SG, a sort of autistic link-machine, engaged in a verbal joust with me, but when the reply was too strong for his minuscule vocabulary, and when it put into question his substitution of attitude for thought, he just deleted my comments. SG called my blog post on Heidegger and Nazism “stupid”, which in his eyes quite suffices to “clinch” a debate, but was unable to furnish any justification except his own self-sufficient, in his eyes, “attitude”.
I replied: “Hello SG, I write lots of stupid blog posts, which one is so bad? Maybe I could “intelligentify” it. It would help if you could point me to a model of intelligence from your own writings that I could copy”. Needless to say, no such link was forthcoming, as SG is incapable of anything but his transcendent (to any discussion or even exposition that would show that he is even faintly aware of what anything at all is about) attitude, mocking anything and everything except its own sacrosanct self.
He made a pitiful self-reflexive gesture in accusing me of just wanting to defend my ego, but I replied that perhaps this was meant in the Zizekian sense where he makes fun of me for my “stupid” blog post and I challenge him, obviously in jest, to say something intelligent (which he cannot do), and so we become friends. I am sorry the shadow of my perceived Big Ego obscures my real curiosity as to his reasons for calling my blog post “stupid”. After all, I hope he liked my defence of Zizek against Chomsky, or I wonder if that is supposed to be stupid too, in terms of a private and contextual definition of stupidity that SG alone can provide, and perhaps could be required to fill out with something more than attitude. After all, sometimes “stupid” is used in certain agonistic contexts quite affectionately, e.g.” you and you’re stupid teasing, who knows when to take you seriously?” (this is, of course, an invented example).
I think that the grammar, both linguistic and conceptual, of much of what SG manages to publish in his own name is incorrect, but perhaps he consciously wants to keep his own productions ambiguous, hoping that his benevolent readers will project intelligence rather than stupidity onto his uninformed attitudinal ramblings. I felt sorry for intruding into his habitual hi-jinks, but I was curious as to his reasons (if any) for calling my post “stupid”. After all SG is an acolyte of the little that he manages to “take away” from Zizek (as if a philosopher were a conceptual pizza), and “stupid” is a technical concept developped in Zizek’s book LESS THAN NOTHING. But SG is a connaisseur of attitude and links, not of texts and concepts, so no response except infantile deletion of the adverse argument was all that he was capable of.
NOTE: I don’t usually talk about Heidegger and his relation to Nazism, as I don’t care one way or another about his philosophical reputation, but certain structural aspects of the debate on his Nazism interest me as they have potentially more general application.
Update: SG engaged with me on facebook and decided to repost this old post. For the latest context see: https://www.facebook.com/terence.blake/posts/10207023564967609?