If we could rid ourselves of ‘A=A’, we could rid ourselves of these bigots. I’ve invoked Nietzsche (which drew their ire) and discussed the nature of Becoming, but I’m having difficulty elucidating why it is that the truth of Becoming renders any concept of a stable or coherent identity moot. Any suggestions?
it’s easier to just shoot them…
-Imp
what are white nationalists pro for?
i have an idea i guess…
they r obviously against me…(an immigrant…) but what are their principles and propositions?
That a coherent (racial) identity is formed from birth, and that God gives his children those who pray for it. They’re wrong, insofar as the principle of identty does not hold up to scrutiny, but I’m having difficulty expressing Nietzsche’s conception of identity in relation to his worldview of Becoming.
Because people consider identity as something that is fixed, and becoming imples change which implies instability? Have you actually encountered some intelligent racists?
racial identity from birth?
well…they may be right in some sense…
god gives ‘‘his children’’ (development) to those who ‘‘pray for it’’
(who work 4 it) so white nationalists are talking about (seen in this light) how white americans deserve development while immigrants dont cause they created the development…
so they are not so wrong…
but what is wrong is judging all immigrants the same…
I’ve thrown every quote in the book(s) about them about flux and they still don’t grasp it. I’ll simply copy-and-paste your response, since, although not strictly accurate (or, at least, not exactly in-depth), is the gist of what I want to say.
Tell them the only thing that isn’t static is a memory and that those only exist in their minds. Or tell them that identity is a social construction and that aside from that there’s no evidence that it exists anywhere else in nature.
“A” refers to Being. It presumes an absolutely durable absolute unity (i.e., something both absolutely durable and absolutely “one”). In a world of Becoming, no such thing is to be found - let alone two equal such things (“A+A”).
The Apollinian, which gives rise to the idea of “Being”, and the Dionysian, which is Becoming, are not absolute antitheses, but relative gradations of the same thing. Because one thing is relatively much more durable and united than many other things, it may be perceived by these other things as (i.e., mistakenly taken for) something unchangeable and indivisible. It is a simplification (lit. “one-making”) of something (relatively) slowly moving to something unmoving. This simplification may work in practice, for certain gross applications. This is no proof of its correctness, of course.
In nature, there are only similarities, not identities. Relative similarities are still absolute differences. And this fact, that there are only similarities, no identities, does not only go for multiple things, but also for a single “thing”. It does not remain identical through time; it changes all the time, albeit into something (relatively) similar to what it was (perceived as) before.
You may also want to check out Harry Neumann’s essay, Politics or Nothing!: Nazism’s Origin in Scientific Contempt for Politics.
You could try a psychological approach.
Those who cling to absolutes like the examples you are trying to counter - identity and so forth - are in actual fact very insecure people. They cannot handle the fact that their existence means very little in a world of ‘becoming’ where everything eventually perishes. Their egos fret and become paralyzed with fear because they are really insignificant in the eyes of nature. To counter this they cling onto ‘absolutes’ that give their existence meaning in a meaningless world. By believing that there are static truths and that they are part of some ‘grand design’ provides for them psychical comfort and stability. They are like little children who needs one’s parents for security.