What's wrong with this guy?

Disdain for plebs

Stupidity

He has a beard and a moustache.

nothing interesting to say on politics, should have just stuck to aesthetics and schelling

After he played Luke Skywalker he expected a big movie career but didn't get it

He got Lacaned

he likes mocking you all (those who think they understand philosophy)

What does he think about Nietzsche?

>>9027834

he *sniff* like total aschhole *tugs shirt* intereshting ideash, but jusht total asschole you know *touches nose*

What's NOT wrong with him?

He's a Hegelian court jester.

>>9027486
not revolutionary enough

>>9027834
He doesn't really talk about him, he was asked about it at a Hegel conference and he said he never really got into Nietzsche's philosophy.

Does not understand that Hobbes was right.

>>9027834
He doesnt deal with those set of ideas

Let us take the situation in the Eastern European countries around 1990, when Really Existing Socialism was falling apart: all of a sudden, people were thrown into a situation of the “freedom of political choice” — however, were they REALLY at any point asked the fundamental question of what kind of new order they actually wanted? Is it not that they found themselves in the exact situation of the subject-victim of a Beauvois experiment? They were first told that they were entering the promised land of political freedom; then, soon afterwards, they were informed that this freedom involved wild privatization, the dismantling of the system of social security, etc. etc. — they still have the freedom to choose, so if they want, they can step out; but, no, our heroic Eastern Europeans didn’t want to disappoint their Western mentors, they stoically persisted in the choice they never made, convincing themselves that they should behave as mature subjects who are aware that freedom has its price ... This is why the notion of the psychological subject endowed with natural propensities, who has to realize its true Self and its potentials, and who is, consequently, ultimately responsible for his failure or success, is the key ingredient of liberal freedom. And here one should risk reintroducing the Leninist opposition of “formal” and “actual” freedom: in an act of actual freedom, one dares precisely to BREAK the seductive power of symbolic efficiency. Therein resides the moment of truth of Lenin’s acerbic retort to his Menshevik critics: the truly free choice is a choice in which I do not merely choose between two or more options WITHIN a pre-given set of coordinates, but I choose to change this set of coordinates itself The catch of the “transition” from Really Existing Socialism to capitalism was that people never had the chance to choose the ad quem of this transition — all of a sudden, they were (almost literally) “thrown” into a new situation in which they were presented with a new set of given choices (pure liberalism, nationalist conservatism ... ). What this means is that the “actual freedom” as the act of consciously changing this set occurs only when, in the situation of a forced choice, one ACTS AS IF THE CHOICE IS NOT FORCED and “chooses the impossible.”

>>9028679
you can easily get to the synthesis of hobbes and rousseau by imaging a world of equally sized small states forming a mega alliance

>>9028720
OK, this is pretty smart, but it's also what most people should have as commonsense and way too fucking long and wordy for such a simple point.

He can't relax because revolution is always on the horizon.