If you're interested and willing to moderate and grow this community, please go to r/redditrequest, where you can submit a request to take over the community. Be sure to read through the faq for r/redditrequest before submitting.

From Wikipedia:

The trilogy Spheres is the philosopher's magnum opus. The first volume was published in 1998, the second in 1999, and the last in 2004.

Spheres is about "spaces of coexistence", spaces commonly overlooked or taken for granted that conceal information crucial to developing an understanding of the human. The exploration of these spheres begins with the basic difference between mammals and other animals: the biological and utopian comfort of the mother's womb, which humans try to recreate through science, ideology, and religion. From these microspheres (ontological relations such as fetus-placenta) to macrospheres (macro-uteri such as nations or states), Sloterdijk analyzes spheres where humans try but fail to dwell and traces a connection between vital crisis (e.g., emptiness and narcissistic detachment) and crises created when a sphere shatters.

Sloterdijk has said that the first paragraphs of Spheres are "the book that Heidegger should have written", a companion volume to Being and Time, namely, "Being and Space".[citation needed] He was referring to his initial exploration of the idea of Dasein, which is then taken further as Sloterdijk distances himself from Heidegger's positions.[10]

Can you elaborate this?

More specifically, how do you think Sloterdijk's contemporary analysis on cynicism applies in 2016? what's become "truer"? what doesn't apply anymore?

So I've researched a little bit about the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk and I see that a lot of his work, particularly Sphere Theory, is on sale on the typically leftist publisher Verso books and Sloterdijk has also influenced Marxist and other leftist philosophers such as Slavoj Zizek. However, Sloterdijk has attacked the European welfare state as "fiscal kleptocracy" (among other things) and advocates and easing of taxation on the wealthy. Why does his theory seem prevalent among emerging and established Left-wing thinkers if he is so anti-leftist?

I'm pumped. Super pumped.

I've been looking for this for a little while and haven't been able to find anything, any of y'all know where to look?

‎"At the same time, he [Nietzsche] already understood the rules in force on the ascetic planet well enough to realize that all ascents start from the base camp of ordinary life. His questions - transcend, but where to; ascend, but to what height? - would have answered themselves if he had calmly kept both feet on the ascetic ground. He was too sick to follow his most important insight: that the main thing in life is to take the minor things seriously. When minor things grow stronger, the danger posed by the main thing is contained; then climbing higher in the minor things means advancing in the big thing."

• Peter Sloterdijk, "You Must Change Your Life", 39