Julian Sanchez header image 2

photos by Lara Shipley

Next: A Searing Critique of Augustinian Atheism

July 19th, 2006 · 4 Comments

Oy. So, Chris “Day by Day” Muir has learned that, as a rare right-wing cartoonist, he can build a huge audience without ever actually being, you know, funny or particularly artistically skilled, so long as he reinforces his readers’ worldview consistently. Now he’s moved on to a more ambitious feat: expounding on philosophy without having the slightest fucking clue what he’s talking about. Seriously, “Kantian nihilism?” You’d think if you were going to throw around adjectives like “Kantian,” you’d at the very least acquaint yourself with the kind of napkin-sized, “for Dummies” level summary of what Kant thought that would preclude such nonsensical constructions.

Tags: Art & Culture


       

 

4 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Steven // Jul 19, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    Of course, what Kant and Augustine both have in common is a serious critique that is potentially very dangerous to the political right in this country, which is somehting like: If you believe in God and Truth so much, why are you spending so much time trying to amass political power instead of contemplating their awesome meaning?

  • 2 c // Jul 19, 2006 at 5:12 pm

    As profoundly moronic and off-the-mark as the Kant reference is, Muir manages to top himself with the Schopenhauer reference.

    Have you ever noticed that the guy draws a little like Gary Trudeau?

  • 3 Will Wilkinson // Jul 20, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Sounds a bit Randian to me. Kant argues truth is internal to our conceptual scheme, but that such scheme is transcendentally necessary. But Hegel says, no, it’s historical, and all of a sudden reason isn’t everywhen the same. And Marx says it’s your relationship to the means of production that sets the scheme. And then you get race, gender, etc., as all creating separate, irreconcilable conceptual schemes. Nothing’s true for everybody. Nihilism, I tell you! And it all started with Kant!

  • 4 James // Jul 20, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    It’s more than a bit Randian. It’s pretty much what you get if you use Rand’s interpretation of the history of philosophy as your Cliff Notes crib sheet.