Since as far back antiquity, philosophers have been inquiring into the nature of conflict. One of the most prominent ideas to have dominated this inquiry is that conflict represents an undesirable... Show moreSince as far back antiquity, philosophers have been inquiring into the nature of conflict. One of the most prominent ideas to have dominated this inquiry is that conflict represents an undesirable part of life, one that stands opposed to the ideals of harmony, co-operation and consensus. Nietzsche, however, rejects this position, proffering various arguments for why we ought to positively value conflict. Yet Nietzsche’s stance is by no means unambigious. Commentators sharply disagree regarding the specific form of conflict to which his endorsement refers. His “hard” readers present him as a warmonger, who predominantly advocates unmeasured, destructive types of struggle (e.g. war). Conversely, Nietzsche’s “soft” readers claim that he exclusively promotes a measured, agonal mode of struggle modelled on the non-violent contests (or agons) that pervaded ancient Greek culture. I contend that both of these readings are one-sided and require modification. Indeed, the thesis that this dissertation defends is that Nietzsche promotes both measured and unmeasured struggle in an entirely coherent manner. I further argue that commentators have neglected the most significant form of conflict in Nietzsche’s thought, which is characterised by a combination of measured and unmeasured conflict. This species of struggle is analogous to the biological process of digestion, which simultaneously involves 1) a measured struggle to incorporate that which is deemed serviceable to the organism, and 2) an unmeasured struggle to eliminate material deemed redundant or harmful. This dualistic struggle is what I term organisational conflict on account of the fact that both incorporation and exclusion form part of a single overarching impetus to establish healthy organisation. Show less
A reconstruction of the Théorie du Pouvoir, the first and major work of the French philosopher Louis de Bonald, shows that this work is best being read along the lines of political classicism: its... Show moreA reconstruction of the Théorie du Pouvoir, the first and major work of the French philosopher Louis de Bonald, shows that this work is best being read along the lines of political classicism: its syllogistic structure consists of a philosophical (deductive) maior, a historical (empirical) minor, and the political conclusion that the aristocratic authority and corporative forms characteristic of the preabsolutist era rather than ancien régime monarchy should be restored. As much as a frontal attack on the French Revolution and its Enlightenment ideas it can be regarded as a subtle defense of the nobility’s cause against absolutist policies. The common view that Bonald was a champion of absolutism should be replaced by the view that he continued Montesquieu and prefigured Tocqueville. As an archetypical conservative Bonald cannot be said to be a mere precursor of fascism. This is demonstrated in the epilogue, which discusses the ways that Bonald’s ideas have been transmitted, adopted and transformed not just by the modern extreme-right but also by French royalism, German romanticism, panslavism, carlism, conservatism in Latin and Northern America, Dutch neocalvinism, French liberalism, the Catholic Church, corporatism, christian-democracy, the social sciences, socialism, anarchism, men of letters, esoteric traditionalism and islamic fundamentalism. Show less
