Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Episode #233 ... A philosophy of self-destruction. (Dostoevsky, Bataille) (Patreon)

Published:
2025-08-04 16:06:55
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • SELF_DESTRUCTION_PATREON.mp3

Missing 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Today we talk about two different theories for why we ritualize self-destructive behavior. We check out a lesser-known work from Dostoevsky called The Gambler. We consider how much we can hold people morally accountable for this kind of stuff. Then we look at the work of Georges Bataille, his book The Accursed Share, and how a hidden underlying economics may be a way we can understand self-destructive behavior from a new angle. Hope you love it and have a great week. :)

Comments

Vashku

🍌 are great! I loved the idea of glorious unproductive burning of excess on the societal level. I wonder if it can be linked with longevity of said society and happiness? I would also imagine these cultures were susceptible to neighbors that hoarded excess sadly? On the other hand, I missed the point on the individual level. I understand Bataille was just describing reality but I can't help but conclude that uncontrolled life-shattering self-destructive behavior is somehow being lauded as potentially freeing and helpful? Either way, whole episode on this guy please!

Scott Newman

A couple thoughts: - I am a little surprised that you didn't touch upon suicide in the discussion of self-destruction, especially given Dostoevsky's many references to it in his novels (esp., nihilism), your episodes on Camus, and religious existentialism (e.g., Kierkegaard). It was a hot topic! - I have read (in English) maybe everything Dostoevsky published. Your discussion of The Gambler had me envisioning a priest, dressed as a Las Vegas dealer, holding forth at the pulpit on Sunday, trying to make a distinction between faith in a winning roulette spin vs. faith in the blessings of God: "Yes, I am not always blessed. But you see this time it was God's blessing because science simply cannot calculate the chances of it actually working, a priori!" - I was not at all familiar with Bataille, but I confess that it came across to me as more of a self-help, pseudo-economic polemic than a seriously considered position. The fact that the sun's energy (at this time) is inefficiently delivered and converted into forms of energy that humans can use, to me, doesn't imply anything. Firstly, I guess we are only talking about chemical energy, since only about half of the thermal energy available currently comes from the sun, the rest coming from nuclear decay in the earth's crust. Secondly, who is to say what benevolent uses what little energy available to humanity has brought about? He could have just said that "excessive surpluses" of any kind of resource (concentrations of wealth) tends to have negative socioeconomic consequences and left out the quasi-scientific sounding "economics" and "energy" language. Piketty would have been a better author for this argument. (Maybe I misunderstood something.) - Future episodes? I guess I am going through my Absurdist phase. As a young American in a conservative religion, I first explored utilitarianism -- Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends? Then religious existentialism -- Kierkegaard -- seemed to really grapple with the wackiness of the supernatural. Then American Pragmatism (e.g., William James) tried to examine the supernatural world and its prophets, half-skeptical, half-believing. Now I am on team Camus, happier in my sadness, more joyous in the mundane, and maybe even more godly in the absence of God. I am having a hard time coming up with the inevitable dialectic counter to this way of thinking/reasoning, but I was hoping maybe a philosophical Sherpa might come along and point me in a new direction.

Paul Thillen

On the inter-bananality of things: Consider a bunch of bananas. They are not isolated entities but a social structure. Held together by a common stem, they ripen in relation to one another. One overripe banana can hasten the decay of the others—a kind of fruit-version of Heideggerian Mitsein. To be a banana is always to be in relation. The solitary banana on the counter is already marked by its absence-from-the-bunch. It is a little tragic, a little comic, perhaps even a little noble.

Emad Talisman

Great episode. You’ve introduced me to something I’ve never thought to philosophize. Were you inspired to look into this directly from reading Bataille and Dostoevsky, or had you been thinking about the theme separately? Also, when you spoke about the potlatch and other examples of destroying/distributing excess, it immediately reminded me of Ferdowsi’s “Shahnameh” (aka, the Persian Book of Kings). I just finished reading this late 9th/early 10th century epic, which recounts the legends of Persian kings. One of the recurring motifs, if you will, is the practice of emptying treasuries and distributing wealth to the poor after great conquests/victories or to honoured guests. On many occasions, I thought, “Why is the king giving away everything after achieving so much?!” I explained it away as an early example of how Persian culture esteems virtues of generosity and hospitality, but your episode has greatly enriched my reading of it. Thanks!

Colin White

I started reading Derek Parfit and I looked back through your catalogue to see if you had any guiding thoughts and in episode 208 you mentioned the possibility of doing an episode on him in the future. I would be fascinated to hear your thoughts. Thank you for all your hard work and all you do!

Jason Thompson

Caught up on the last 3 episodes today. I would like more Han. This episode was really good too. Any updates on the Zizek interview?

Sam Morgan

I’m planning a three month sabbatical as someone who’s self employed and this felt like exactly what I needed to hear.

James Ford

This is a perfect episode. Perfect for me. I am reading with some friends Saint Augustine’s confessions. I am reading it with normal people, who don’t quite understand why why we do self-destructing things. It’s the same idea that’s laid out in notes from the underground, we are told what we should do to have a societal utopia. We have religion and sets of rules to give us a spiritual map There is something inside of us that sees this and does the opposite, that kicks over the sand castle, all in the name of sovereignty. This episode is interesting, particularly the first part talking about having control in the loss of control , but I still think I need to digest some of the themes in the second half. Thank you for this goodness