I've used the term "The Other 19th century" twice, to a surprising success, to quickly establish a context and framework in a casual conversation with more professional and seasoned thinkers than myself to avoid getting in long conversations about why the hell my thoughts are seemingly way left field of anything they are saying.
Either way: I pointed out my line of thought tends to come from "the other 19th century" - as opposed to the main trends of marxism, and the now dominant form of thought, "scientistim-progressivism".
It's the line from the "Other 19th Century" that never really caught on (except for Freud for a very brief time period): It's that of Goethe-Wagner-Stirner-Schopenhauer-Nietzsche-Husserl-Heidegger type of line, and is something I would consider my social scientists to be rooted in (Mises, Weber, Meger, Freud, Lachmann, etc).
Like I said, it worked for me, and it is essentially true. Play around with it, it's kind of fun to think about, and an interesting way to establish your groundwork in a conversation quickly.
On a side note: I can't say much about him, but I am under the hunch that Husserl may be the most important of the bunch at the momement.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
How would this be utilized in a conversation with someone who's already far left and/or left-Nietzcheans?
Could you give more context? I have no idea what you mean.
Vive,
Are you talking strictly about intellectual movements of the period? What do you see as being the "normal" 19th century?
Bert,
What the hell is a left-Nietzschean and how can they justify their existence on this planet?
There's a lot of them. What anarchists, socialists, and leftists get out of Nietzsche really must be the transvaluation of values, other than that I don't see any relation. I never read politics into Nietzsche.
What? Anarchists and socialists are extensions of the Christian ethic and the transvaluation of values!
@wheylous:
hopefully more of this will come out in chunks - it's really hard for me to put any of these "uber-meta" topics into any form of clarity at this point in my life.
To give you some buzzwords: the relation of praxeology, the axion axiom to things that are often neglected; such as ontology, phenomonology, "discursive reason", and things of that nature and how they conflict with modern day scientism / "mainstream" academia - also the relation of all these heterodox thinkers to one another (and they all do relate in some way or another). It's a very big topic, hopefully you can at least see why it's difficult for me to digest. This is a lifetime of studying, especially if I'm merely an amteure autodidact who isn't forced to think about this.
@Neo / Bert::
"Intellectual movements" is probably a good enough phrase though "Intellectual currents", "trends", "geneologies", or even "Schools" may work a little better.
Overall I would consider the dominating threads to be "classical liberalism", scientism/positivism, and marxism.
What I am wondering (as it just occured to me while I was typing this answer) is if what I am trying to point out is another very heterodox branch of "naturalism" (as classical liberalism may be) - and "Marxism" could be a type of "heterodox" positivism. Of course in any case, even if it is a type of "naturalism" it is still a bit diffierent than what is usually thought of when the term is used.
More on left-Nietzscheanism later. They exist, and at points (perhaps even more often than not) they have out-numbered "right Nietzscheans" - this is particularly true if you consider "Avant-garde" / individualistic anarchists, Feurerbach/Stirner types, etc to be "left wing" in the context of their historical settings (and I do).
Do you know why they are "left-Nietzschean"?
See Vive, this is why I like you. I'm doing fine and I think I understand things and then you talk about various schools of thought which I thought I understood but which you just destroyed my understand of. And I'm all like:
And you're all like:
Anyway, could you describe to me what you see as being the ultimate characteristic of "the left" that makes someone like Stirner a leftist? I also thought that you despised the left while you liked Stirner.
Depending which route you take Stirner could be "right" on which leftist you ask. He seems to be hit or miss with the left anarchists, i.e., his egoism is too egoistic.
Do I know why? I don't know.
lol, my sister keeps telling me to watch that show.
Anyway short answer on leftism(drunk right now, if you want a better answer ask me again): if someone is "progressive-utopian" and can't stand how someone like Hayek, Schumpeter etc "debunk" the Platonicity of the progressive element of leftism and show what "progressive" actually means due to market imperatives that's a good way to think of leftism. It is an odd Platonistic or aesthetical life of activism, utopianism, rights, and revolution (as opposed to insurrection).
Interesting enough in a leftist vision "progressive" could also mean some crazy Rousseau wasteland and some crazy relation to science, nihilism, and/or utilitarinaism (also debunked by Mises and probably Stirner, etc)
As for Stirner being a leftist:
The easy answer, and I can go into more detail upon request and sobering up a bit: it is impossible to seperate him from left-hegelianism - and also the implicit or explicit contact his book had with revolutionary elements in Europe even as late as the 1870's. He may have "subverted the subversives" or "insurrected on the revolutionaries" - which would indeed, put him in the geneology I spoke of in my OP in the long run, and have always made him some sort of "fringe element" for your typical Bohemian (and the Bohemian / left wing relation is an interesting thing to think about as well), but nevertheless it is unignorable - and my guess would be Stirner would be surprised to find himself a "non-leftist" (just as Menger would have been surprised to be a radical economist).
As for Nietzsche:
Quick aswer again, as Bert pointed out Foucoult, etc