Author: Bull Malcolm
Professor of Art and the History of Ideas, Ruskin School of Art, University of Oxford. Address: 74 High Street, OX1 4BG Oxford, UK. E-mail: email@example.com.
Great Again / Logos. 2018. № 3 (124). P. 13-26
annotation: The author finds that the question Heidegger’s Black Notebooks raise for today’s Americans is not “Was Heidegger a Nazi?” or “Was Heidegger an anti-Semite?” but “Would Germany’s greatest 20th century philosopher have endorsed Donald Trump?” because the first two questions have already been answered in the affirmative. All the stereotypes compatible with Nazism that we find in Heidegger’s texts may sound uncomfortably current. Analogies with the Weimar Republic have become one of the commonplaces of commentary on last year’s USA presidential election. But Donald Trump is not so much America’s Hitler as an American Heidegger, a self-appointed expert on greatness who insists that the idea of American greatness has vanished, but also that: “Our best days lie ahead. There is so much untapped greatness in our country.” To make the transition between the two, “We need someone who under¬stands greatness.” Although the kind of nationalism advocated by Heidegger and Trump nominally rejects biological racism, it is both exceptionalist and exclusive in that it emphasizes geographical origin and citizenship while stipulating that you may exempt your¬self from universal decline only if you were born in the right place: “The day I was born I had already won the greatest lottery on earth. I was born in the United States of America” (Trump). Trump was, for once, speaking the truth. For a century, there have been substantial increases in real income for the top 1% and also for the middle 50% of the global population, but little or no gains for those in the 75th to 90th per¬centiles. The future that Heidegger anticipated is now. Whole nations are acknowl¬edging their state of need and waiting to see whether greatness will descend upon them.
Keywords: Martin Heidegger; nationalism; racism; Donald Trump; geographical fac¬tor in development
Anti-Nietzsche / Logos. 2016. № 2 (111). P. 181-208
The Politics of Falling / Logos. 2016. № 2 (111). P. 257-272
annotation: In this article, Malcolm Bull responds to his critics and analyzes their claims. Bull believes that Nietzsche combines two arguments, the transcendental and the materialist (or biological), and that the latter could be challenged. The negative ecology of value demands a leveling of the world which may still lose more of its sense. In his answer to Raymond Geuss, Bull suggests that being unranked depends upon some evaluation, at least from Nietzsche’s point of view of not equating the valuation to explicit opinion. In answer to the argument about the theory of need, Bull contends that his extraegalitarianism should be understood as a process rather than as a final state at which the substantive ranking of needs should be defined. Bull goes on to claim that the question of the “ghost” as well as the issue of efficiency and optimality point to a metaphysical dimension in the arguments of his critics. Politics might be more like a fall than like a building or a theory standing upon a foundation. In returning to the question of Heidegger’s and Nietzsche’s ecology of values, Bull insists that Heidegger admits that differences between species is analogous to the border of German nation, and therefore it is not always self-evident that man cannot actually become lesser than himself. Subhumanism makes the world less and less welcoming to Being. In his answer to the Aristotelian argument about exclusion from discourse, Bull affirms that such an exclusion is the point of his project.
Keywords: Malcolm Bull; Anti-Nietzsche; transcendental argument; falling; negative ecology; distributive justice