature”. As an eternal fact, as if the human never evolves like other animals do [6]. The philosopher saw a cause, the human of today and her society, and traced it to an effect, “human nature”.  

Nietzsche, true to form, attacks morals in a similar way. Like in Daybreak, Nietzsche argues that a group of people would adopt certain practices because they were useful and pleasing to the. A Practice turns to habit. Passed through generations, it becomes a tradition, and finally a moral command. A person can even grow to like an unpleasant practice over time [89]. The philosopher looks back on this history and says, “Follow these moral maxims. Then you will do good service to the community and lead a happy fulfilling life.”   

If we turn to metaphysics, we will see more clearly how it is an error of reason, and tie the Gordian knot. How did we first come up with metaphysics, and everything that comes with it? Nietzsche gives a strange answer, indulging in speculative history as usual: dreams. When we first dreamed, long ago in the dark past, we visited a second substantial world, or so we thought [7]. From there we dreamt up a world beyond this world, something every religious person believes in. And what does the philosopher say? That the gods from the higher world visit us when we sleep, causing us to dream.          

Homo Sapiens?
There is a fundamental problem, which relates to walls and metaphysics. We have projected our human needs, passions, fears, and prejudices unto the world for a very long time. We built up a mass of fancies and errors over the past thousands of years. Yet those errors made us a sensitive and profound animal, especially the errors that inspired the great creative feats in the arts. Our history, our tradition, however wrong and terrible it is, gives us dear treasures. “Whatever is worth of our humanity rests on it.”, Nietzsche says [8].

As we slowly, painfully improve on our faculties of reason and methods in science, we will rid ourselves of old bad habits, little by little. But we should take care to carefully discriminate what is good and preserve it. I guess Nietzsche despised many socialists and atheists of his day because they tried to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

You get smug atheists who hit you over the head with crude materialistic philosophies while preaching a shallow form of humanist philosophy. Ironically, many hold on to Christian values and, while claiming to be skeptics, are as credulous as the fools who give money to televangelists. You get depressed socialists who rightly critique many of the evils in tradition, capitalism, and religion, but either cannot fully reject them or replace them with new “higher values”. Maybe you must have delusions to truly believe in “higher values” at all, and pessimism cannot be helped.

Nietzsche would instead like to see a larger “movement” where people become more self aware, more aware of our subconscious biases, our indoctrination, our bad human habits, and our hidden thoughts, especially the unsavory parts of us hidden from our knowledge. And science can help us laugh at ourselves, to give us “a sort of mistrust of this species and its seriousness” [9].        

Are we in are going under difficult changes, describing us as having birthing pains. Nietzsche even describes us like a butterfly emerging from a cocoon. The truth is painful but the truth will set us free. When we get a new habit of understanding, we will take a new view, looking from above, and will attain a new wisdom and consciousness of guiltlessness [10]. Perhaps we needed to make so many errors to reach this state to evolve in the first place. Were our errors necessary for us to take a higher step?        

Citations:
1.Nietzsche, Friedrich. Human, All Too Human. Middletown, DE: Wildside Press, June 23 2018. 26-27.
2. Ibid. 106-107
3. Ibid. 50.
4. Ibid. 57
5. Ibid. 54-55
6. Ibid. 20
7. Ibid. 28-30
8. Ibid. 33-34
9. Ibid. 56
10. Ibid. 99-100

Dr. Fabiszewski Answers Life’s Biggest Questions

Z

MOLLY: It’s so good for you to be with us for this interview, Dr. Fabiszewski. So many students and young adults are trying to navigate the world during these dark and troubling times while so many extreme ideologues battle it out on media platforms to win as many souls as they can.

FABISZEWSKI: That is exactly what is happening today. So many different kinds of churches emerged over the last decade, each with their own scripture, congregation, logos, proselytizing, and attempts at converting people to their cause. The biggest examples that come to mind are media outlets: Brietbart, Infowars, the “skeptic” community on YouTube, The Young Turks, Jezebel, and Buzzfeed just to name a few. No church worships a god yet we haven’t seen so much persecution, partisanship, and religious fervor since the English Civil War.

Meanwhile, our professors at University have cloistered themselves in their ivory towers. They rarely use reason and education as an antidote to the toxic info-wars (as it were) outside. This forces drunk, stoned old satyrs like me to take the battle of the books to the street when I’d rather be fucking one of my freshman. When reason sleeps, monsters are born. Our professors hide in the classroom while bullies stand on the tub. Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour: England hath need of thee! But Milton is of the Devil’s party in Hell so poor old fools like me have to stand in his place.

MOLLY: Do you suggest that professors must take the pulpit and become preachers themselves?

FABISZEWSKI: Yes. It is inevitable, but they can still use reason and nuance to some extent to enlighten us all and not merely preach to the converted. Or they can be me: the gadfly who the nonexistent God attached to the State, always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. Kids out there can use my answers as a short guide to life; a down to earth manual free of academic jargon and twisted abstractions, or get triggered by it. I don’t care as you dance, laugh, and think about it.

MOLLY: So let’s get to it, Dr. Irasmus Dominico Gregorovic Alexander Fabiszewski’s Guide to Life! Let’s start with one of the biggest questions out there. Is there a God?

FABISZEWSKI: How the fuck is anyone supposed to know! Assuming gods do or don’t exist with such certainty is ludicrous. Atheists and theists are retarded; the debate is that pointless. This is one of the dumbest, most cliché questions out there so I’m glad to get it done over with. Hopefully none of my others answers will be as long as this.

The quests for spiritual answers are deeper than this, and there are different levels of being woke. The least woke position is thinking your dogma and scripture, word by word, is the only correct one and your soul goes to heaven after you die. The atheist version is taking life painfully literally, like believing there is only the physical universe, being “rational” will solve everything but everyone else is just too irrational and stupid, and only the so-called “hard” sciences matter. Ditch your Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, C.S. Lewis, and William Craig; they’re pleb tier garbage. Read Heraclitus, the Buddha, and Spinoza instead.

Every deeper view of the world is something like this: the universe is constantly changing through creation and destruction, new miracles and horrors begin and end all the time. The universe is awesome and awful, it’s all part of the greater package. You are part of that cycle, always growing and self-generating, you will one day return from whence you came and transform into something new. Life is best lived without expectations or submission to people who try to make you live your life as they want you to; it’s best to be surprised by joy and live doing what you love. The best understanding of God is being totally loved by someone and receiving that love with gratitude. Wow, C.S. Lewis was more woke than I thought.

MOLLY: Whew! That was a big one! You seemed to cover all the basics at once!

FABISZEWSKI: You bet I did, sweetheart!

MOLLY: So what about philosophy versus science? Which one is better?

FABISZEWSKI: Science is part of philosophy. Everything that uses the human brain and heart is part of philosophy in one way or another, and thus can’t be truly boxed in a narrow discipline or way or thinking.

MOLLY: Speaking of academics, is academia useful or a waste of time?

FABISZEWSKI: Depends on how you use it. Studying different academic ways of thinking is useful in learning how to critically think about the world around you and analyze it in a thorough and nuanced way. But reading books too often makes you near-sighted, both physically and mentally. I made this mistake when I was young. Your body needs to move, work, get knocked around a bit. Your body needs to touch and smell; it can’t do with just a mental image. You’re not a mind in a body, as much academic writing trains you to assume; you’re a body.

MOLLY: Are the so-called soft sciences and philosophy itself a waste of time? More right wing pundits seem to value only the so-called hard sciences.

FABISZEWSKI: Philosophy is fun, best done while dancing, laughing, and fucking. Get dirty. Right wing pundits are tedious, joyless boors, who can’t even realize that there are no “hard” sciences without “soft” sciences. The very distinction is ridiculous; pundits made it up only to demean and demonize something they’re scared of and don’t understand.

MOLLY: Nietzsche is one of your favorite philosophers. Can you tell us more about him?

FABISZEWSKI: Don’t quote Nietzsche or even try to live by him until you actually read him. I’m talking to you, edgy atheists!

MOLLY: Is it okay to punch Nazis and cops?

FABISZEWSKI: Yes, but be prepared for a long, violent, difficult fight. Mind viruses like fascism and racism are hard to cure. Nazis want to fight and they won’t rest until they get their asses kicked.

MOLLY: What is the meaning of life?

FABISZEWSKI: Forty-two. Duh.

MOLLY: What about the social justice politics that’s been going on recently? And the people for social justice and against it?

FABISZEWSKI: I’m all for social justice. The fact people are still as bigoted as they are today is why aliens don’t contact us. Our monkey brains can’t see past our made up factions, or even see how absurd morals and politics are most of the time. I’m a university professor who is always high, so of course I’m a degenerate-commie-pinko-Marxist-Leninist-Illuminati-reptoid-Jew-pedophile who brainwashes innocent children into thinking people who look weird or different to them are people too.

But I can’t applaud how progressives go about their social justice quest. Their politics are naïve and useless. Standing against thinks like cultural appropriation and micro-aggressions while standing for things like safe spaces is fine, but cultural appropriation and micro-aggressions are superficial manifestations of deeper problems, and can’t be solved by just “educating” liberal-minded people (which most Americans are) on how bigoted they are. When I was a student, we progressives went for the state’s jugular. We stood strong against the cops who enforced racist laws and turned the fire hose on black people. We forced sexist bosses and politicians to acknowledge women as human beings. The fact such direct, effective leftist politics has been so demonized in American culture by the right wing is proof the right wing have a big advantage. We are fighting by their rules when we shouldn’t.

And the worst part is so many progressive have such a defeating attitude. The far right, ironically, has the most slave morality (as Nietzsche would call it). Whether you’re talking about Neo Nazis, white nationalists, so-called Men’s Rights Activists, Pickup Artists etc. they’re philosophy is never “How can I be a winner?” but “Why am I a loser?” Progressives have the same bad habit. – All political factions do in fact as resentment and hatred over hurt and loss bring people together and are easy to exploit. – If progressives want to win they need to spend more time enacting solid plans that truly empower themselves and the people they’re fighting for. Our dear leader Donald Trump said, “I don’t like losers.” It’s the only thing I agree with him on. But that’s just me talking, a privileged white male shitlord who fought in politics before my students were born.

MOLLY: What would you tell any of your students who are alt right or against social justice?

FABISZEWSKI: Pepe memes are pleb tier. They’re neither original nor insightful, and are as common as dogshit in a park. As Walt graded Jesse in Breaking Bad, “Ridiculous! Apply yourself!” This is why you fail my classes.

MOLLY: Do we live in a simulation? You know, like in the Matrix?a

FABISZEWSKI: Probably, but who gives a fuck.

MOLLY: What do you like more, Star Wars or Star Trek?

FABISZEWSKI: Star Wars. It’s a silly fantasy for kids but Star Trek pretends to be serious sci-fi when it isn’t. Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov it ain’t!

MOLLY: Any advice to your students about sex and relationships?

FABISZEWSKI: Fuck to your heart’s context but don’t delude yourself into thinking you love someone. You’re too young and stupid to know what love is let alone share a mortgage with someone.

MOLLY: A lot of your students are New Age? Any words to them about that?

FABISZEWSKI: New Age is a bullshit fantasy. It sounds profound at first glance but the more you think about it the dumber it gets, like the racist fantasies of right wing blowhards. Being a badass in video games is a fantasy for little boys, being a badass in video games is a fantasy for men. Being a princess is a fantasy for little girls, being a Wiccan princess with goddess powers is a fantasy for women.

MOLLY: How many genders are there?

FABISZEWSKI: Only two. You conform to what society thinks you should be or you don’t and act as your own person.

MOLLY: What would you suggest to your students who want to become academics in the future?

FABISZEWSKI: Value humor, wit, and play. Stodgy idiots of all stripes devalue humor and satire as something superficial. They’re wrong and should die in a way that makes people laugh at them. Humor gives an extra dimension to experiencing life through irony. It redeems us of our proverbial original sin.

MOLLY: What TV shows would you recommend to children?

FABISZEWSKI: I have two daughters. I recommend them Hey Arthur while they’re young kids, Batman the Animated Series for when they’re older kids, Daria for when they’re teens, Rick and Morty for when they’re young adults, and Bojack Horseman for when they’re mature enough to understand life.

MOLLY: Is it better to be an optimist or a pessimist?

FABISZEWSKI: Optimist. After two centuries of soggy and pretentious cynicism and angst, Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals should once more emerge. Personally, I take life in stride, admire power and strength in the creative sense, attract towards dynamic people and artworks that convey an ongoing process of growth and deepening, love to be around people who enlarge me and make me laugh. I do not neglect the dark and difficult sides of life, neither do any of the people I admire. I revel in the dark and difficult in life; it gives me strength and challenges to overcome, and I feel no greater joy than when I overcome terrible things.

MOLLY: Last question, who is the Ubermensch?

FABISZEWSKI: The Ubermensch is not a person. It is an achievement when a human being overcomes the cycles of fear, hatred, and resentment inherent in the human condition and lives fully and joyfully as a creative being. It’s like Nirvana except way cooler.

MOLLY: Thank you for your time, Mr. Fabiszewski. You’re wisdom is truly appreciated.

FABISZEWSKI: No, thank you. May the Force be with you, always.

BIOGRAPHIES:
Dr. Irasmus Dominico Gregorovic Alexander Fabiszewski is a revered and long-standing Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorodo-Boulder. An iconoclastic thinker, Dr. Fabiszewski eschews more academic approaches to philosophy in favor of direct real world learning experiences. His favorite philosophers are Socrates, Spinoza, Sade, and Nietzsche, with honorable mentions to Osho, Alan Watts, Deepak Chopra, and Terrance McKenna. He is the notorious instigator of marijuana festivals on campus, once forcing the University to close down for a week. His favorite hobbies include smoking marijuana, having orgies with his students, getting drunk, getting high on psychedelics, looting capitalist centers during riots, and annoying people in festivals and protests.

Molly Jane Wesley is a senior at the University of Colorodo-Boulder, Mastering in Philosophy and Fine Art. A long-standing colleague, favored student, and Assistant Professor to Dr. Fabiszewski, Molly has ambitions of starting a jewelry and arts and crafts business on Etsy and founding an alternative pharmacy of witchcraft and alternative medicine. Molly enjoys getting high on Miami Beach during vacations and starring in pro-sex feminist pornography.