SLOTERDIJK VS. HABERMAS

[Ben B. Day]

Sloterdijk is one of the best writers in philosophy, IMHO. By this I mean
simply that his literary style is wonderful to read and, much like
Nietzsche's writing, is packed to the hilt with brilliant sarcasm -
directed at himself and others - and a great, if somewhat esoteric, sense
of humor. I say this only because, after reading him, I find it almost
impossible to imagine him taking himself as seriously as he'd need to in
order to deliver the almost evangelist condemnations described below.
I can certainly imagine him saying all of this, but only with a wink,
looming question marks, and tongue firmly in cheek... almost "kynical"
("kynisch") one might say.

Habermas, on the other hand....

----Ben

On Sat, 27 May 2000, Ralph Dumain wrote:
> Judging from this two-page report (admittedly, all the information I have
> to go on), I am far more disturbed by other remarks attributed to
> Sloterdijk than I am by any eugenics talk.  Sloterdijk is supposed to have
> said that humanism was nothing more than an attempt to tame people thorugh
> literature, and now that the media rules and people can no longer be krpt
> under control, other means are necessary.  Sloterdijk also presewnts
> himself as a victim of the culture of hypermoralism and left-fascist
> agitation.  Is it possible that Sloterdijk has indeed succumbed to
> crypto-fascist thinking, or at the very least, to cynical reason?  I daily
> regret that the USA is an intellectually vacuous country, but if this is
> what public intellectual life is like in Europe, who needs it?