Matthew Barnard comprehends and condemns celeb culture in Heideggerian terms.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/The_Birth_of_Celebrity_Culture_out_of_the_Spirit_of_Philosophy
The Birth of Celebrity Culture out of the Spirit of Philosophy
-
Philosophy Now
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
Re: The Birth of Celebrity Culture out of the Spirit of Philosophy
"In this case, then, being admits of degrees. The measure of such degrees is presence. Something has more being if it has more presence, and less being if it has less presence. Further, true being is not just any sort of presence, but the highest possible degree of presence, constant presence. As said above, for Heidegger philosophy posits the highest possible degree of presence, the most present being, as the highest, most beingly being. This is, in brief, what Heidegger calls ‘onto-theology’. Philosophy always thinks of being as constant presence (Greek onto-, pertaining to being) and always comports itself towards a being that takes constant presence to its extreme, an absolutely constantly present entity: the most beingly being. To say that philosophy worships this entity is going a bit too far, but it does always conduct its investigations with reference to it, even if this reference is only to deny its existence. Traditionally, this most present being is God (Greek theos), understood as an eternal entity present for all eternity in all possible worlds. For Heidegger, in modernity after Descartes this title of ‘the most beingly being’ moves from God to the human subject, the human being: it is the human that has the most being, the most presence. For this reason, humanism arises as the secular religion in the shadow of the death of God."
"To take this back to celebrity culture: celebrities are the most beingly beings of our society. Fame is what defines celebrity. To be famous means to be known by a lot of people. To be known by someone is to be present to them. To be famous is therefore to be present to a lot of people; and the measure of fame is how present the celebrity is to people, understood either as the amount of people that know about them or how constantly they are in the news, on TV, or followed on social media. The most famous people are those who are most constantly present to the most people, and as such we echo the philosophical tradition in idolizing celebrity. The idea of being famous for being famous is therefore not a degradation of the essence of celebrity, it is its authentic completion. "
-Excerpts from Matthew Barnard's Philosophy Now article: The Birth of Celebrity Culture out of the Spirit of Philosophy
Being the opportunistic writer that I am, I can't help but probe this (feel it out (for a possible PN letter. And I would start by pointing out the social/political implications of the above quote and, hence, the individual perspective on ontology. If we really think about what Heidegger is about here, we begin to see his well-known authoritarian nature at work and get some insight into his association with nazism.
And the way we do so is by contrasting it with two other more univocal approaches that are generally known to be more democratic: Deleuze and Rorty. Deleuze is the one that pushed a more univocal approach to Being: the undeniable fact that a thing either is or is not. And I can hardly see (from both an inductive and deductive position (anyway around this. Rorty basically articulated on this by pointing out, in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, that there is no point in talking about ontological status (and note the term "status" (since, once again, a thing either is or isn't.
(And on a side note: I would also point to how Rorty noted, in Heidegger and Other Essays, how Heidegger (as compared to Nietzsche (took the poetic approach to philosophy to that of the esoteric priest: hierarchal thinking. Just something to think about. (
Of course, anyone who might be following what I’ve been saying might see a gotcha moment in my concept of Play in which I argue that things are in order to be experienced and that the more we expand our minds, the further we are from nothingness. But that is just a spectrum of various experiences that either are or are not. And the spectrum starts with something. In other words: once it leaves nothingness it just is; beyond that, there is no point in articulating on how is “is” is.
"To take this back to celebrity culture: celebrities are the most beingly beings of our society. Fame is what defines celebrity. To be famous means to be known by a lot of people. To be known by someone is to be present to them. To be famous is therefore to be present to a lot of people; and the measure of fame is how present the celebrity is to people, understood either as the amount of people that know about them or how constantly they are in the news, on TV, or followed on social media. The most famous people are those who are most constantly present to the most people, and as such we echo the philosophical tradition in idolizing celebrity. The idea of being famous for being famous is therefore not a degradation of the essence of celebrity, it is its authentic completion. "
-Excerpts from Matthew Barnard's Philosophy Now article: The Birth of Celebrity Culture out of the Spirit of Philosophy
Being the opportunistic writer that I am, I can't help but probe this (feel it out (for a possible PN letter. And I would start by pointing out the social/political implications of the above quote and, hence, the individual perspective on ontology. If we really think about what Heidegger is about here, we begin to see his well-known authoritarian nature at work and get some insight into his association with nazism.
And the way we do so is by contrasting it with two other more univocal approaches that are generally known to be more democratic: Deleuze and Rorty. Deleuze is the one that pushed a more univocal approach to Being: the undeniable fact that a thing either is or is not. And I can hardly see (from both an inductive and deductive position (anyway around this. Rorty basically articulated on this by pointing out, in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, that there is no point in talking about ontological status (and note the term "status" (since, once again, a thing either is or isn't.
(And on a side note: I would also point to how Rorty noted, in Heidegger and Other Essays, how Heidegger (as compared to Nietzsche (took the poetic approach to philosophy to that of the esoteric priest: hierarchal thinking. Just something to think about. (
Of course, anyone who might be following what I’ve been saying might see a gotcha moment in my concept of Play in which I argue that things are in order to be experienced and that the more we expand our minds, the further we are from nothingness. But that is just a spectrum of various experiences that either are or are not. And the spectrum starts with something. In other words: once it leaves nothingness it just is; beyond that, there is no point in articulating on how is “is” is.