Sloterdijk's Critique of Cynical Reason is an underrated masterpiece. As important as Jameson's essay on Post modernism and Debord's Society of the Spectacle to understand contemporary events, but a European liberal perspective. I was lucky to be able to talk to him in Boston in the early 2000s. Sloterdijk was a very amiable scholar with a great sense of humor. Thanks for posting this video.

I've been wanting more coverage on this guy for a while now. Thank you!

I haven't read that interview of anything by Sloterdijk, but I see two problems here, one with the motivational analysis, and one with the instituting of his analysis. Just as a comparison, the familiar Rawls v Nozick debate about taxes I think gives a good baseline to see if Zizek and Sloterdijk are really saying anything new. 1. There seems to be a couple ways to interpret the erotic/thymotic distinction. If we see them as erotic is wanting with no consideration of others' ability or desire to give, and thymotic as giving with no real eye to what those being given to want, then it's obvious that neither a erotic or thymotic tax system will work. If those who want out of lack have no eye to giving or what's available to be given, then the system will run dry quickly. If those who give have no eye to seeing what people want from lack, then you end up providing without meeting the needs of those who want from lack. The idea of reciprocity that Sloterdijk seems to be calling back to involves both a desire to give and a desire to want, but also a desire to coordinate the two by giving what is wanted and needed, and receiving only under a scheme where giving with an eye to others wants and needs are expected of those who receive. This seems extremely obvious, so I'm guessing that something's been omitted in how Sloterdijk thinks of the erotic/thymotic distinction in context of taxation. If nothing has been omitted, then I guess Sloterdijk is just a lazy thinker. 2. One obvious concern with instituting a system where there is a power hierarchy and those in the higher tiers are expected to give more from honor (which, to me, is a weird kind of honor because they give only because they have power) is that once the higher tier cease to want to give then so long as there is no coordinated effort of the lower tiers to extract what they need (along with some or all of their wants, if such an effort is even possible at all) from the higher tiers this just means that the lower tiers wither into dust. Why should we aspire to a system that's reliant upon the whims of a class who may not lose much if they decide to be selfish? Another glaring issue is that no one thinks most high power institutions and people in existence today are honorable. For anyone who tweets "let Bezos get his bag" a quick show of how most amazon workers are unjustly exploited and mistreated will change their minds or reveal that they don't care about honor but rather the getting of unchecked power. The employer welfare capitalism project that the US has taken on since WWII has given all those who are employed a keen awareness of how much employers don't really care about their employees, and how quickly they'll tell you to fuck off if their terms aren't precisely met. If Sloterdijk is working with even a passable idea of honor, he should be quite critical of basically all current high power institutions and people, because almost none of them are honorable. Since that's the case, a modified erotic system where workers who "lack" (which, should be noted, it not the same kind of lack that like, a regional restaurant chain claims to have when they want more subsidies on their cheese supply or whatever) take from the dishonorably powerful seems to be the way to go right now, at least until the powerful become honorable, if that ever happens. And just a side note: the whole "stupid money" seems to be a kind of weird concept itself. People don't feel good about no knowing where their taxes go because they don't think they're gonna go to something worthwhile, not because they don't get to say exactly where their money should go. I have a feeling that not being radically democratic in this way (as in not letting people who pay taxes choose where their taxes go) is fine by most people so long as they truly think that the system their taxes are going into does what ought to be done.

The nobles certainly gave the king money with expectations. Feudalism it’s self is at least in theory all about receptivity