On How to Read Dangerous Philosophers

He who thinks great thoughts often makes great errors.

~ Heidegger

Reading and accepting even the most malicious forms of writing hold a high value in liberal democracies. A progressive society gains from provocative ideas that its members are exposed to in multiple ways. John Stuart Mill, one of the most influential thinkers and philosophers in the nineteenth century best articulated these liberal values in his celebrated work On Liberty (1859), in which he discussed the relationship between liberty and authority, and asserts that being open to ideas that are disturbing and challenging can be constructive.    

But how should we read and decipher writers and philosophers whose work has often been associated with totalitarianism?   

For many critics, philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as well as Karl Marx carried destructive influence, and were dangerous and proto-totalitarian. Nietzsche disliked social and moral conventions as he argues they smother individuals. A recluse and an iconoclast, he ‘philosophised with a hammer’, in his own words, and was justly or unjustly accused of being fascist or racist (this remains a controversial issue). In philosophers’ circles of the twentieth century, he was a black sheep, regarded as Nazism’s official philosopher. Heidegger, one of the greatest philosophers known for his immense contribution to existentialism and phenomenology, was actually a member of Nazi party.

Anti-democratic thinkers have inspired American and European conservative and radical elites since French Revolution, but they also share with us indispensable truths about the society we live in that can propel us to think in a deeper manner about our own adamantly held beliefs and viewpoints.

Rousseau expounded on how the thoughtless pursuit of self-interest can lead to a deep sense of inauthenticity. Marx’s thoughts about capitalism - how it is a radical mode of production, and has ability to turn upside down traditional societies and their values - was a dazzling insight. Nietzsche’s genealogical insight into the history of moral truths was ground-breaking. Heidegger’s works and writings remain notoriously difficult, but they incite gaping reflection on various rationalistic dogmas that are ubiquitous today (he criticised Western philosophy, and even spoke of nihilistic values of modern technological culture).

We have not so much to fear from these philosophers than we do from those determined to construe them in a malevolent manner. We should not moralise about dangerous writers and philosophers, and straightaway condemn those who seek something of value in their work. Exposing ourselves to different ideas and philosophies - ‘the marketplace of ideas’, as Mill says - helps us cultivate a better understand of our society and the world as a whole.

Centre of the Universe Syndrome

We spend significant portion of our time seeking the approval of others. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and what not. We are everywhere – trying to develop a phony sense of belonging, redefining our way of being, and, to a huge extent, seeking extrinsic recognition. Bought a pricey phone, cooked something fancy to eat, feeling exultant with your partner? Happy? Yes, but not happy enough, until you post online the photographs of the phone you got, of the fancy food you cooked, and of your seemingly perfect relationship and get likes and retweets.         

Nicolaus Copernicus, a Renaissance-era astronomer and mathematician, formulated a model of universe, according to which the Earth went around the Sun instead of the other way around. He had had the idea long before, but it was only after several years of working to develop the mathematical proofs that he got assured it was true. His idea, published in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), was so earth-shattering that he didn’t publish it until the year he died (in 1543). The book was immediately withdrawn from circulation because its ideas differed from the Bible, which made it clear that the Earth, not the Sun, was the centre of the universe.

The Copernican Revolution revolutionised the way people, in those days, conceived about the universe, the world, and themselves. It brought a paradigm shift and made people acknowledge that they were no longer at the centre of the universe.     

Our behaviours and attitudes are shaped by multitude of factors, including social, biological, psychological, and spiritual. Often, these components form one or more types of personality disorders, including narcissistic personality disorder.

The American Psychiatric Association’s 2013 update of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (popularly known as DSM-5) has a number of criteria to identify people with narcissistic personality disorder, i.e. the people suffering from ‘Centre of the Universe Syndrome’. These include:

• Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
• Exaggerating your achievements and talents
• Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the
• Requiring constant admiration
• Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
• Taking advantage of others to get what you want
• Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Being envious of others and believing others envy you
• Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

Such people tend to believe they are of primary importance in others’ lives or to anyone they meet. The disproportionate exposure to social media may have also further contributed to more people being influenced by this ‘me first/me only’ attitude.      

It’s harsh, but it’s spot-on: people are too self-obsessed to think about you, and you are not the centre of the universe. Sorry to burst the bubble. You are not the centre of the universe: it’s a powerful insight, but only if you accept it.

Another Year of Moral Outrage

Our feelings about right and wrong are so immediate, self-activating, and compelling that they influence us as being as (one-sidedly) correct as our perceptions of objects around us. As another year passes off, there linger incessant expressions of outrage that typifies every year. 

Digital culture has shaped our mind to an extent that we think being outrage has become our duty, and in the process of fulfilling that duty we often neglect how this outrage has become replaceable and forgettable year after year.      

An angry society is not an unhealthy society. Moral outrage, mostly sounded off on Twitter and Facebook, recently proved to be a major force for holding wrongdoers accountable during the #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo movements by democratising and loudening the voices of disempowered sections of people.

 

Nonetheless, there are fears that social media may be moulding our moral emotions in manners that could ultimately make it tougher for us to reshape society for the better.

In 2014, a study by researchers at the University of Illinois concluded that we were more likely to come to know about immoral acts online than in communication with others in person or through traditional media forms such as newspaper, radio, or TV. The study also underlined that the online content provoked a stronger sense of outrage than immoral acts encountered via traditional media sources or in person. 

Social media and online forms of communications often artificially exaggerate our experiences of outrage. Molly J Crockett, an American neuroscientist, in a 2018 opinion piece published in the Globe and Mail, says that 'if moral outrage is a fire, social media is like gasoline.'  

As we welcome another year, it's worth reflecting on whether we want to give up the control of our moral emotions and hand it over to social media algorithms that are unconcerned about our own welfare.