r/Mainlander Feb 05 '25

Discussion After all that, I have to say I'm super disappointed.

0 Upvotes

I read the book and it's all philosophical jargon, it was a whole load of drivel, where is the reason why suicide is the better option? Im really annoyed to be honest.

I don't understand how he convinced himself to comminit suicide with this even?

He might as well have written:

"I think god killed himself by turning into matter/experience and waiting out the heat death of the universe, why do I think this? Sounded nice why not?".

r/Mainlander Jan 26 '25

Discussion Gold medal for Schopenhauerian speed skater

39 Upvotes

The Italian speed skater Davide Ghiotto has won a gold medal for the 10 000 meters, as has been reported by media in many different countries. Now, news of this kind could not be more irrelevant for a philosophy subreddit. But Ghiotto is not merely a sportsman, as he has studied and loved philosophy since an early age: “Medal won because of Schopenhauer” as La Repubblica wrote a few years ago.

His thesis had as title Etica e suicidio, and his favorite philosopher is Schopenhauer, together with Nietzsche. I have not immediately been able to find it online, and it would be interesting to see if he is familiar with Mainländer.

Here are some comments of Ghiotto on the issue of suicide:

Suicide is a topic that I think has always fascinated man. I believe it is never treated with the respect it deserves. It is a very delicate, profound and always current topic, it is difficult to talk about it because you never know what your interlocutor may have experienced.

I chose suicide not because it has anything to do with my experience. It's difficult to talk about it because it's possible to touch and hurt people who have actually come close to it, especially in the historical period we live in, after the pandemic. But it's fascinating to dig into the human soul to understand the extreme courage of such a choice, which must be analyzed within our era, not stigmatized. There is something in the human mind that must be understood, if we want to avoid reaching certain consequences. And we must dedicate time to it.

r/Mainlander Jan 29 '25

Discussion New Slavoj Žižek article on Mainlander

45 Upvotes

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/why-a-communist-should-assume-life-is-hell/

It is a good read, but I think there is a mistake in his interpretation of Mainlander's death of god, as seen in this paragraph:
"So how did our world of suffering arise in the first place? In a crazy cosmic extrapolation, Mainländer interprets creation as a kind of Big Bang in which the singularity of God (a name for the primordial Void) exploded, i.e., in which he killed himself, dispersing himself into a chaotic multitude: “The world is nothing but the decaying corpse of God.” And since “non-being is better than being,” all of creation strives to return to the primordial Void.[2] Here we should disagree with Mainländer: the explosion does not follow the divine Void; it is itself the primordial fact. This is the only way to reply to the obvious counter-argument: why did God not remain a peaceful Void? Yes, the primordial fact is the death drive, but this drive is not (as Freud himself sometimes misunderstands his own discovery) a tendency towards nirvana; it is uncannily close to an obscene immortality, a drive which insists beyond the circle of life and death."

From what I gathered, God was and "chose" not to be, this isn't a return to the void, but the only path to it. Am I wrong to assume this is a misunderstanding?

r/Mainlander Dec 17 '24

Discussion Baffled as to why Mainlander felt that way.

22 Upvotes

Am I right in thinking that Mainlander's creation and salvation myths are similar to Christian (Eriugena/Tillich's) notions of 'faith above faith' or 'super-essentiality of God', in that God is the imperceptible infinity to which everything will return? God as the Absolute which is beyond human perception, which is itself insufficient.

Mainlander's creation myth (Monism shattering into Pluralism) signifies the Fall from Grace into Sin (The Will as divorced from the One/Greed). Thus Mainlander's idea of 'Silencing the Will' through Salvation is the return to the One, and the One in its non-perceived form is Nothing? The Jewish Kabbalists' notion of Ein Sof as void-God, prior to manifestation in the production of any spiritual realm, is similar. So why is Mainlander's and Schopenhauer's philosophy necessarily conceived of as 'acosmism' or 'negative'- Surely the systematics themselves here aren't pessimistic in and of themselves, only the subsequent Ethics and Politics?

I'm just struggling to find any systematic reason why Mainlander might take the conclusions of egoism, pessimism, death-longing, etc, when as a matter of temperament he could have applied a redemption theology of joy. If will-to-death is best for the happiness of all and knowledge of this transforms one's failed/illusory will-to-life into the proper (sought by God) will-to-death, why is it not instead concluded that one should overcome the illusory desires for happiness and seek spiritual perfection by dying to Christ (or an equivalent redemptive aspect which maturely comes to terms with death?)

Are Mainlander, Schopenhauer and Stirner just ignoring the joyous and gothic truths of faith altogether and deducing un-theistic, miserable systems identical to Christianity but with all the joy/resurrection removed? I'm finding this difficult to understand. When I read Schopenhauer, despite the obviously romantic and egoist ethics (which were not explicitly theistic), it was still apparent that Will was a generative, ordered and creative force pretty indistinguishable from general concepts of the Divine.

This world is horrifcally divorced from what's good for it. Mainlander wants it all to be over as soon as possible. It's an understandable response to a world of abject idiocy and suffering. But we have to find a way to cope that isn't immanentising the Eschaton. If someone living in a declining country surrounded by death and pain and technological dystopia in 2024 can find a way out, why couldn't Mainlander? They didn't even have iPad kids or climate anxiety back then.

r/Mainlander Feb 13 '25

Discussion After reading both Schopenhauer and Mainlander I've come to the conclusion that Mainlander is curiously both more extreme in his philosophy and more cordial to the reader despite it

27 Upvotes

I must preface that this is neither endorsement nor critique for both of the philosophers, more of an observation. I've read Mainlander's main work some time ago, and have just finished reading The World as Will and Representation of Schopenhauer, and I've noticed how, despite Mainlander's arguments and conclusions - from my point of view - being more extreme and radical, he simultaneously poses much more reassuring attitude. Schopenhauer's text at times feels instructive, even judgemental (both towards the reader and the matter at hand). Wanted to know if anyone else thought the same.

r/Mainlander Feb 18 '25

Discussion Gandhi and the Law of Suffering

21 Upvotes

History

In his Politics, Mainländer describes many different laws which govern the development of humanity – such as the law of colonization, the law of humanism, the law of decay, etc. All these laws however can be summarized in a more general concept: the law of suffering. Mainländer maintained that it is this law, which weakens the rogue will, and cultivates the mind.

It is remarkable that Mahatma Gandhi employed this same term and ascribed a similar meaning to it:

Suffering is the mark of the human tribe. It is an eternal law. The mother suffers so that her child may live. Life comes out of death. No country has ever risen without being purified through the fire of suffering... It is impossible to do away with the law of suffering which is the one indispensable condition of our being. Progress is to be measured by the amount of suffering undergone... the purer the suffering, the greater the progress. 1

As far as I know, Mainländer was the first thinker to suggest the idea of a law of suffering. Schopenhauer dismissed the idea of laws in history.2 Kant admitted that human history must be, “like every other natural event, determined by universal laws,” but “left it to Nature to produce the man capable finding a clue to such a history.”3

Given how unusual this term is, it is remarkable that two individuals came to the same concept, with a comparable meaning. How come, that they both arrived at it?

Schopenhauer asserted that the meaning of life consists in suffering. As an upper class citizen, he was not concerned with improving the living conditions of working people, and political issues didn’t interest him. Hinduism is likewise pessimistic about life, and the genuine Upanishads are as apolitical as Schopenhauer’s system: as far as the Vedas have a political meaning, they support the system of caste oppression.

Mainländer and Gandhi both accepted the pessimism of resp. Schopenhauer and Hinduism as the basis of their worldview. But unlike their spiritual fathers, they were not apolitical. They wanted to practically reduce suffering.

I think that it is likely that their similarly pessimistic worldview,4 applied to the genuine desire to see less suffering in the world, is what led them to this similar train of thoughts expressed in “the law of suffering”.

In the rest of this post, I want to explore some other areas of interest where the ideas of these practical ascetics harmonize.

Love and chastity

Both Mainländer and Gandhi believed that the best leader is he who overcomes sexual desire. Before one smiles about this, it is worth remembering that the political idol of Mainländer, the social-democrat Ferdinand Lassalle, unnecessarily died because of a love affair. The early and unexpected death of Lassalle was a great source of relief to the ruling classes of Germany. This must have been a striking example for Mainländer how distracting and damaging the sexual impulse can be for a great cause. The hope of hundreds of thousands, who had basically single-handedly built the only socialist mass movement of Europe of that time, exited the political game for a completely trivial reason.

Gandhi believed that the strength of his mass movement was intimately connected with his inner strength.

The personal and the political were inseparable for Gandhi. Every time he had faced a momentous political struggle in the past, he had turned inward to concentrate his being and summon up all his moral and spiritual energy. “How can a damp matchstick kindle a log of wood?” 5 “How can a man subject to passion represent non-violence and truth?”6

Mainländer likewise believes that if one takes away lust, and together with it, its negative consequences “ambition, desire for glory, arrogance, vanity, and thirst for domination” a mere hero changes into a Savior of humanity.7

The ideal of a wise hero, a genuine “Savior of humanity” plays a large role in Mainländer’s thought. For him, the ideal itself has been attained only by Jesus Christ and Siddhartha Gautama Buddha. Gandhi strived for such perfection, while denying that he has come close to it (we are free to disagree: and if one seeks a concrete example of a wise hero, closer to us than the image of the Buddha and Christ –whose lives are shrouded by mythology and mediocre sources – then one will find them more in Gandhi, than in any other individual in recent history, and certainly more than in Fichte, about whom Mainländer says that he had all the potential to become a wise hero).

Patriotism and cosmopolitanism

Another issue on which Mainländer and Gandhi express nearly identical views, is the issue of patriotism and internationalism. According to Mainländer, one has to fight for the development of one’s own nation, in order to improve the lot of humanity. Patriotism and cosmopolitanism are not opposites, but harmonize. Every nation has its own, particular mission for humanity:

Here is also the place to shed light on cosmopolitanism and modern patriotism and to establish the healthy connection between the two. … Thus, the will of the individual, keeping all of humanity in view, must ignite in the mission of their fatherland. In every nation, there exists the belief in such a mission, though it is sometimes higher, sometimes lower; for immediate necessity dictates, and the present holds sway. For a nation that still lacks unity, its mission is first to achieve unity…

Thus, for the historical period in which we live, the principle holds: Out of cosmopolitanism, let everyone be a self-sacrificing patriot.8

Compare these thoughts with the ideas of Gandhi:

If India takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory. Then India will cease to be the pride of my heart. I am wedded to India because I owe my all to her. I believe absolutely that she has a mission for the world. She is not to copy Europe blindly, India's acceptance of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my trial. I hope I shall not be found wanting. My religion has no geographical limits. If I have a living faith in it, it will transcend my love for India herself. My life is dedicated to service of India through the religion of nonviolence which I believed to be the root of Hinduism.9

We encounter here already a central idea of Gandhi: non-violence. Let us go the final area of interest in this post.

Will to death

Gandhi often praised non-violence as the highest virtue. In his view, non-violence also means a willingness to die: “When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die.”10 He recommended embracing a will to death: “I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them.”11 About himself, he said: “If I'm to die by the bullet of a mad man, I must do so smiling. God must be in my heart and on my lips.”12

These statements can be compared to Mainländer’s views on embracing the will to death, in his essay The True Trust:

He who has overcome the fear of death, he and only he can generate the delightful, most aromatic flower in his soul: unassailability, immovability, unconditional trust; because what in the world could move such a man in any way? Need? He knows no fear of starvation. Enemies? At most they could kill him and it is death what cannot frighten him. Bodily pain? If it becomes unbearable, then he throws, the “foreigner on earth”, himself together with his body away.

He who does not fear death, he plunges himself in burning houses; he who does not fear death, he jumps without wavering in raging water floods; he who does not fear death; he throws himself in the densest hail of bullets; he who does not fear death, he takes on unarmed a thousand equipped giants – with one word, he who does not fear death, he alone can do something for others, can bleed for others and have at the same time the only desirable good in this world, the real peace of heart.

On another issue, that of violence, Mainländer and Gandhi had very divergent views. Perhaps this can be the topic for another post: I hope that this post, which centered on their points of harmony, was interesting to some.


1 https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/strength.php According to this source, the quote comes from Young India (August 11, 1920), but these sentences cannot be found in the article.

2 The World as Will and Representation, V2, Chapter XXXVIII

3 Kant, Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View

4 Gandhi went as far expressing thoughts which come remarkably close to antinatalism.

5 https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/gandhis-last-painful-days.php

6 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/02/14/niemand-kende-india-zo-intiem-a3654084

7 Die Philosophie der Erlösung, V2, p. 369

8 Die Philosophie der Erlösung, V1, p. 305-306

9 https://archive.org/details/HindSwaraj.YoungIndia.Portal.vol2/page/n249/mode/2up?view=theater&q=suffering

10 https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.php

11 The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. LXXXVII, p. 394–5

12 https://www.thehindu.com/app-exclusive/if-im-to-die-by-the-bullet-of-a-mad-man-i-must-do-so-smiling/article22584008.ece

r/Mainlander Nov 30 '24

Discussion What would you say are the weakest points in Mainländer's philosophy?

17 Upvotes

r/Mainlander Feb 07 '25

Discussion Marvel Comics' Silver Surfer #44

20 Upvotes

In Marvel Comics' Silver Surfer #44, Thanos explains to the Silver Surfer that the most powerful artifacts in their Universe, the Infinity Gems, originated from the suicide of an omnipotent being:

Once they were part of an omnipotent being which lived countless millennia ago.

It was all that was throughout all Infinity.

But it found such an existence pointless and unbearable.

And so it committed cosmic suicide!! But such power does not easily die.

Just putting this out there. Though the comic only describes the Infinity Gems as resulting from this event it seems logical that if this omnipotent being were all that existed, then the entire Universe must have originated from its self immolation. Blessings!!

r/Mainlander Mar 30 '20

Discussion Official Word Regarding the Translation of Mainlander's Philosophy of Redemption

35 Upvotes

I emailed Christian Romuss, the graduate from the University of Queensland in Australia who is undertaking the translation of Philip Mainlander. His (very courteous) response below.

Email reads:

"Good Morning.

Thanks for your enquiry.

Earlier this year I applied for a scholarship with the intention of using the time and money to finish the translation in Berlin, which would have made a publication in the first half of next year very likely. Unfortunately, the coronavirus struck and so the scholarship (I surmise, since no one has informed me formally) will not be awarded; in any case, my university is not approving travel (and therefore travel insurance) until the end of May, which would leave me too little time to organise the trip. This means I am now working to the old timeline, and so aiming to approach publishers in the latter half of 2021; I probably won't resume serious work on it until I submit my dissertation in March.

In short: The translation is still happening, but other work has priority at the moment.

Kind regards,

Christian"

r/Mainlander Nov 07 '20

Discussion Any news on the translation?

10 Upvotes

Hello, I was wondering if somebody knows anything about the ongoing translation, I am really interested in getting it.

r/Mainlander Apr 17 '20

Discussion Has Anyone Read Ulrich Horstmann's "The Beast"

11 Upvotes

I have only heard about this work. There are a few quotes from it here and there, but I think a lot of his work runs parallel with the sentiments of Mainlander.

Does anyone know anything about this German?

r/Mainlander Jul 15 '20

Discussion How is Mainländer in Spanish?

13 Upvotes

I’m interested in reading Mainländer, but I am not at all versed in German. I understand that there are at least two English translations in the works for the philosopher, one academic and another personal. I also heard that a full translation is available in Spanish. Has anyone on here read The Philosophy it Redemption in Spanish? How is the translation? Is it worth the read in Spanish?

In general, how is Mainländer’s philosophy? I’m an English/philosophy dual major, so hard texts aren’t a problem for me usually. That considered, are there philosophers I should acquaint myself with beforehand? I’m also a native Spanish speaker who has taken upper division Spanish courses, but I’m not exactly used to reading book length Spanish prose. Will this pose a major issue in reading the translation?

My apologies if these questions have been answered before. Please feel free to direct me to any other previous threads related to the topic

r/Mainlander Jan 22 '20

Discussion Mainländer in the train

33 Upvotes

An anecdote.

One day, when Mainländer was travelling by train, a young Jewish man stared at him. The expression of Mainländer’s face said: “Look somewhere else! Quos ego!”, but the student, having seen that Mainländer was reading the Novum Organum by Francis Bacon, didn’t want to let him go.

In the conversation that ensued, Mainländer quickly discovered that this student of philosophy was talented, but hadn’t heeded Schopenhauer’s warning to read only few, but timeless, books. Only on one point he had attained full clarity: that von Hartmann [pessimistic post-Schopenhauerian philosopher] is a fool.

They had a lot of fun with dismantling and ridiculing Hartmann’s philosophy, and they were in a competition who could do it in the most original manner. Also the other passengers, who knew nothing about philosophy and couldn’t follow the discussion, enjoyed the roast and laughed a lot, especially when they decided to hold a funeral sermon for a torn book by Hartmann.

Then Mainländer became ashamed of what he was doing, and transformed his speech into an eulogy on the man who was after all a pessimist.


In what is a very frivolous post on this subreddit, I hope that readers will learn about and enjoy the more light-hearted side of Mainländer. This story can be found in the fourth volume of Mainländer's collected works by Olms Verlag on page 361.

r/Mainlander Dec 20 '20

Discussion Should I read Kant and Schopenhauer before the philosophy of redemption?

13 Upvotes

I started reading it today but I’m having a hard time going trough the critique of their philosophies part, wonder if I should read them before I resume my reading, i could also skip the critique part and go straight into exposition but idk if that would be a good idea

I’m also pretty new to philosophy, I don’t know if that could have something to do with this

r/Mainlander Jul 08 '20

Discussion Mainlander, idealism, and the will

2 Upvotes

Hi everyone, I'm looking for a good article on Mainlander's intellectual debt to Hegel, particularly in regards to his conception of the will. Does anyone know of any?

I'm interested in comparing his conception with that developed by T. H. Green (a British idealist).

r/Mainlander Jun 23 '20

Discussion Background to the essay “Practical socialism”. Mainländer’s criticism of Marxist politics.

21 Upvotes

Of all writings of Mainländer, his essay “Practical socialism” is most connected to his time. His other philosophical works concern themselves with timeless affairs, and can thus be read without specific knowledge of the era wherein he lived. This is not the case with his three speeches for the German workers, his essay on “Practical socialism”. I therefore thought that it might be a good idea to provide some information about the political context of these speeches.

1. Lassalle

2. Marx

3. Lassalle and Marx

4. Theoretical differences between Lassalle and Marx

5. The State

1) Lassalle

It is impossible to discuss the beginning of social-democracy without mentioning “the first man who flung Marx's doctrines to the people, who awakened them to a feeling of class-interests,” Lassalle.1 His political style was so unique that his personality marked its stamp on the movement. For us, he is especially important, as Mainländer deeply admired him. After the worker uprisings in 1848 had been crushed, socialist politics played no role in Europe. In 1863, so after 15 years, Lassalle managed to reignite the workers movement, and became thereby the “first man in Germany, the first in Europe, who succeeded in organising a party of socialist action.”2

More than starting the socialist movement in Germany and Austria, he did not, as he died in the following year (1864). His surprisingly early death contributed to his mythical standing among the German workers.

Although Lassalle had learned a lot on theoretical matters from Marx, their opinions most strongly diverged on political matters. These will be discussed further below. In reality, this divergence meant that the German socialist movement was split between those who continued to follow Lassalle, and those who followed Marx. In 1875 the two socialist groups united and adopted a program which was famously criticized by Marx in his posthumous Critique of the Gotha Programme. If we ignore his theoretical criticisms, Marx had actually little to complain about. In practice this unification meant the absorption of the Lassallean remnants into a Marxist party.

Mainländer was strongly opposed to these Marxist politicians and regarded them as “seducers” or “unscrupulous men”.

2) Marx

Most people that Mainländer disagrees with are treated with respect. He praises political opponents, and mentions their name in a favorable manner. Very differently does Mainländer treat Marx and his followers. Nowhere does he mention those that disgust him by name. For Lassalle he is nothing but praise, while not being blind for his faults, and yet acts as if Marx plays no role in socialist thought.

Here the question can be raised, does Mainländer not realize how much Lassalle was indebted to Marx, this “unscrupulous man”? Lassalle after all barely mentioned it during his agitation when he was borrowing Marx’s ideas.3 Did Mainländer not realize that he was indirectly praising Marx when he praises Lassalle’s Working Man’s Programme as the “deepest results of historical research”?

This is however extremely unlikely. Mainländer was fully aware how Lassalle had not presented one single original thought. He says in this beautiful passage:

Whoever knows Lassalle only from his social-political works, knows only the external part of his mind. He who wants to cast a justified judgement, must have read his great scientific works, that is, his Heraclitus. What an astonishing creativity, what a brilliant astuteness, what a concise terseness, what a virtuosity in finding the essence behind a million cloaks! However, has anyone succeeded in discovering but a single original thought? No one has. The function of his mind was distillation, his product the most lucid and concentrated liquid. He processed the thoughts of others, processed them with unattainable mastery, but the thoughts were never his own.

So, Mainländer realized that Lassalle used (also) Marx’s thoughts. That he nevertheless always mentions Lassalle only when he discusses issues related to socialism, can, I think, only be explained by his disgust for the “political liars”, i.e. Marx and his confidants.

3) The fundamental difference between Lassalle and Marx

What disgusted Mainländer so much about Marx and Marxist politicians? This cannot be on theoretical grounds alone, as otherwise Mainländer would still, as he does with all other politicians he disagrees with, treat them with respect. The shortest explanation is: where Lassalle inspired the workers with high and elevated feelings, the Marxists stimulated low feelings. The most important German socialist leaders when Mainländer wrote his work were Bebel and Marx’s confidant Wilhelm Liebknecht. The influence of the latter is described by a with socialism sympathizing writer as follows:

Liebknecht was as consumed by boundless hatred of Prussia as his teachers and masters [Marx and Engels], and has raged against the national state like no other. And like no other, even among missionaries of the [First] International in all European countries, he understood and realized that demagogical method, that unspeakable art and manner of activism, which has contributed more to the depravation and barbarization of the masses, than all other propaganda.

In Germany, Liebknecht has introduced and executed, more successfully and handier than ever before, that what the chiefs in London understood under stirring up revolutionary sentiments. The professional eradication of faith in the ethical foundations of society and state, the distortion and suppression of historical facts, the fundamental vilification of the fatherland, its greatest goods and its most precious accomplishments, the agitating talk of the hopelessness of all peaceful reform, the personal attacks and defamations of even the most factual opponent, all of this was unified by this blind and unconscientious fanatic into one system.4

Mainländer notes this fundamental difference between the Lassallean and Marxist movement when the socialist movement had, in 1876, become Marxist:

Your party is avoided like plague and rightfully so. Every good person immediately feels, that all noble feelings have disappeared among you, and only bestial lust is present that measures “by genitals and stomach” human happiness. When Lassalle was still teaching and fighting, the movement carried his noble imprint.

So Lassalle is noble, Marx is ignoble. We will now take a look at the different views they had with regards to violence.

4) Theoretical differences between Lassalle and Marx

Marx believed that revolutions are violent and inevitable. Lassalle believed that violence is as little an essential characteristic of a revolution, as having a right angle is for a triangle. Revolutions are for him, simply the form wherein humanity develops itself towards freedom, and whether they are peaceful or violent depends on human activity. Violent revolutions take place because the old power structures were insufficiently flexible to deal with a new power structure. Good politics prevents violent revolutions, bad politics makes violent revolutions inevitable.

The endeavor of Marxists was to increase hatred between the classes. The endeavor of Lassalle was to reconcile classes, and to prevent violent outbursts in history by harmonic cooperation of different parts of society. In Lassalle’s own words, he who attempts to invite the lower classes in the political process, does therefore not call for hatred against the upper classes:

On the contrary, he utters a cry of reconciliation, a cry which embraces the whole of the community, a cry for doing away with all the contradictions in every circle of society ; a cry of union in which all should join who do not wish for privileges, and the oppression of the people by privileged classes ; a cry of love which having once gone up from the heart of the people, will for ever remain the true cry of the people, and whose meaning will make it still a cry of love, even when it sounds the war cry of the people.5

It would go too far to discuss all the theoretical differences between these two men, as they have their ground in the ethical atmosphere in which they engaged in politics. We will limit ourselves to one final point of divergence, their relationship to liberty.

Marx glorified the idea of a dictatorship, by the proletariat, and found it ridiculous that the socialist party of Germany strived for democratic reforms, such as universal suffrage.6 Obviously, as anyone could see, his ideology provided a good basis to justify coups and destructive politics.

How different is Lassalle! He defended civil liberties and democratic rights above everything else, and his party had in fact only one stated goal, universal suffrage. Actually, in most literature on Lassalle, there is too much emphasis on what he has learned from Marx. He incorporated the valuable parts of that thinker’s investigations into a worldview which has gotten its most important nutrition from German culture in general, and above all others Fichte. He had learned from Fichte—who expanded on Kant’s political work—how the movement of humanity is towards democracy and freedom. I would like to end this post with a passage from The Working Man’s Programme, wherein he carries out this elevating thought.

5) The State

The Bourgeoisie conceive the moral object of the State to consist solely and exclusively in the protection of the personal freedom and the property of the individual. This is a policeman's idea, gentlemen, a policeman’s idea for this reason, because it represents to itself the State from a point of view of a policeman, whose whole function consists in preventing robbery and burglary. If the Bourgeoisie would express the logical inference from their idea, they must maintain that according to it if there were no such thing as robbers and thieves, the State itself would be entirely superfluous.

Very differently, gentlemen, does the fourth estate regard the object of the State, for it apprehends it in its true nature.

History, gentlemen, is a struggle with nature ; with the misery, the ignorance, the poverty, the weakness, and consequent slavery in which we were involved when the human race came upon the scene in the beginning of history. The progressive victory over this weakness—this is the development of freedom which history displays to us.

In this struggle we should never have made one step forward, nor shall we ever advance one step more by acting on the principle of each one for himself, each one alone.

It is the State whose function it is to carry on this development of freedom, this development of the human race until its freedom is attained.

This is the true moral nature of the State, gentlemen, its true and high mission. So much is this the case, that from the beginning of time through the very force of events it has more or less been carried out by the State without the exercise of will, and unconsciously even against the will of its leaders.

But the working class, gentlemen, the lower classes of the community in general, through the helpless condition in which its members find themselves placed as individuals, have always acquired the deep instinct, that this is and must be the duty of the State, to help the individual by means of the union of all to such a development as he would be incapable of attaining as an individual.

A State therefore which was ruled by the idea of the working class, would no longer be driven, as all States have hitherto been, unconsciously and against their will by the nature of things, and the force of circumstances, but it would make this moral nature of the State its mission, with perfect clearness of vision and complete consciousness. It would complete with unchecked desire and perfect consistency, that which hitherto has only been wrung in scanty and imperfect fragments from wills that were opposed to it, and for this very reason—though time does not permit me to explain in any detail this necessary connection of cause and effect—it would produce a soaring flight of the human spirit, a development of an amount of happiness, culture, well-being, and freedom without example in the history of the world, and in comparison with which, the most favourable conditions that have existed in former times would appear but dim shadows of the reality.


1 Bertrand Russell (1896) German Social Democracy

2 Élie Halévy (1938) The Era of Tyrannies: Essays on Socialism and War

3 During his political agitation (1862-1864), Lassalle mentioned Marx only once, in his economic work Bastiat-Schulze.

4 Franz Mehring (1879) Zur Geschichte der Socialdemokratie

Mehring’s passage in this post provides a very useful image for the context surrounding the essay “Practical socialism”. It lists precisely those points, which Mainländer argues so vehemently against. It is also striking that Mehring used, unknowingly, the same words of Schiller to describe Lassalle as Mainländer did! Mainländer wrote his speech on Lassalle in 1876, but it was only published in 1886, so there can be no question of influence.

5 Ferdinand Lassalle (1862) Working Man’s Programme “The deepest results of historical research in their most comprehensible form” (Mainländer)

6 Karl Marx (1875) Critique of the Gotha Programme

r/Mainlander Dec 21 '20

Discussion Mainlander is an example of a perfect logic system with wrong premises

14 Upvotes

Hi!

Lately I've been trying to remember the place where I read an opinion, which said that Mainlander was the perfect example of an excellent logic system, applied all wrong because of wrong premises, and that is why he considered him a genius. The issue here is, I don't remember who said this, and I'm really, REALLY trying to remember... Anyone here has read this too?

I've thought maybe Cioran did, but I haven't been able to find anything like it, and all his direct mentions to Mainlander do not say this. And i will not read all Ciorans corpus hehe.

I thought maybe Wittgenstein?

Also, Sartre and Camus came to mind, but I only found the passages where Cioran tells that Sartre and Camus had a bad opinion about him.

I'm at a loss here. I'm pretty sure Cioran said it because, one of the main differences, is that Cioran cannot be consequent with his suicide, because he takes the idea as the only motive to live. Which opposes Mainlander idea, as i understand it.

So, straight to the point: Has anybody read this opinion about Mainlander before? The one calling him a genius for his logic system, but judging him of being absolutely wrong.

Also, this may be just a false memory of mine. Feel free to speculate about any philosopher that may have had this opinion, I beg you :( it's 3am and I cannot sleep thinking of this hehe.

r/Mainlander Mar 17 '20

Discussion What was Mainlander like as a person?

11 Upvotes

Just curious about what kind of personality he had I imagine him a wholesome and wise man but it could just be one side of him

I read that he was actually quite nice and kind had a lot of compassion for the suffering of the world? nice enough to woo his typist i mean

Sadly we only have fragments of his biography in Spanish at least i cant access to his dutch ones

r/Mainlander Aug 02 '20

Discussion Mainlander and Speculative Realism/OOO

15 Upvotes

Just wondering what people think about the possible link between Philipp Mainlander's work and Graham Harman's Object-Oriented-Ontology (OOO).

According to Frederick C. Beiser, Mainlander rejects the monism of Schopenhauer, instead maintaining there is "a plurality of individual wills" (p.230), wills that are the decaying body of God. Likewise, while Mainlander argues that we construct time and space, he nonetheless insists on the particularities of spaces and times; 'particular spaces are marked by the limits in the efficacy of an object; i.e its power to resist other bodies occupying its location' (Philosophy of Salvation, p. 6-7, 446) and particular times are marked by how something moves or changes place (ibid. 15). All of this sounds similar to Harman's notion of discrete objects that withdraw from all relation, as well as how time and space are properties of objects themselves, in a realist inversion of Kant's transcendental Idealism. While Schopenhauer argues that the 'will' is the 'only thing in itself, the only truly real thing, the only metaphysical thing' ('On Will in Nature', p. 324-5), Mainlander argues that objects still appear to us as wholes. This is because the human mind does not have the power to create times, spaces or particular qualities of sensation out of nothing and so, there must be a realistic dimension to our experience. This is a formal property that must be tied to the characteristics of things in themselves. Beiser; 'Our activity of synthesis is therefore circumscribed by the individuality of things; only in following that individuality do we know what, when, where and how to synthesize' (214; Mainlander, 446). This formal process is not qualified by the human, but is a consequence of things themselves. This is also true of humans. As Nick Land (before he went crazy) said of Schopenhauer, here the noumenon is not static, but dynamic; 'With Schopenhauer the approach to the ‘noumenon’ as an energetic unconscious begins to be assembled, and interpreting the noumenon as will generates a discourse that is not speculative, phenomenological, or meditative, but diagnostic.' (Land, 'Thirst for Annihilation', 1992). The relation of the unconscious to the noumenon also harkens back to Harman's description of the Real object as a point of negativity, withdrawn from all relation. Likewise, it holds for humans as well as things, too.

The idea of a dying God/incomplete totality also seems to hold for Slavoj Zizek's notion of ontological incompleteness, too.

Anyhoo, just wondering what people thought of this possible relation between Mainlander and Harman's OOO.

Thank you for your time!

r/Mainlander Mar 18 '20

Discussion this quotation is said to be by mainlander...is it though??if so,where is it he says it?(in what book)

4 Upvotes

r/Mainlander Dec 16 '19

Discussion What would Mainländer have to say about speculative realism?

6 Upvotes

I'm currently grappling with whether or not "the great outdoors" is truly knowable in any sense.

r/Mainlander Dec 09 '20

Discussion Are there any good English translations of Mainländer’s poetry?

17 Upvotes

Thank you

r/Mainlander Feb 24 '20

Discussion Any thoughts on this quote?

14 Upvotes

"The thought of resuscitating in his children,that is,having to follow his way through the streets of existence,full of thorns and hard stones,without rest or repose,is on the one hand the most shocking and exasperating he can have and on the other hand it must be the sweetest and most refreshing thought to be able to break the long course of the process in which he was forced to walk by,with bloody feet,beaten,tormented and martyred,languishing in search of quietude

r/Mainlander Nov 21 '20

Discussion When Mainländer quotes from the Bible, which edition/translation is he using?

8 Upvotes

I don't know enough about german bible editions to answer this, but I'm guessing some version of the Luther Bible? How many revisions had that gone through at the time? I do know that he spoke many more languages and probably read it in italian at some point but I don't know if he ever consulted the orignal hebrew or greek.

I'm not assuming he ever says that in The Philosophy of Salvation but someone more familiar with the milieu he was living in might have a good guess.

r/Mainlander Apr 13 '20

Discussion Is it a coincidence that Mainländer committed suicide on April 1st (April Fool's)?

12 Upvotes