Zitate von Peter Sloterdijk
8 0
Peter Sloterdijk
Geburtstag: 26. Juni 1947
Werbung
Peter Sloterdijk [ˈsloːtɐˌdaɪk] ist ein deutscher Philosoph, Kulturwissenschaftler und Buchautor, der mit seinen Beiträgen und Büchern in Deutschland zahlreiche Debatten ausgelöst hat. Er lehrt an der Staatlichen Hochschule für Gestaltung Karlsruhe Philosophie und Ästhetik.
Ähnliche Autoren
Hans-Peter Dürr2
deutscher Physiker
Max Stirner29
deutscher Philosoph
Andreas Weber6
deutscher Biologe, Philosoph, Publizist
Robert Spaemann9
deutscher Philosoph
Herbert Marcuse10
deutsch-amerikanischer Philosoph und Soziologe
Novalis85
deutscher Dichter der Frühromantik
Henry De Montherlant9
französischer Schriftsteller
Kurt Huber9
deutscher Volksliedforscher, Professor an der Ludwig-Maxi...
August Julius Langbehn8
deutscher Schriftsteller und KulturkritikerZitate Peter Sloterdijk
„Bei der Basis des Systems ist es so, dass der Unterschied zwischen einem Bundeskanzler und einer Packung Frühstücksflocken viel weniger klar ist, als an der Spitze des Systems.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
Das Philosophische Quartett vom 9. April 2006, ZDF
Werbung
„Zynismus ist das aufgeklärte falsche Bewußtsein, an dem Aufklärung zugleich erfolgreich und vergeblich gearbeitet hat.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
Kritik der zynischen Vernunft, 2 Bde., Frankfurt am Main 1983 I/S. 37 f. ISBN 978-3-518-11099-7
„Gegen Maos fröhlichen Exterminismus erscheint Hitler wie ein rachitischer Briefträger.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
FOCUS 31/2005, Interview: "Die Freigabe aller Dinge", S. 54
„Eine bleibende Kulturleistung der 68er besteht darin, dass sie die deutsche Gesellschaft in ein Kollektiv von Halbkranken umgeschaffen haben.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
FOCUS 31/2005, Interview: "Die Freigabe aller Dinge", S. 51
„Aus heutiger Sicht lag die 68er-Bewegung exakt in dem Trend, der zur Konsumgesellschaft führt. Ohne es zu ahnen, waren wir, die westdeutschen Früh-Hedonisten, die Labormäuse des totalen Konsumismus.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
FOCUS 31/2005, Interview: "Die Freigabe aller Dinge", S. 52
„Er war 30 Jahre lang sozusagen das Maß aller Dinge in den Fragen des Bergsteigens, des Alpinismus. Sozusagen unser Mann im ewigen Eis. Sie waren so lange in Nepal, dass die Yetis jetzt sich schon über Sie unterhalten und sich fragen, ob es den Messner wirklich gibt!“
— Peter Sloterdijk
über Reinhold Messner, ZDF, Philosophisches Quartett, 1. Juni 2008
Werbung
„The courtly person (cortegiano, gentilhomme, gentleman, Hofmann) has gone through a training in self-esteem that expresses itself in many ways: in aristocratically pretentious opinions, in polished or majestic manners, in gallant or heroic patterns of feeling as well as in a selective, aesthetic sensitivity for that which is said to be courtly or pretty. The noble, far removed from any self-doubt, should achieve all this with a complete matter-of-factness. Any uncertainty, any doubt in these things signifies a slackening in the nobility’s cultural “identity.” This class narcissism, which has petrified into a form of life, tolerates no irony, no exception, no slips, because such disturbances would give rise to unwelcome reflections. The French nobles did not turn up their noses at Shakespeare’s “barbarism” without reason. In his plays one already “smells” the human ordinariness of those who want to stand before society as the best.
With the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie, the place of the “best” is awarded anew. The bourgeois ego, in an unprecedented, creative storming to the heights of a new class consciousness won for itself an autonomous narcissism.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
p. 62
„The evidence introduced for political pessimism; the criminal, the lunatic, and the asocial individual, in a word, the second-rate citizen —these are not by nature as one finds them now but have been made so by society. It is said that they have never had a chance to be as they would be according to their nature, but were forced into the situation in which they find themselves through poverty, coercion, and ignorance. They are victims of society.
This defense against political pessimism regarding human nature is at first convincing. It possesses the superiority of dialectical thinking over positivistic thinking. It transforms moral states and qualities into processes. Brutal people do not “exist,” only their brutalization; criminality does not “exist,” only criminalization; stupidity does not “exist,” only stupefaction; self-seeking does not “exist,” only training in egoism; there are no second-rate citizens, only victims of patronization. What political positivism takes to be nature is in reality falsified nature: the suppression of opportunity for human beings. Rousseau knew of two aids who could illustrate his point of view, two classes of human beings who lived before civilization and, consequently, before perversion: the noble savage and the child. Enlightenment literature develops two of its most intimate passions around these two figures: ethnology and pedagogy.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
(describing Rousseau’s philosophy) p. 55
„Did not Nietzsche too warn of that “life-destroying enlightenment” that touches on our life-supporting self-delusions? Can we afford to shake up the “basic fictions” of privacy, personality, and identity? Be that as it may, in this question both old and new conservatives have come to the hard decision to take the “stance” of defending, against all the demands of reflection, their “unavoidable lies for living,” without which self-preservation would not be possible. That they are aided in this by the general fear of self-experience, which competes with curiosity about self-experience, does not have to be expressly emphasized. Thus the theater of respectable, closed egos goes on everywhere, even where the means have long been available to secure better knowledge. Crosswise to all political fronts, it is the “ego” in society that offers the most resolute resistance against the decisive enlightenment. Scarcely anyone will put up with radical self-reflection on this point, not even many of those who regard themselves as enlighteners.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
p. 60
„Psychology is familiar with the “eternal victim,” who exploits this position for disguised aggressions. Also belonging to this category, in a broader sense, are those permanent losers as well as medical and political hypochondriacs who lament that conditions are so terrible that it is a great sacrifice on their part not to kill themselves or emigrate. On the German Left, not least of all under the influence of the sociologized schema of the victim, a certain type of renegade has emerged who feels that it is a dirty trick to have to live in this land without summer and without oppositional forces. Nobody can say that such a viewpoint does not know what it is talking about. Its mistake is that it remains blind to itself. For the accusation becomes bound to misery and magnifies it under the subterfuge of unsuspecting critical observations. With the obstinacy of a Sophist, in aggressive self-reification, many a “critical” consciousness refuses to become healthier than the sick whole.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
p. 58
Werbung
„Every naturalism begins as involuntary naïveté. Initially, we cannot help thinking that the “order of things” is an objective order. For the first glance falls on the things and not on the “eyeglasses.” In the work of enlightenment, this first innocence becomes irretrievably lost. Enlightenment leads to the loss of naïveté and it furthers the collapse of objectivism through a gain in self-experience. It effects an irreversible awakening and, expressed pictorially, executes the turn to the eyeglasses, i. e., to one’s own rational apparatus. Once this consciousness of the eyeglasses has been awakened in a culture, the old naïveté loses its charm, becomes defensive, and is transformed into narrow-mindedness, which is intent on remaining as it is. The mythology of the Greeks is still enchanting; that of fascism is only stale and shameless. In the first myth, a step toward an interpretation of the world was taken; in simulated naïveté, an artful stupefaction (Verdummung) is at work—the predominant method of self-integration in advanced social orders.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
p. 59
„The gesture of exposure characterizes the style of argumentation of ideology critique, from the critique of religion in the eighteenth century to the critique of fascism in the twentieth. Everywhere, one discovers extrarational mechanisms of opinion: interests, passions, fixations, illusions. That helps a bit to mitigate the scandalous contradiction between the postulated unity of truth and the factual plurality of opinions—since it cannot be eliminated. Under these assumptions, a true theory would be one that not only grounds its own theses best, but also knows how to defuse all significant and persistent counterpositions through ideology critique.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
p. 18
„From this moment on, the child becomes a political object—to a certain extent, the living security deposit of enlightenment. The child is the “noble savage” in one’s own house. Through appropriate education care must be taken in the future that innocent children are not made into the same artificial social cripples the previous system produced. Children are already what the new bourgeois humans believe they want to become.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
pp. 55-56
„The one version of the bourgeois comprises the artisan, the trader, the official, the financier, and the entrepreneur, all of whom, in their own way, can claim to know what labor is. Juxtaposed to them from the beginning, stands a type of bourgeois who does research, writes poetry, composes and makes music, and philosophizes and who believes that these activities develop a world that is self-sufficient. It is obvious that these two fractions of the bourgeois ego get on only superficially and come together only in the hollow connection of property and cultivation. They create the century-long tension between the good and the evil bourgeois, the idealist and the exploiter, the visionary and the pragmatist, the ideally liberated bourgeois and the laboring bourgeois. This tension remains as inexhaustible as that between the world of work and “freedom” in general.“
— Peter Sloterdijk
pp. 63-64
