Materialist metaphysics, as practiced by Spinoza, Nietzsche, or Deleuze and Guattari, has proven incapable of accounting for fundamental moral convictions. Nietzsche is at least radical enough to acknowledge this incommensurability and draw the corresponding conclusions. If one is unwilling to accept this, the only remaining path is to adopt the "view from eternity" alongside metaphysics: from that vantage point, one can only unconditionally affirm a groundless reality. Perhaps, however, the more promising answer is that of Emmanuel Levinas: his materialism allows morality to emerge from the encounter with the Other, and in doing so, he almost incidentally shatters the unity of metaphysics that even such radical thinkers as Deleuze and Guattari still took for granted.

‍

Read the the first part.

Exactly 250 years ago, on the 4^th of July 1776, thirteen North American British colonies declared their independence from the mother country, soon thereafter forming one of the first modern democratic republics of the world, the United States of America. We took this anniversary as an occasion to speak with the Canadian Nietzsche scholar Willow Verkerk about the different approaches to Nietzsche in Europe and North America. To what extent is this thinker, so deeply embedded in European culture, read differently “here” to “there”? What does this tell about general cultural differences between Europe and its erstwhile colonies on the other side of the ocean? And what did Nietzsche himself think about the “New World”?

‍

After discussing Jonas Čeika's book How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle and bis YouTube channel (CCK Philosophy) (link), Henry Holland interviewed the American about the blockages of academic philosophy, Nietzsche's relevance as a thinker on the “guideline of the body,” and about tensions between his claim as an anti-philosopher and his social position.