What's the deal with the abundance of feelsy pussy wussy

>>9776508
>What's the deal with the abundance of feelsy pussy wussy philosophy from 1800-1980?

It's not philosophy. It's bad poetry.

> shitty self motivation for neurotics BUT WAIT it's really really profound

It isn't profound. You have learned your definition of "philosophy" from 4chan, of all places.

>a shift towards baseline sissy took place

It didn't. That only occurred among poseurs the likes of which populate /lit/.

Genuine 'legit' philosophy continued as usual after Kant. (Bolzano, Brentano, Frege, et al)

https://youtu.be/3SUWK_pWrbw

>>9776532
Point taken my man. But stll, there was a surge of this shit starting somewhere in the 19th century. You can't explain that. Or can you?

>>9776508
I pity you if you think that only complex, highly abstract thought is the only important side to philosophy.

Philosophy's greatest task is figuring out how best to live and that means you actually have to go out and live, strive, suffer, face your own inherent dependence and weakness full on.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have abstract, conceptual analysis but so many of the philosophers that you call masculine have been privileged, highly detached from themselves and have an obsession with trying to rationalise and hence control everything. This to me is not true masculinity but a way of hiding themselves from themselves.

>>9776508
Kafka and Dostoyevsky aren't very similar to Nietzsche and Kierkegaard in their style or approach. None of them wrote in very flowery prose, as you claim, and almost never in imperative form (besides Nietzsche). In fact, I would claim that Kafka and Nietzsche are almost diametrically opposed (in their approach to Heroism, for example). Claiming that Nietzsche is "baseline sissy" is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

>It talks about marginal philosophical problems

Life in and alienation from the modern world is a "marginal" philosophical problem?

>how I rationalize my feelsies.

Starting to think this is either bait or you're not temperamentally inclined to like those writers. That's fine. Don't go bitching about it.

>Before philosophy was baseline masculine

You haven't explained what this means, and it's not true either. What about figures like St. Augustine, Pascal, Epicurus?

What a bad post. Read them before you start whining

>>9776580
>This to me is not true masculinity but a way of hiding themselves from themselves.
Are you saying there is something valuable hidden inside that the control freaks of old missed out on?

>"In the last 200 years we haven't had a great thinker. My judgment is bold, since Kant is included. All the great thinkers of recent centuries from Kant to Benedetto Croce have only cultivated the garden." (WP71)

-J Joyce

>>9776578
Indeed. What explains the train of nonsense from Hegel to Husserl, and flowing in earnest from Heidegger to the present day? I'm not a psychologist or sociologist, but I'd conjecture that an inferiority complex is somehow involved.

Meanwhile, ACTUAL philosophy is conducted in departments around the world.

>>9776589
Yes. Perhaps the most valuable thing there is.

>>9776594
t. Can't understand Hegel and Husserl.

Lel.

File: GeorgLukacs.jpg (17KB, 296x413px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 296x413px

Developing capitalism more and more isolated the individual from society. The "egoist", introspective philosophies that arose at the time are ways to cope with the destruction of old social relations by glorifying individualism.

>>9776600
Sounds more like politics, not philosophy.

>>9776612
That's Sociology and Psychology.

>>9776584
The picture is off the web. I don't give a shit about Kafka.

>Claiming that Nietzsche is "baseline sissy" is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
But it's true you butthurt sissy-fanboy sissy. He needed emotionally charged arguments for everything including how to tie his shoes and psychologized and made category mistakes all over the place like a literal un-checked fe-male instead of soberly confronting the arguments as is proper for men doing philosophical discourse.

>Life in and alienation from the modern world is a "marginal" philosophical problem?
To a man, yes. To a sissy, no.

>its cuz u dont like them xd
>u didnt read them xd
...

>What about figures like St. Augustine, Pascal, Epicurus?
You do have a counterexample with Pascal but where's the influence? I was describing a noticable trend starting in the 19th century which fascinates kids to this day. Nobody except that Gregory Sandler nigger actually reads Pascal bro.

>>9776627
What you think of evola , cause by your definition he's a sissy cunt too.

>>9776596
I don't think so!

>>9776629
Haven't read him. Afaik counts as essential reading for /pol/ so you are probably right. Not on my to-do list. :-)

"People having feelings gives me bad feelings!!!!"

-OP

>>9776508
check out analytic philosophy you poop. It's not all purple prose and feelings

>>9776641
>people having feelings
The Greeks had feelings and Kant had feelings. Whether and how you choose to navigate, regulate and integrate them is what separates men from sissies. Whether you choose to cultivate a stoic calm or go into existential crisis when I spank your horse. Whether your philosophy is informed by rationality or hysteria and vague connotations. Men and sissies my dude.

>gives me bad feelings
Sure. I won't pretend I'm immune to this mess. Probably at least 10% sissy. Thanks Nietzsche!

>>9776508

Do it then, pussy wussy.

>>9776654
Well go ahead and make an actual logical argument for "man>sissy", ideally without loaded terms.

>>9776508
> It talks about marginal philosophical problems like they were paradoxes of life which have the inexplicable power to WIPE YOUR ENTIRE BEING OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH

This is simply what happens when are passionate about something.

Have you read a book on English grammar? Authors act like the oxford comma is the difference between life and death.

Or maybe read a tabs vs spaces debate in programming circles, where people think which button you press on a keyboard at the beginning of a line makes any difference in this world.

None of this shit matters, but you're singling out philosophers for taking philosophy seriously.

>like anatomy of melancholy or consolations of philosophy were written with such stoic calm you can not begin to compare them to the insecure introspection starting in the 19th century

May I refer you to the work of Ted Kaczynski

http://www.davesag.com/unabomber/3power.html

>>9776508
Kafka and Dostoevsky aren't philosophers. Philosophers have also intermingled with the arts like Nietzsche did since the ancient Greeks, which is where philosophy started.

>>9776676
>Have you read a book on English grammar? Authors act like the oxford comma is the difference between life and death.

You are confusing 'grammar' with orthography.

>you're singling out philosophers for taking philosophy seriously

No, he is simply pointing out that the popular conception of "philosophy" (as exhibited, e.g., on 4chan) is utter horseshit.

>>9776508
what the fuck are you even trying to say

File: 568393045769124e9c9849467039c940.jpg (55KB, 500x676px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x676px

the issue is chaos and freedom.

the joker, the judge and the t-1000 are three endgame examples of Problems for a free society. there is no hotfix for these guys. the joker says, i thought you guys understood the rules of the game. the judge says, war is all there is. the t-1000 doesn’t have to say anything. he’s just doing his job. there’s no easy way to deal with them.

you can make your society less free - and good luck with trying to reign in free-market capitalism, now that the entire planet has gotten a sniff of how powerful it is - or, conversely, you can make it more free: that is, by pushing it in the direction of more chaos. which means more monsters. and most monsters are the products of neurotic complexes resolved in ways that require a superior and equally illegitmate force to put down. or arguably just dumb luck.

this is why psychology matters. because what you don’t want are fragilistas. it is arguably a contradiction in terms to have an actually antifragile *society* that is terrestrial. a squad of navy seals behind enemy lines trying to get home (or xenophon’s ten thousand, or ulysses) fits this definition, but a householder society doesn’t. if you want to dial it back to citizen-soldiers in ancient greece that’s fine of course, but those days are over.

consider sparta. there was a masculine society. but in sparta you also have the krypteia: the elites as a part of their own initiation voluntarily terrorize the slave class upon which they depended for the food supply. the strong > the weak. there was no human rights commisision to deal with this in antiquity. war settled all accounts. in the end the spartans weren't flexible enough.

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=gvjh

so stoic resolve is a good look. but nobody’s really free of the Empire today. not if you want what it has to offer you. which means being compromised by it, divided by your responsibilities to being a law-abiding citizen-consumer and knowing that

a) the Law tho, and
b) free consumption drives chaos and vice-versa.

the fascists knew the deal. that was how it worked. fascism resolves all of these problems at a stroke. that is why it was appealing then and why its appeal is on the rise now. fascism is the final form of political economy. nothing is lacking from that theory. it all makes sense. but they lost. it’s built to fail like that, because it’s built on chaos and dissipation. it’s why the future is all about machines & cybernetics.

getting back to first principles would be a good scene but it means imho taking a good deep sniff of what the parable of the madman is all about.

so this is just my hot take. i don’t mean to give the impression that i have all the answers. and it’s stuff that i’m interested in. too much deconstruction fucked everything. it would be nice to un-fuck it. a sea-change in philosophy would be a start.

>>9776836
They are trying to latch a masculine vs feminine characteristic onto some collection of writers they think to be cohesive because they lack the ability to critic their intellect - and are warding off deamons that have infiltrated the wires.

A swelling gland that will not invert, and a feeling that is not like other emotions, but which controls the emotion, a feeling of stoic pride, loosened like a dry sphincter.

File: spartan-race-agoge-2-1.jpg (290KB, 1866x796px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1866x796px

this right here is where the rubber really meets the road. because in educating someone to become an invincible warrior you wind up with a situation where it's very difficult to distinguish right from wrong.
>inb4 right is for cucks, ragnar redbeard did nothing wrong
>inb4 even nietzsche put goethe above cesare borgia
>inb4 eat a dick you faggot barbarism rules
>does it really?
>ok no what i want is a based warrior society
>but i mean a non-dissipative one where there's a transcendent higher ideal or some shit
>like 40k
>okay but without the lame christian stuff
>why did the vikings convert anyways
>& why did napoleon think religion was necessary for governance

in the 20C a curious version of this was expressed by ayn rand, who of course ended her first novel on a conventionally heroic note.

i'm realizing for the first time that really my complaint with rand is that she didn't write, properly speaking, a sequel, in which society collapsed and had to be Rebuilt on the model of galt's gulch. one gets the impression there might have been some dune-style intrigue there. because eventually galt's gulch is going to begin having some interesting political relationships with the outside world. are there going to be refugees? what happens to the food supply? what if there is an invasion from a foreign power? what happens if galt's gulch needs a security division? or an accounting department?

even nick land has been experimenting with this idea, trying to make Teh Ultimate Sovcorp. he doesn't have it all worked out either, btw. b/c there is no ultimate safeguard against paranoia or psychopathy
>confucius says, maybe try virtue
>kek virtue is for cucks
>about that

we should talk more about philosophy and the meaning of an agoge perhaps.

File: jordan-smaller-size-bw-1024x683.jpg (64KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1024x683px

one last one. relatively simple choice:

do you prefer the peterson door: that is, you have a *choice* - a long series of choices, in fact - whether or not to clean your room
>which is, once you clear the dust away, quite possibly a palace

or do you prefer the lycurgus door: the room is *already* clean and stays clean, now and forever. here's your broom. get sweeping
>b/c your room is like all the others in the polis, and what a polis it be

wat do? don't answer this, it's obviously a trick question. the point is that you have two conflicting and overlapping notions of the concept of freedom & responsibility that are never going to line up perfectly for exactitude in science. which is why neuroticism is a bad look for politics, and why theological politics (Kafka, Freud, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky) are a problem for the psyche and tended to fuck up the existentialists. among others.

File: brooms.jpg (29KB, 464x336px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 464x336px

>>9777293
>to sweep or not to sweep
>or to build in sweeping as an imperative
>when the sweeping is all automated, what the fuck are we supposed to do?
>muh basic income

>>9777257
>rand/first
sorry. ofc this is not her first. you get the idea

>>9776532

kant literally wrote the third critique because he felt that sensibility was too phenomenologically important to leave out of his theory of epistemology

amazing how anos love to leave that out

File: cover.jpg (42KB, 515x800px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 515x800px

>>9777300
fantasia did nothing wrong
>baudrillard: the sorcerer's apprentice is *the* fairy tale

>from then on, men and machines can proliferate. It is even their law to do so - which the automatons never have done, being instead sublime and singular mechanisms. Men themselves only started their own proliferation when they achieved the status of machines, with the industrial revolution. freed from all resemblance, freed even from their own double, they expand like the system of production, of which they are only the miniaturized equivalent. The revenge of the simulacrum that feeds the myth of the sorcerer's apprentice doesn't happen with the automaton. It is, on the other hand, the very law of the second type; and from that law proceeds still the hegemony of the robot, of the machine, and of dead work over living labor. this hegemony is necessary for the cycle of production and reproduction. it is with this reversal that we leave behind the counterfeit to enter (re)production. We leave natural law and the play of its forms to enter the realm of the mercantile law of value and its calculations of force

mcluhan also saw all of this coming, & even earlier, but w/o the marxist perspective

>>9777134

not sure what you mean by this, please quantify

File: 1500388078671.jpg (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

the real problem to my mind is that philosophy once it became thoroughly entangled with marxism handed itself over body and soul to revolution and the eleventh thesis on feuerbach. it had to do it & digest WW2 also. shit is now thoroughly digested

what philosophy doesn't do anymore - and why it has the shite reputation that it deservedly has - is *educate* and the effects of this can be seen everywhere. no wonder peterson is such a mega-meme these days. he's literally the only one actually saying the emperor has no clothes

but lord ha'mercy do you ever have to dive deep before you get underneath all the postmodernism. history sucks. so where to re-begin?

>back to the old testament?
>or back to athens & sparta?
>why not both?
>yeah well you'd need like a liberal education or something for that
>and like a whole fucking bunch of university departments mutually agreed not to be as utterly cynical as they can to distance themselves from this shitwreck
>and probably students less charmed by their gender options than plato's theory of the good
>and probably a civilization into which they will subsequently be hurled which is less hypnotized by the new mcrib, which is back!, and with the smoky taste of caramelized onions this time
>damn is that asa akira? she seems to be really enjoying that sandwich. it's almost like irony & pornography go really well together
>and then you'd have to fucking live in society as an excuseless responsible humanoid
>i'd rather shitpost tho
>who wouldn't, failure is satisfying

agoge tho
the machines can in2 it
that's why they will win

rant over
plz continue gents
cool thread
sorry for rambleposting

>What's the deal with the abundance of feelsy pussy wussy philosophy from 1800-1980?
It's thanks to modernism. Thank god we got over that phase.

File: 1343280849442.jpg (10KB, 285x256px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 285x256px

>>9777362
>Peterson
Are you being ironic or Post-Modern right now?

The problem with philosophy and humanities in general is that only absolute retards study it.
Look at>>9777362
He can't even put a dot on the end of a sentence, yet he thinks he is able to criticize some of the greatest philosphers and give an opinion on a subject he clearly has no idea about. You should not even pass high school with that grammar and spelling, let alone be a university student.

How can you expect anyone to take what you write seriously if you write without any punctuation, especially on a literary board. How can you respect yourself if you write like that?

File: 103043_couverture_Hres_0.jpg (160KB, 1209x2000px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1209x2000px

>>9777362
i have question

how deep do i need to understand nietzsche/freud/lacan/smbdy else(?) to read girard?

also i wanna read pic related before

>>9777403
>when you realize greentext philosophy is the final form of zen
>because all ego disappears and there is only the process
>who am i quoting?
>doesn't work when you namefag like a fucking girardfag tho

>>9777391
not remotely, peterson is great & i am all about dwelling in a cave and chewing on the bone splinters of postmodernity
>muh signifier
>muh precious

are his readings of foucault, lacan & derrida uncharitable & ridiculous? of course they are. is the fact that he is being air-horned & deplatformed because of the fact that those men were not wrong but 100% correct? you bet. when he goes on steve paikin to defend himself against well-meaning brahmins does my blood pressure not shoot through the ceiling? it does. am i amazed that he is able not to freak the fuck out and lose his shit? i am

peterson is way cool, i like him. you don't have to go all-in on the man to appreciate what the man is saying. once again, his readings of JD, MF & JL are dumb & silly. that's fine. you can still appreciate what he is saying regardless tho

fuck postmodernism & infinite relativity ofc. but not until after it is digested.

>>9777403
>how can you expect anyone to take what you write seriously if you write without any punctuation, especially on a literary board. How can you respect yourself if you write like that?
i expect nothing. however the fact is that i consistently find some of the most interesting conversation on this board & this is why i keep coming back here to ramblepost

i love /lit/ for exactly what it is. a free-for-all. /lit/ rules. do not take my opinions seriously. i am not a serious philosopher. i am a neurotic pseud with a wi-fi connection & a little time to kill. nothing more

but /lit/ is fucking great

>>9777410
girard is easy, you don't need anything to understand him. he's not the endboss of philosophy. in the big pecking order he ranks far below the usual guys you hear about: lacan, derrida, deleuze, all of them. he's just my guy b/c mimetic desire & literature & much else.

just read what you like senpai
just read what you like
>you will like nietzsche

trust no one who makes a big deal about being an intellectual. trust no one who acts like a pretentious slob. elitism is for retards. intellectualism is fucking stupid. just read what you like

>>9777415
kek
live by the meme, die by the meme

i didn't intend to become a namefag, it just happened that way

>>9777410
>how deep do i need to understand nietzsche/freud/lacan/smbdy else(?) to read girard?

just read girard man it's philosophical anthropology not metaphysics.

>>9776508
Such a powerful philosophical critique. "These guys are pussies!" Idk what your actual criticism is. There is plenty of objective philosophy for you to read if you dislike passion or subjectivity. Some people believed philosophy was life as opposed to doctrine or science. Have you read any of Concluding Unscientific Postcript to the Philisophical Fragments? How much philosophy do you dismiss with this guy wrote something with feelings, therefore he is a pussy? It's easier to discuss this without inflammatory generalizations. I think subjective philosophers may be subjective for different reasons. Ought to discuss their ideas, not group them all together and call them pussies, because they had feelings in their works. A terrible argument

>>9776771
Another powerful deep argument. Really got me thinking
"You are singling out philosophers for taking philosophy seriously"
"NO, HE IS RIGHT CUS THESE PHILOSOPHERS ARE HORSESHIT"
>>9776676
I also think it's funny to call philosophers pussies for taking philosophy seriously. I doubt they understand what you mean when you say seriously though.

>>9776508
>So what the hell happened here?
Erosion of traditional values and creeping obsolescence of "manly men" due to technology.

>>9777507
Kierkegaard didn't have traditional values because of technology? I believe he did have traditional values.

>>9776573
kek

>>9777360
Ask better questions about the terms you use and the similarities you find before you figure out that your interesting questions are just elaborate cut-ups put together with ridiculous rhetorical adhesives. You supppose an audience without openness and therefore cannot accept rigorous judgement.

File: 1452373556330.jpg (133KB, 717x508px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 717x508px

>>9777293
Yang or yin, you ask?

But it already is both.

«The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
»The named is the mother of ten thousand things.»

Stop dialectics by not forcing synthesis. Attain the ineffable through compassion for words.

"Things are made uniform by Man and unique by Nature."

Body and mind are one. Mind and machine are one. Body and machine are one. So Man cannot evade Himself; where He goes is with His legs and the ghost of His legs. And by the going and ghosting is that things end up far away.

File: IMG_4780.png (280KB, 543x415px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 543x415px

>>9777680
Agreed

File: DeleuzeGuattari.jpg (79KB, 957x611px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 957x611px

>>9777680
yup. preach that shit senpai

this is why i am presently losing my shit over deleuze. because one immanent/univocal process is the only thing that makes sense
>it's there in leibniz
>& it's there in spinoza
>& it's there in neoplatonism
>& it's there in the tao
>& it's there in girard
>& it's there in heidegger
>& ok motherfucker ok get a fucking grip

the tao is good as a wisdom philosophy that can perhaps grapple with bergsonian ideas of the actual/virtual distinction & so on. the tao always wins. always. western metaphysics is just taking fucking forever to catch up w/laozi sorted out thousands of years ago. it's why i sperg out over the flakiest of new age stuff also.

core distinctions & dualistic mechanisms: the Self/the Other, the Object, all of this - you only *think* you Have To have these things until a fucking next-level sorcerer like deleuze (or whoever) can fucking get *their* heads around *that* process and *articulate* it so that plebtards like me can actually understand it and stop being a fucking minion

none of this is to say that the Problems of Western Civilization are now fixable.
>dem spartans
>dat agoge
>dat league of shadows
>dat underrated batman begins

but yeah, the tao.

>attain the ineffable through compassion for words

check out based maurice merleau-ponty on this:

>thus things are said and are thought by a speech and by a thought which we do not have but which has us. there is said to be a wall between us and others, but it is a wall we build together, each putting his stone in the niche left by the other. even reason's labours presuppose such infinite conversations. all those we have loved, detested, known, or simply glimpsed speak through our voice. no more than space is made of simultaneous points-in-themselves, no more than our duration can sever its adherence to a space of durations, is the communicative world a bundle of parallel consciousnesses. our traces mix and intermingle; they make a single wake of public durations

all glory to the /lit/ mimetosphere as per usual

File: 07.Ch-The-Process_The-Medium-is-the-Message-pp.-20-21.jpg (49KB, 1400x700px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1400x700px

>>9777719

this right here is the deal. mcluhan nailed it: when you turn the whole world into media & communicable energy good luck holding to the real. one of the sharpest critics of the society thus produced was baudrillard, but he's so fucking smooth you still have to work around his marxism *and* his nietzscheanism to realize he's still only reifying mcluhan
>and without the catholicism

but metaphysics is *one* thing and *wat do* in that world is another. the tao cuts both ways. if you just try and harmonize yourself with the process and derive your political conclusions from the metaphysics of it you get nicholas j land
>j?

you get cybernetics. you get acceleration. you get all of that

good scene? bad scene? makes a difference? makes no difference?

metaphysics > politics, but still you gotta eat. so best just to talk about how fucking batshit crazy all of this is before we put on a trump hat.

so here's my question: education/advice/counseling/therapy. this kind of stuff. fix the state? or fix the individual? don't fix anything?

this is why peterson works. clean your room is a workable imperative. you cannot ultimately express everything. and you can't be The Great Lawgiver
>or the Hortator or morrowind

good thing /lit/ is here i tells ya

File: League-of-Shadows-batman-begins-11593066-500-213-1.jpg (12KB, 500x213px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x213px

when philosophy in universities becomes irrelevant & apparently unsalvageable beyond repair, philosophy finds other ways to communicate what it needs to communicate. mysteriously good blockbusters confirm what everyone is already thinking.

File: 1bb5d2d5df6c5f30f11752fd029ddcd7--epic-movie-poster-art.jpg (40KB, 639x959px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 639x959px

and ofc something like this would exist

File: eye gott dat refrance.jpg (271KB, 1008x720px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1008x720px

>>9777765
>>j?

>education/advice/counseling/therapy. this kind of stuff. fix the state? or fix the individual? don't fix anything?
Those same things plague me as well. The real problem is, those things can be fixed; those things cannot be fixed; those things both can and cannot be fixed; those things neither can nor cannot be fixed. See where I'm going with this? It's not that I want to turn things on their heads (as tempting and enjoyable as that is). Rather, it's how you take the fact that life is a catastrophe. That's why to me, Zizek is more trustable than Peterson. Ruism works for a while, and it's useful and one should know the rites, but all the good luck charms in the world will not make you be the person you aim to be, and insisting on honest hierarchy ends up where equality does. So don't imagine you *can* come up with a fair game. You ate the fruit. You ate it tomorrow too. So don't usurp the Lord if you don't like your apples.

What do you want to do? That's the question that arises from the actual Zeitgeist. But rather, it's that you're given the answer "do what you want". And as much as one can believe one's an ego ideology, God, the Dao, or whathaveyou will still act through you. So don't be too modest. Girls don't like that anyway, if anime has tought me anything. Role models are the ones that broke the mold. So it's no wonder communists hate mass production--can't have natural hierarchy where everything is interchangeable; can't get to the state of total dissolution without organization. Yet the interchange happens thanks to barriers: barriers between products. You're hungry because there are many separate things. You eat numbers, especially when you're on a diet. The you of today eats one things, the you of tomorrow another. And so on with many other examples.

The internet is such a phrenzy because of this. Nothing's public and everyone's allowed to their opinion, even OP. It accelerates the rate of memetic decay. As the generation brought up with it (slowly) reaches adulthood, things get more and more interesting. And one day there'll be only people who didn't know VHS! Perhaps we're going to find those nightmares of machines as confortable as fairy tales are now. So those annoying categories, come to fulfil a purpose.

“But I am not the owner of my own body, for I, when I am born, must complete it, nor do I possess things, for having got them, I must part with them again. The body is essential for birth, but things are essential for its maintenance."

If it's fucked, It's working. The Father shows, and light is actually a quantic vampire. That's masculinity: the strength of character to leave children to themselves. Not some adolescent fact-face that pretends to leave toys for tools.

Gotta go now, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

File: 16c29e252e5762143849ed88d1d0e30266df3509_hq.jpg (43KB, 1024x566px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1024x566px

>>9777932
>rather, it's how you take the fact that life is a catastrophe
correct af

>PwaTE
league of rabbits when
will be digesting this for a while i think

good luck out there mia familia

>>9776508
You seem like someone who resentfully projects his failing masculinity on Kant and gets his delicate disgust sensitivity triggered when any non-autist puts his ink to paper.

Join the technocracy and get off the internet. Its the only way that you'll be happy.

Though I'd love to see you read Fanged Noumena.

>>9776594
haha

hahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>Autism

File: ffvi___mash_by_prema_ja-d6d7izm.png (438KB, 600x691px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 600x691px

>>9777932
may i say also that if you are Other Me from that nick land thread i've rarely if ever been so fucking pleased to have a doppelgänger
>if not that's ok too ofc

b/c this might well be the finest thing i've read on /lit/ and the legendary bro-fist of figaro is not lightly extended

shit is cash is what i'm saying

>>9776676
>Le bomb guy

No thanks

File: 40465901374853d944fb206cc81e6748.jpg (46KB, 342x512px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 342x512px

>>9778135
I'm not that guy, but I've been one of the guys who have come up and around in your discussions. To be honest, I'm always afraid these thread will fall into a circlejerk, but on the one side, our literature board is quiet enough as it is; on the other, the 4chan etiquette has never proved to be useful; and on another, folks are always complaining they don't got friends anyways. And to begin with moot (pbuh) never intended 4chan posts to be single sentence chat dialogs, nor did he want trip/namefags to go extinct and Anon to be enforced.

I want to make another point that came up in my head. I think one of Evola's tenets is that ultimately, you cannot form an ethos without transcendence. However, there's no good reason to form an ethos that can decay if you can conceive something that can not; therefore one should strive for an ethos grounded on the eternal. This leads us to find no such bases for ourselves in the transcient, "material" world. But this has surfaced in many ways, unlike you would expect.

- You have Yang Zhu's position which is kind of similar to that of the Gilgamesh: enjoy your days as well as you can, without restraining yourself nor pushing yourself; happiness is more or less what you'd expect, positive with an object and negative without one.
- You have the Buddhist, Christian and Stoic positions: accumulate good deeds/abstain from bad deeds; happiness is mostly negative (but in Buddhism it's a bit more complicated).
- You have formalistic or Ruist positions: keep to forms of conduct that are accepted by the social axiom.
- You have the quietist and Gnostic positions: what you're looking for is entirely out of "this world".
- You have some shades of the Taoist position: the eternal is indistinct from change; happiness is not resisting.

These are, of course, very broad strokes, bound to be wrong and posited more to illustrate my point rather than give an accurate resume. That is, that I think that the most important thing we can take from theater is not the tragedy but the scenery. Ethos is not built from the inside out or in relation, but from the outside in. Every stance takes with it the world it was formed it. It perpetuates (rather than reproduce) what it is and where it is. So, for example, to the Christian, Christ is always being crucified. It's a matter of Traum'a. So to built an eternal ground one cannot refer to discrete events outside of the practical, i.e. as vehicles. This might seem insensitive or apathic, but this is already assuming where we're going to end up; and we still need to clearly define what is "eternal", if it has anything to do with the survival of the species or death at all. Considering this, even the most spiteful French romantics and Nick Land can approach the eternal. And I find intriguing that theater is both a moment of total light and total self-forgetfulness; and that dreams always begin in media res.

Larvatus prodeo.

all your arguments are based around gender

almost as if... you're insecure... and overcompensating... for... something....

>>9777719
good shit

File: marked20160901_chinesefish_zhuangzi.jpg (260KB, 714x402px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 714x402px

>>9779413
>It perpetuates (rather than reproduce) what it is and where it is. So, for example, to the Christian, Christ is always being crucified.

now this gives me the feels. there's something very profound in this, about a subtle elision between simulation and mimeticism (if not to say, genuflection). it's why *copying* sucks and every child or clever student can figure it out in a hot second.
>and also why being memed can enrage us, because we've been figured out, we've been able to become solved, we have become circular
>and why most conversations fail when people take them back to their Comfy Places - namely, themselves, anecdotes, allegories *painful* for being predictable a mile away

but this idea, of inhabiting an idea and perpetuating it, building on it, is far superior. it's really my thing also. suppose that we are in fact defined by this lack, by a gap or split. beyond a certain horizon little is accomplished by just recognizing it (although i believe that the severely autistic can actually be treated through a kind of mimicry that goes beyond language).

whatever is going on with persona it seems to continually confirm and reconfirm the fact that individuals are mimes, and even superb meta-mimes such as nietzsche and baudrillard struggle with the concept of seduction.

what's the alternative to seduction? assuming that it isn't rene girard's idea, which is no joke. but perhaps something else, less severe.

>Friends and enemies are found at the heart of the history of philosophy. We see it in Seneca, for example, who—at the center of an empire (where people switch positions constantly)—reveals a friendship that is stronger than any family tie.

centre of an empire. so indeed larvatus prodeo & no circlejerk, but i was genuinely moved by the watership down comment. i was in a cafe once where, upon leaving, the host gave me a handshake and said, 'that's for coming.' and then he snapped me in the leg with his towel and said 'and that's for leaving!'

made sense. i'm passing that along.

>>9779611
cheers m8

>>9776654
>The Greeks had feelings and Kant had feelings. Whether and how you choose to navigate, regulate and integrate them is what separates men from sissies. Whether you choose to cultivate a stoic calm or go into existential crisis when I spank your horse.
You're literally making the same "feelsy" philosophical valuations as the existentialists you demean when you make statements like this. You're making a judgment on how the human subject ought to operate in a chaotic and distressing world based on fundamentally emotive precepts like masculinity. Just because your conclusion encourages austerity doesn't make the process and problems any different from those faced by the existentialists.

Wow. You're a tryhard douche. Congrats.

File: Deleuze.jpg (98KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x640px

>après le roi, le déluge
>c'est vrai
>mais après monsieur deleuze c'est le deluge encore!
>vraiment. mais peut-être c'est un deluge différent
>mais n'est-ce pas toujours le même chose?
>le même, mais différent. encore une fois avec le sentiment
>tuez-vous girardfag
>holy fuck inner self you speak french?
>c'est google traduction, toi idiot

I know what you mean about Nietzsche. His work has too much self-dramatization for me (like all the thinly-veiled self-pity of his "my suffering made me super profound" passages), but his genealogical method and his critique of Christianity, egalitarianism, and nihilism is great. Yet sometimes I wonder if the pseudo-prophetic tone and sometimes forced poetic imagery was necessary. Nietzsche's self-appointed task was to destroy the intellectual foundation of European thought; I doubt that he could have done it without exciting our base emotions over than our reason. Christianity was so deep in our feelings, our thought, our history: and the more abstract and difficult a thought is the more it needs to go to the source of all thoughts, which are images and passions. The soul needs to know a truly original thought before it can possibly be understood.

File: BjAUGoe7.jpg (32KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x400px

>>9779632
>what's the alternative to seduction?
I think I have found one, but I'm not sure if it's necessarily less severe, and I don't like trusting my own ambitions, nor am I sure that I can pass on what I've only glimpsed. It's really difficult to explain without actually talking about my fiction. But I think both the Jews and the Japanese were/are really on to something when they start to talk about intimacy, and occidentalists aren't very smart to simply disregard them as feminine. That those aesthetics are so often in throwing distance from the state and the law, to me, is telling.

And it's humid, wet
What makes the fiery ones fret
To find yourself in bed
Not a maid but a newlywed

I think great beauty is terrifying because it is liminal. It's sublime in the burkean sense. It's attracting while it's evidently sick; it seem dead but it lives.

Why have I always been attracted to stains, I dunno.

>i was genuinely moved by the watership down comment
I'm glad. With the risk of sounding base, much of what I'm discussing actually came from my one LSD trip. Not that it's things that just showed up there, as even there I never really lost a sense of distance and continuation, but still the peak of it was getting how beautiful and genius it was as a model for experience, it was incredibly cathartic and had me crying my eyes out for a while and repeating it for the next days. The tautological structure of it is also so fascinating: a a' b b'. It's basically dialectical.

>the host gave me a handshake and said, 'that's for coming.' and then he snapped me in the leg with his towel and said 'and that's for leaving!'
Precisely!

File: d336e34c9c1b1ad0fbf314f25bf1360c--sculpture-art-sculpture-marmol.jpg (26KB, 401x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 401x600px

>>9779842
i'd like to share another thought, just to see if it's interesting. it has to do with memes & originality.

so on the one hand we have *metaphysics* and on the other we have *society.* now in polite society this one rule holds: I is an Other. in a primitive society (or among the very crude) this has not yet manifested.

but here's where things get interesting. note how much Society
>yes, with a capital letter, because reasons
has this preoccupation with originality. how much heartbreak is there over the failure of a revolution? that was supposed to be it, the Big Alternative to Liberalism - which is admittedly boring - and you can still see it everywhere in the west, where the ghost of the revolution is now intended to continue indefinitely as the fanatical desire for Total Equality. >but i don't want to just talk about boring /pol/ stuff

what i'm interested in is if, if the cultural situation well and truly has become a kind of Empire that this requires us to consider these ideas of *originality* and *copying* in kind of new ways. *guilt* for instance is a *very subtle form of seduction.* it's not even a willing form, it's realizing that were you to look closely at it you might draw a conclusion you don't want to draw: that if I is an Other, then perhaps the problem is that *that I am not worthy of that Other* or *that Other is not worthy of me.* either way this is a Real Problem for ironic postmodernity. which is to say, the real. only the ironic passes for the real today. serious aesthetic *discontent* with things monkeys up the works.
>we know how to be French, and we know how to be German, but we still don't *really* know how to be Greek.
>or japanese

this kind of stuff is why i get so tangled up, because mimetics & aesthetics *really skews with my sense of Self and Other and Society.*

i didn't even talk about my issues w/plagiarism or intellectual property. it's basic: we're still living with the fallout of not having an alternative to Empire - that is, revolution - and which forces normies to confront the fact that *the fake is all we have now.*
>and has to become the Real again

there is a stoic ref in deleuze: 'become worthy of that which happens to you.' different from how baudrillard stoicizes: become fatal, indifferent. that's wrong, i think. you can't really be indifferent and mean it. you can only be worthy or unworthy *of your own sentiments*, and these admit no excuses. not in this time, when we have all of these books.
>or you can just read badiou and go full maopill

so perhaps it is the case that people are on the one hand *required to set an example* and yet, on the other, knowing that any example worth setting is the one that can't be followed.

if the history of civilization doesn't turn out to be the history of aesthetics in the end i'll eat my hat. and you're right, true beauty *is* horrifying to confirmed memers. beautiful things, besides being beautiful, can also remind you of how horrible you are.

Philosophy unchecked by the poet inevitably devolves into the incoherent jargon hell of the post-structuralist or the uninteresting scientism of the positivist.

File: ceb4ceb9cf83cebacebfceb2cebfcebbcebfcf822.jpg (120KB, 900x425px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 900x425px

>>9779943
there is one other exception: the ultimate narcissist. for some there *is* no Other worthy of the I, they are immune to psychoanalysis
>or, as lacan discovered, they are simply from japan

but *heroic* narcissism is what the greeks were all about. nowadays we prefer to project ourselves: onto women, onto superheroes, onto virtual identities, onto the feeling of being in and among massive crowds beholden to Spectacle. this is what warshow sniffed out as a critic: that to attempt to lose oneself in a crowd was to find oneself in an even worse way. baudrillard tried this too in his ultra-cynicism. he didn't seem happy.

deleuze doesn't seem happy either, but he also doesn't seem *mystified* by the procession of simulacra. because there wasn't, in the end, a procession, but a flux; and the phenomena he was looking at couldn't all be reduced a single type - the simulacra - because he wasn't looking at it with a properly wide-angle lens.

i love baudrillard for being both the poster-boy for postmodern obscurantism *and* its most tortured observer. but the deal isn't reality/simulacrum. it's chaos and more chaos.

which is not a crazy place to start all over from, really. on mutual and uncommon ground. whether it's art or science or philosophy.

the question isn't about *law* - the Law is annihilating - but it might be about *etiquette.* we know we are no heroes, or angels. we don't even mind being told this. what offends about postmodernity is that we are continually being reminded of what we are *not* when it is palpably obvious that we are, nevertheless, something, and whatever the fuck it is it's interesting as hell.

File: Zen Tea.jpg (59KB, 350x220px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 350x220px

so in terms of rebuilding civilization, i say we get down and dirty with a nice spartan agoge to get properly un-degenerated. but before we get to the fun parts of murdering our own slaves in the night, maybe an interlude with a japanese tea ceremony would be a better look for the contemplation of a few ego-blasting koans and a buddhist monk or two to sort out that ego. culture - the very coolest aspects of it, tried & true mimetic practice - as regulating processes for the ol' libido. because while baudrillard is right and you *can* rob a bank with a plastic gun and actually get arrested, you *can't* - or shouldn't - be able to fool Lycurgus or Dogen with similar trickery.
>even tho lycurgus did famously say, Stealing Is Good
>what did he mean by this?
>just that old-fashioned Greek cunning: it's not breaking the Law unless you get caught
>damn he was clever

this is, of course, assuming that just going to church, which worked just fine for a while, is no longer a sufficiently sexy option to attract the Leaders of Tomorrow. jesus is such a downer, even when we have JBP to make it interesting.

well okay then. tea and spartan agoge should do the trick for millennial postmodern basketcases. because pomo literary criticism applied to *texts* is fine but as for *lived social experiences* being a hipster retard will lead to *shame* and *embarrassment* - and that is i think the point.

>>9779943
Do you think a main point to all this, all these concerns and topics and situations is: creating real long lasting solutions, eliminating well'ly argued to be problems?

Would that be the end of the need for philosophy? Or at least these 'semi philosophical'(/socio/economic/political) topics?

I dont want to consider and worry about all the problems of the world anymore, I just want all the problems to be stopped, all the unnecessary suffering and complaining to be stopped. Is that not kind of the point?

File: 1500305158635.jpg (300KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 894x894px

and, fwiw, capitalism just makes a lot more sense as planetary energy transfer, with mass culture is its forward arm. the matrix is real but at the same time there's no escape from it *except via aesthetics.* you can always ask for something more beautiful, interesting, and fun.

aesthetics were how fascism worked, and anti-aesthetics is how socialism works. the romanticism of war on the one hand and the romance of critique on the other. to be able to operate in the middle is a good look, but man it's hard to stay on the bicycle. there one runs the risk of becoming a cynic, or a dilettante. so what you have to do, i suppose, is either be a cynic so smooth that nobody notices, or a dilettante so charming that nobody cares. either way it's all social/virtual. the real pain in the ass is that, even in spite of all of that, the desire for *escape* never really goes away; but knowing that there is nowhere to escape to is also necessary. perhaps learning how to live anonymously in such a society is the ultimate form of escape act; you just learn how to escape being a monad who sticks out, the one who disrupts the game with the unanswerable question. sort of like the great gatsby, perhaps. or vanity fair.

not only do philosophers not know how to dance, they also don't know how to dress. or be conscientiously unphilosophical. whatever the situation, it's definitely not about the Law anymore. or the Revolution. a universal (and accelerating) capitalism makes everything immanent, and if you can learn anything from philosophy it's how to be able to live in that without needing to re-instantiate the third reich or the soviet union while not being a boring neurotic pleb by default.

fucking hell. the things you have to think in this world just to pass for normal.

>>9780272
>Do you think a main point to all this, all these concerns and topics and situations is: creating real long lasting solutions, eliminating well'ly argued to be problems?
create good *people* and they'll find a way to band together. losing the idea of Muh Masses would be a good start. cultivate the individual and let them find their others, i'd say.

>Would that be the end of the need for philosophy? of a certain kind. we *should* understand ourselves as being economic beings, but not *exclusively* economic. fascism & socialism both derive ultimately from liberalism & the myth of the individual wholly anterior to society. *that* is what has to go. for better or for worse we're all in this thing together. butterfly effects & energy fields. i can't see it any other way. we all have brains.

>I just want all the problems to be stopped, all the unnecessary suffering and complaining to be stopped. Is that not kind of the point?
me too. but unfortunately i don't think it can be stopped without some measure of intense worrying so at least you can have some sense of what you consistently believe. consistency amidst chaos is a good look.

>>9780287
it's easier to stay on the bicycle when it is moving fast. if you go at it tentatively, you'll fall over.

acceleration.

File: Sylvan_library.jpg (22KB, 254x206px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 254x206px

>>9780287
>you just learn how to escape being a monad who sticks out, the one who disrupts the game with the unanswerable question

i should add here that you can expect to be surrounded by a bombardment of other people *continually* asking unanswerable questions. so maybe there is a kind of a use for philosophy after all: letting flies out of bottles. to whom one feels a strange moral obligation
>that's just fucking desire & fear you dip. don't give yourself any ideas
>well hello there inner self
>hello

at least that's *one* thing it can do. say what you will about the failure of philosophers to fix society, they definitely understand existential psychotherapy. maybe that's all this is. that much accomplished what is left but exactly what socrates says to do: lie on the grass and praise the gods.

>>9780293
true, good point

pic rel is not rel, just a cozy image
>unless it's some gnostic shit
>could very well be i suppose

>>9780287
do you have a throw away email I can email you at?

>>9780287
>me too. but unfortunately i don't think it can be stopped without some measure of intense worrying

Ok and worrying has brought to the solutions of:
>create good *people* and they'll find a way to band together. losing the idea of Muh Masses would be a good start. cultivate the individual and let them find their others, i'd say.

That has already been the case, the problem is not good bands of people, that exists in great numbers. Isnt the problem, not good people, and not well people? And potentially not good people, with power?

File: e1d761b9b1287df39b4f5e83f7357472.jpg (112KB, 960x744px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 960x744px

>>9779943
Ahhh, so this is how getting a piece of someone else's mind is like? Thanks for putting me on the receiving end for once.

Now let's see...

What's being original? In the beginning, original was that which talked from the origin, and likewise the author was the one that talked about was legitimate. But original became what is an origin, and the author the boon of legitimacy. Since Barthes though, this can't be the case for us anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cak8OW5b_5A

Let me rephrase this:
First part: "What you say is an Other is my Own. And because it is my Own, I'll be 'wrong' (unethical) when dealing with it. But that isn't because I'm being 'evil' but because me and my Own aren't mediated. Because of that I can give anything for it, even my self."
Now what do we price more, to see ourselves become good or to not be seen by society? Pride or greed?

Second part is easier: "There's value in being true. There's value in being useful. But being fake and parasitical presents no value; its value, unlike the others, is a positive element. Its value, for being forced, because there's an original, once outed as a fake, lies only in *its very existence*. (i.e. it's hypervalue.)"

So how do these two relate?

"The claiming of your Own is illegitimate. It can only be made by breaking the law. It is neither true nor useful. It's not original in either sense. Therefore it has value only by virtue of *being*. It is a positive, extraneous, unneeded, impertinent element."
So one can't find a right to do anything. And one can't find himself worthy of anything. One can't pretend to have dignity, be dignified. There's no chance of redemption or return. The Other's been crushed completely. Nature, the Chinese Ziren which is what is born, rather than the Natura which is what one is born with, cannot set examples; it makes men crooked.

Irony can't even dare to this. The cruel honesty I was talking about, not a brutal honesty, not a childish or primitive honesty, the honesty that believes it ALL, every statement to be sincere; that is this. It doesn't say, "I have some power or other which guarantees victory." It says, "You win, and so you die; you killed me, but who did you really hit? With my blood on your hands, you're just like me... and I was the good guy all along. You've given me the conclusion you wanted so much." When it hears nigger it laughs not at the taboo, but at the actual tragedy. Everything it has is stolen. It never forgets. It never forgives. And in that alone it rejoices. It's become the invading element, the Alien God to the world without a Demiurge. Its stars are black, its abyss is white.

>>9780309
i think the monk/sage/zen master/prophet wandering in the desert kind of "philosopher" is the ideal archetype, which is contradistinction to the socratic philosopher of logos who engages in dialogue and the polis and whose modern manifestation is probably the public intellectual. who then attempts to fix society and fails but is still listened to because after all when the doctor has failed we still want priest on our deathbeds.

fix thyself first. and maybe you can fix others. but even if you can't, staring into the desert expanse is worthwhile in itself.

ofc in this age of mass commodification this fixing of oneself comes at a hefty economic cost. i suppose this is why i have a (probably misguided) aristocratic nostalgia since you had slaves to do all your work and life was 90% leisure 10% go die in battle for glory.

File: iz72mHU.png (116KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 360x360px

>>9780322
i don't. i folded a bunch of my old ones up a while back.
>b/c i was not expecting to /lit/ this hard

is it something urgent? given how ridiculously unencumbered i have become in disobeying the usual rules of propriety/blogrolling yet another thread whatever you're thinking surely can't be too interesting to share here.

i'll get a blog eventually once i work out the girardfag unified feels theory of space, time and memery. for now i'd prefer to keep it /lit/ tho.

>the problem is not good bands of people, that exists in great numbers. Isnt the problem, not good people, and not well people? And potentially not good people, with power?
the problem is *madness.* just generalized insanity. lack of self-perception. economics, of course, prevents people from being able to un-spook themselves of a lot of stuff. that's obviously the number one thing.

philosophers can't really solve the problems of the world b/c the real world doesn't work as analytic scenarios do. in an analytic scenario lacan can remove thorns from the sphinx's paw. in the real world the world itself is the sphinx thrashing wildly. and there we basically have to comport ourselves to this situation, i think.

pic related is my evil alter ego, the Hortator, Who Gives The Answers. there are no answers and i hate this being. this is the me i really don't want to be, but who i become when i become Full of Advice. the Hortator, the One Who Speaks for the Crisis. i really don't want to be that guy. the Hortator is to the girardfag what Bane is to Batman.

better to be something that doesn't speak then to Society but to individuals, and *as* an individual, and not as something defined by a relationship to Das Man. not committing, in other words, the heideggerian fallacy
>even though heidegger is mostly cool

(cont'd)

>>9780309
The importantance of philosophy, turned into science. How do we use knowledge to improve the world and life. To build space ships and robots, and ski resorts and bullet trains, and how do we make more and better, faster, stronger, and ai, singularity stuff.

to put it most simply, its all about quantity and quality. The thing is, as the populations always grow, thats more quantity, wanting more quality. Can lead to more problems.

its difficult to imagine what the world might be like in 30-40 years. It could be relatively the same, with some minor extreme changes. (partly it will almost always be relatively the same, in terms of natural landscape... kinda sorta, but the human world).

The past 100 years things have changed quite drastically, car styles, building styles, internet, abilities, efficiencies, engines, motors, energy technology, manpower, skill power, 'development' is very real.

So how much can things really change, and how much of the masses will be left out.

>>9780355
I believe I understand your alter ego, I have a similar relation with such.

I think it is a coping mechanism, a sort of potentially innocent or necessary defeatism. When you have expectations, beliefs, ideals, desires, beliefs of right and wrong, and see the world does not match, instead of making your self crazy you have to take some sort of break, and accept the imperfection. Instead of letting the infinite ill problems of the world infinitely illy affect you, one has to say, this must be acceptable, at least for the time being, and for someone potentially so passionate, potentially caring about the situations of the world, about people, suffering of the world, one might call this state of being, an evil state of being, or their evil alter ego... maybe.

Maybe it also is a real, part of us, maybe a true, maybe truer, maybe truest. maybe it is simply the angel and devil on the shoulder. A ying yang of selfishness and selflessness

>>9780344
>Ahhh, so this is how getting a piece of someone else's mind is like? Thanks for putting me on the receiving end for once.
telepathy isn't so crazy an idea when you think about it. we just have to use this old-fashioned tech for now

>originality
so there's at least two senses of this that i understand: the heidegger option, and the deleuze option. being heideggerian means revealing; but this is sort of to put Being under quarantine now and forever. deleuze makes more sense because it's *riskier.* can't be sentimental w/him about poetry; shit, you can't even write arch & seductive baudrillardian critique. it's all about machines and chaos. which i think is undoubtedly the way forward. but we can pour one out for heidegger now and again also.

>Now what do we price more, to see ourselves become good or to not be seen by society? Pride or greed?
sadly i think the point where this distinction matters is rarely thought through as interestingly as you have. i see it in terms of a hyper-aware ressentiment (i ain't got it!) or or a blind & stupid satisfaction (i got it!) that forgets itself. i'm more into wistful pining & longing
>but why tho
>good question actually

i just see it all as mimetic. if you perceive your society to be good, then being fulfilled by it won't register to you as greedy, but necessary; and getting what you want from it *may* be pride but you might understand it as being *virtue* also. it's very rare for us to grasp pride & greed *in the act of sensing these things,* i would say. and sensing them *after* the fact when things have gone astray as guilt changes what they are. there's room here for bergson in terms of how we think about how we felt about event X & all of this. humans are weird like that
>so i mostly futurize & dwell in paranoia
>b/c hyperstition makes it real

>So one can't find a right to do anything. And one can't find himself worthy of anything. One can't pretend to have dignity, be dignified. There's no chance of redemption or return. The Other's been crushed completely. Nature, the Chinese Ziren which is what is born, rather than the Natura which is what one is born with, cannot set examples; it makes men crooked.
pretty sure i agree with all of this

>Everything it has is stolen. It never forgets. It never forgives. And in that alone it rejoices. It's become the invading element, the Alien God to the world without a Demiurge. Its stars are black, its abyss is white.
so a kind of superego? that which enjoys seeing us fail? sounds about right. but ofc it's more complicated than this also, b/c we can resist these feelings, double down on them, take pleasure and so on.

perfect honesty is not only cruel to us, it's cruel to others. analytical scenarios aside we *don't* say everything we are feeling b/c my god, it would be devastating. but again i think this is the interesting thing about zizek's project; find the ideology and maybe you can expose the hilarious solipsistic madness there.

(cont'd)

>>9780355
>philosophers can't really solve the problems of the world b/c the real world doesn't work as analytic scenarios do.
This gets to the crux of capitalism, socialism, communism stuff.

The latter being the attempt of simple solutions. Capitalism solves this via welfare. If everyone is guaranteed to have their basic living needs met, there are no such thing as problems. There is nothing to complain about. Carry on, with your attempts at capitalizing.

Which is why those philosophers/social analyzer writers of the 20s, 30s, 40s etc some of who you read and relay, were quick to say 'communism is the solution!', the problem is human suffering due to first and foremost needs, secondary, wants.

And why people now adays say 'social communism/marxism', 'booo welfare state'.

It comes down to, population, quantity and quality, resources placement and scarcity, infrastructure, groups/communities/corporations/families/teams/borders, who can potentially have how many children, taxs, laws

Then there is: the more people that exist, the more needs there are, and wants.

>>9776508
People trying to parse the new idea of subjectivity until the postmodernists took objectivity to its limits and introduced deadpan as a philosophical position

File: egyptbarge.jpg (70KB, 1000x493px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1000x493px

>>9780344
also, that better not have been stirner you were quoting at me. i read him a while ago and iirc loathed the man. perhaps it was rousseau.

anyways.

>i think the monk/sage/zen master/prophet wandering in the desert kind of "philosopher" is the ideal archetype, which is contradistinction to the socratic philosopher of logos who engages in dialogue and the polis and whose modern manifestation is probably the public intellectual. who then attempts to fix society and fails but is still listened to because after all when the doctor has failed we still want priest on our deathbeds.
i agree. castaneda's shaman resonates with me. sometimes i think heraclitus is boss af. def always laozi & confucius. fixing society is a problem though; you either need a kind of Imperial Emanence (which works i guess if you have it) or to be a partisan. but i dislike partisans and i am not likely to be the Emperor anytime soon. i am much more likely going to be found going quietly insane in a lighthouse and speaking mysterious riddles to passers-by.

>fix thyself first. and maybe you can fix others
agreed. 100%.

>but even if you can't, staring into the desert expanse is worthwhile in itself.
yep

>ofc in this age of mass commodification this fixing of oneself comes at a hefty economic cost.
fuck does it ever. i could surely have been making
>not surely
a little more $$$ instead of reading. the road not traveled i suppose.

>i suppose this is why i have a (probably misguided) aristocratic nostalgia since you had slaves to do all your work and life was 90% leisure 10% go die in battle for glory.
kek me too. unfortunately if you roll like that i'm pretty sure the blood-soaked survivors wind up coming back and killing you. i would love to be a disgusting fat slob floating on a barge on the nile and being fed peeled grapes & fanned with ostrich feathers & thinking about poetry &c but i don't suspect i would last very long
>esp not after the Sea Peoples showed up
>goddamn Sea Peoples
>ruining muh deathless dynasty of god-kings

>>9780357
>The importantance of philosophy, turned into science. How do we use knowledge to improve the world and life. To build space ships and robots, and ski resorts and bullet trains, and how do we make more and better, faster, stronger, and ai, singularity stuff.
yep

>So how much can things really change, and how much of the masses will be left out.
this is why acceleration matters. the robots are coming. we're all going to get fucked by this. i'm going to be in those masses when the time comes. i'm not looking forward to this.

(cont'd)

File: 1500057790340.jpg (30KB, 500x176px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x176px

>>9780380
>Instead of letting the infinite ill problems of the world infinitely illy affect you, one has to say, this must be acceptable, at least for the time being, and for someone potentially so passionate, potentially caring about the situations of the world, about people, suffering of the world, one might call this state of being, an evil state of being, or their evil alter ego... maybe.
yep. that's it all right. i think it's mostly about survival mechanisms that become predatory once they become outworn. things work because they overcompensate, and then when the situation adapts they have to be surrendered, but they do not go gently into that good night. i suspect this is the kind of stuff that JBP's self-authoring thing is all about. it would make sense. the monomyth always has this psychological dimension in it
>and thinking about that stuff is what got me where i am now
>why *does* Good have to win? why not Evil?
>it's just better that way, but you have to visit some weird continental funhouses first

>Maybe it also is a real, part of us, maybe a true, maybe truer, maybe truest. maybe it is simply the angel and devil on the shoulder. A ying yang of selfishness and selflessness
checks out

>the more people that exist, the more needs there are, and wants.
this exactly. this was baudrillard's insight also: the consumer society was about the multiplication of *needs* rather than goods. and once this takes off the end recedes from view. b/c needs are infinite, and are in turn being continually re-designed according to the mysterious wants and desires of a consumer society. which eventually enfolds the whole world in a blanket of myth & fetish. even the joneses can't keep up with the joneses yet to be. hence the need to be able to seduce that which seduces one, as JB knew. but it's a cold, strange, fatal strategy to pursue

>It comes down to, population, quantity and quality, resources placement and scarcity, infrastructure, groups/communities/corporations/families/teams/borders, who can potentially have how many children, taxs, laws
that's right. these are not insoluble problems, but people's infinitely narcissistic self-perceptions render them virtually insoluble. the consumer society promises Happiness, but ultimately, i think, as a *response* to a lack of *genuine* existential meaning.

freud distinguishes between ordinary unhappiness and neurotic unhappiness. there is a third category, which is existential unhappiness, but this is of a particular kind: that's the unhappiness we don't actually mind having, that's the suffering that feels good, because it is for a higher goal. and that is precisely what people feel they are lacking. perhaps because of consumption, but maybe not.

gotta pack it in for tonight, but thanks for the conversation sir.

If you are reading this comment, either don't read this fucking thread or just stop now. It's all worthless, and you will be angry at yourself for wasting the time. I can't even believe I am wasting the time writing this goddamn reply. But just don't do it.

>>9780431
Could you put a percentage on how much of the human world is evil? How much power does evil hold in the world? What is wrong? How should things be? Is the only thing that truly matters in the world ones own happiness? All these topics and current political zeitgeist stuff, well I guess this has been always what political stuff is about, which may be what you have been getting at with your *other* is all others, the individual considering beyond themselves. And now is this only because of others potential to infringe on the individuals happiness, possibly.

But there is definitely something to do with the selfish and selfless. How that is playing out, in right and left. Politics, etc.

>>9780439
>didn't understand a thing to be honest
>but i kinda feel better about things anyway
>it's just fucking word salad though
>maybe this is zen
>you should try smoking it sometime

>>9777932
>if anime has taught me anything

Stopped reading

>>9776532
Anal Autistics isn't philosophy, it's regressive, degenerative garbage.
>>9776580
Back to /r/eddit you sentimentalist.

>>9776627
>being emotionally charged is bad
t. Letzter Mensch

You aren't a man, you're fucking 12. You browse Art of Manliness blogs and listen to Man-o-War.

>>9776654
>stoicism is good
Oh, you're just a little retard!

File: mdr6Xxf.png (539KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 800x600px

>>9780409
>that better not have been stirner you were quoting at me
The first was Stirner+Kierkegaard. And they weren't quotations.

>>9780390
>so a kind of superego? that which enjoys seeing us fail?
Not quite. It's the opposite of the superego. Like the one that kills that villain is a villain, the one that kills this hero is a hero. The important part is that the killer is acting evilly, but by virtue of this, the result is good. The loser (the killer) is the saved, but in that, perpetuates within themself the foundational act I was talking about earlier. Rather than getting rid of the law or the crime, it finds the law that makes the criminal lawful and good. It saves through sin.

>analytical scenarios aside we *don't* say everything we are feeling b/c my god
That's not really correct. What you don't express are your "first impressions".

>>9780431
>which is existential unhappiness, but this is of a particular kind: that's the unhappiness we don't actually mind having, that's the suffering that feels good, because it is for a higher goal.
Pretty much. There's nothing we're really obligated to, is the problem.

>>9780446
You're answering yourself with questions, Anon.

>>9780477
D'awwwwwww!

>>9777403
t. 17-year-old dickface

>>9780483
Not that anon but I want to see how you perceive this topic.
What do you consider the best option then?

>>9780431
I dont think its a problem with consumerist society, or the joneses, to degrees...

I mean, I think a lot of people come close in these scenarios to achieving their ideals. They are pursuing what to them is their closest to attainable perfect life. Perfection is within reach, more and better is within reach and there is always more of it and better of it, and why wouldnt someone want more and better always. Why wouldnt someone want the most nicest things, the best luxories and tech toys. Why wouldnt someone want to experience the highest heavens of earth. And so a large part of the world, is the ever increasing ability, in quantity and quality of creating the greatest possible human experiences on earth.

your potential problem with this is, its not for everyone? Or while this is going on people are starving? or that these people cant possibly "truly" be happy or cant possibly "truly" know themselves?

one of the biggest problems is we dont even know what the biggest problems are.


a lot of this comes down to whole and parts. (individual and collective (and collectives). Fix your self first before you can fix anything, yea. But as mentioned, the accepting that everything cannot be fixed? That one can be satisfied without everything being perfect? One looks around and sees problems around them, or in the world and says, this sucks, the world sucks, there are problems, there are so many problems. Some say, I am healthy, there are so many non problems, there is so much good, I am just going to try to make me and mine better. Can everything be ok for everyone? Politics is interesting because it is about the other. Ideally, we would all only have to worry about ourselves, and many people do this, but some people worry about others, some others need to be worried about. And then again, the other is so important to ourselves (to be clear, some certain others) in the creation of our community, economy, art, etc


first of all time and pleasure/joy are a precious commodity, and there are many different ways to get joy that require many different amounts of time/money

part of the thing that one may not like about consumer society/capitalism is the potential for waste (time/money/energy/resources/human/ity)

as in, there are people starving, and there is food wasted, people without car, home, and there is enough for them. But the argument this meets is,


>i think, as a *response* to a lack of *genuine* existential meaning.

can you give some examples of potential genuine existential meaning?

just rambling.

>>9777680
stfu hippie

>>9777719
you're a fool

>>9780493
What topic? I see no topic.

File: 4f9.png.jpg (117KB, 492x492px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 492x492px

>>9780498
>>9780503
>>9780506

>>9780506
Then let me rephrase. How do you live your life then? Do you follow any philosophy or have taken in parts of other philosophies?

>>9780514
>living systematically

sory to disturb you guys, just wanted compliment on the general style of your insults and way of pejorative. Thanks for the lesson, I will bring some of it on /b/ and be super intelligent there. Have an nice day and may your brains prosper! God I love coming to lit in my holidays.

>>9780486
>You're answering yourself with questions, Anon.
I was just musing, hoping someone would find something worthy of commenting on or prodding or prying.

I liked your writing that you wrote prince with a thousand enemies (and the others, if that was you)
I am not sure what you are getting at here though, if you are saying you believe in this, or are saying this is the current way
>The important part is that the killer is acting evilly, but by virtue of this, the result is good. The loser (the killer) is the saved, but in that, perpetuates within themself the foundational act I was talking about earlier. Rather than getting rid of the law or the crime, it finds the law that makes the criminal lawful and good. It saves through sin.

You would have to give more descriptive examples.

>>9780519
I've found living freely does nothing for me. Too much freedom just lead to stagnation as that much choice just made it near impossible to choose what I wanted to do.

So I figure other humans must be like that too.

File: Eva24DC_Kaworu.jpg (21KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x300px

>>9780524
The thing is that your questions start from assumptions.
>There's evil in the world.
>It has power.
>It is quantifiable.
>There is something that is wrong.
>There is a way things should be.

I'm not trying to beat you down with this. It's just something that people do all the time, really; it's kind of unavoidable and I'm not saying you should never make assumptions, but using questioning like this can get you into a lot of mental trouble. It can be fun though.

>I am not sure what you are getting at here though, if you are saying you believe in this, or are saying this is the current way
I'm postulating a potential option for social interaction I've been working. If it's difficult to explain and understand, well... that's not surprising, since it'd be all new if I'm really on to something.

>>9780556
well those questions were to anon, who seemed to presume there may be evil or things wrong with the world.

Yes, I do believe there is evil, if even simply defined as murder for example.

evil is just a word. murder is real, and there are many words you can call it. wrong, illegal, are a few.

>>9780592
murder is evil, anon

>>9780556
do you think there is no such thing as good or bad? would you prefer there to be no law? do you have any family you care for?

>>9780593
are you
>>9780556
>The thing is that your questions start from
assumptions.
>There's evil in the world.
?

>>9780598
No, I'm someone else.
>>9780595
The knife has drawn too close to the river of realness; if we're to be clapped anymore in dusty schoolbooks we can't get so close to the sun, huh? Imagine him scampering away, taste the FEAR!!

>>9780525
>nonsystematic existence is free existence

>>9780601
im not assuming anything, I did respond 20 mins after his and its real late/early

I think I see where OP is coming from.

It's less about the thinkers and more about the fledgling thinkees. I think everyone agrees that with young ones at least half the reason why they're into the Nietzsche/Kierkey thing in the first place is the emotional reactions to the first couple of radical arguments (delivered in the classic Nietzschean tone and vocabulary) they happen to stumble across. Without partaking in the ongoing discourse, without considering the counterarguments, they place their faith in radical ideas.

Which of course is quite silly and so on, why should arguments for say the death of God get an emotional rise out of you? But for young ones this is not so clear cut. They uncovered the truth. They must change their lives and change yours too. And so on and so on.

It's the game of identity seeking when you're young and don't have both feet grounded in your own life and own reality yet, when you aren't "the man" yet.

And that's fine. They'll get there.

>>9776508
>What is the name of this mental disease?
Romanticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

>>9776508
>What is the name of this mental disease
Cuckoldry

>>9780662
Will they?

>>9776508
Kierkegaard is particularly guilty of this though. i was about 20 when i first felt the strong desire to punch him in the face because of what he wrote.

>>9776508
and the animals like you are the reason which holds mankind back and prevent evolution in emotional way so we the people didnt change since fucking Aristole
Sissy? Masculine? what does fuckin philosophy has to do with that?
>Nietzsche
>existentialism
Congrats to you, kys and your whole family to prevent spreading your worst genes

>>9780662
thats the point
>>9780770
calm down dude

>>9780770

>and the animals like you are the reason which holds mankind back and prevent evolution in emotional way

>kys and your whole family

Wew you just got ragebaited on so badly just then. Baited into a massive ironical fail too. Major kek. Take a deep breath and hide thread next time.

>>9776508
ah, monsieur, i did not see this before now. you are right of course. let us not hide behind these evasions, though, my friend, of "effeminacy", of "feelsy pussy wussy", and various psychological maladies, which, as we both know, are in themselves Women's Problems. no, monsieur, let us not talk around this issue, but come to, and name exactly the evil that confronts us: the sin of homosexuality.

i have long studied homosexuality and its degrading effects on the real, hardy, masculinity of our ancient forebears, who were not afflicted by "feelings", but almost writhed in mathematical transports of reason, who lived and breathed absolute logical calm, like the great Aryan philosopher, Spinoza. this mental disease, as you so aptly put it, is nothing other than homosexuality, monsieur, which has corrupted our civilisation's "baseline masculinity". now that we have gotten straight to the point, monsieur - let us identify the source. and as anyone knows who has spent more than 5 minutes of their existence on /pol/, the source of homosexuality is known. and we don't need to name them, because those parasites know exactly who they are. i look forward to more of your posts exposing the "sissy" machinations of modern homosexuals acting upon Jewish instruction to destroy our civilisation. yours truly, monsieur,

Adolf Humeler, 4th Reich Defender

>>9776508
It's probably the logical conclusion of the increasing introversion that began with modern philosophy, and that led to the detachment and isolation of the 20th century. What do philosophers even think now?

>>9780803
> it's ok to ignore science and invent my own reality.

>>9780826
>responding to overt satire seriously
do you have aspergers perchance

>>9780803
I love you

>>9780803
Fucking 10/10, have a (You)

File: 1477766931435.gif (338KB, 538x572px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 538x572px

>>9780803
>like the great Aryan philosopher, Spinoza

>>9776573
L M A O

File: anax.gif (13KB, 463x112px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 463x112px

>>9780486
>The first was Stirner+Kierkegaard. And they weren't quotations.
gotcha. well even though i dislike stirner i will nevertheless congratulate you for having digested enough to sound just like him. my dislike for stirner is *really* hard to explain, btw. i can't really understand it. maybe it's just one of those things where perhaps at some deep level he reminds me of me and i don't like hearing it. i'm honestly not sure. or maybe because his thought is a puzzle that i am conflicted over.

i know that i don't want to be the Hortator, the Great Lawgiver. i prefer virtue to law and metaphysics > politics. perhaps i should go back and read him again and discover something about this, there's definitely something going on there.
>at last, someone in philosophy to feud with
>dat creative friction
>hnng
>tfw when will surely lose
>tfw i'm fine with this

>rather than getting rid of the law or the crime, it finds the law that makes the criminal lawful and good. It saves through sin.
this is an interesting idea - a sort of holy lie - and i have spent some time thinking about this. in the end it took me to girard (and deleuze, and the tao); in brief, the brutal reciprocity of history. is the tragic mode of perception the ultimate and final arbiter?

pic rel:
>Whence things have their origin,
>thence also their destruction happens,
>as is the order of things;
>for they execute the sentence upon one another
>the condemnation for the crime -
>in conformity with the ordinance of Time.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximan/#H4

girard thought, maybe not tho. maybe there's an alternative. i've found his argument compelling, but it took a while to get there.

>there's nothing we're really obligated to, is the problem.
not transcendentally, perhaps, but we are all too frequently obligated by *desire,* esp desire for being. which at first seems like a wild chaos, but later seems to cohere in interesting ways.

>>9780494
>one of the biggest problems is we dont even know what the biggest problems are
yup

>but as mentioned, the accepting that everything cannot be fixed?
aka, *straight wisdom.* yes.
>yes yes

>can you give some examples of potential genuine existential meaning?
it's that for which you suffer existentially. it's peterson't theory, in brief. but i think it's also going on whenever you contemplate the sublime, for example.

suffering for your suffering is not the same as suffering. whenever you try to *make art* or *perform some craft beneficial for Society* - and not only for capital. trying to *pass some test* that is worth it for reasons even you don't fully understand. trying to accomplish something noble, not *only* for money or Because Reasons. doing anything indeed that might be properly called Good.
>good tho
>yes ofc but still

>>9780503
for that post? nah. there are imho more foolish ones than that

>>9780803
genius

>>9780053
>tea and spartan agoge should do the trick for millennial postmodern basketcases.

Only within an institutional setting that symbolically commands and controls the millennial trans-modern integration. No longer can the sacred be said to be profane, no longer can comedy efface tragedy. Only in the great situation will the institutions rise, buzzing orange and ringing obsidian. Only then will a collective breakdown of humanity have us standing outside the walls preaching to the logos that their aesthetic is sacred, that they are clay and lighting, the earth, air, sun and moon - that all that necessitates humanity is an earth, a universe, the logos.

File: cf80ceb1cebdceb1cf82cf80cebfcf81cf84cf81ceb1ceb9cf84cebf.jpg (121KB, 662x613px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 662x613px

>>9781149
>anaximander/fragment
this has reminded me of something as well though that connects to something else i learned about via /lit/, which was liberation theology.

i tend to brood on is the Law, aka, Because Reasons. certain forms of axial-age psychology, or deleuze, others, articulate something i have always suspected about this: that it's *chaos* and not the Law which comes first.
>unless we are talking about some kind of Higher Law so remote it can't be understood. ok

Because Reasons is a thing i detest, the arbitrariness of force and reciprocity. i do not like the idea that all history belongs to the guy who cares the least and has the biggest firecrackers. and this not from some kind of ressentiment but because i regard the detonation of firecrackers as being frequently desperate, a kind of identity crisis even. true monsters and tyrants *know* that they are monsters and tyrants, which is actually what in a certain sense elevates them beyond being so. what passes for The Law is all-too-frequently in the end only so much aggregate common sense.
>don't ramble tho

so i'm in a kind of double bind, but it's one you've helped me to understand. what i *do* want is something like a *collective consciousness* of things, but *not* one which is *by default* understood mainly in and through the idea of *punishment.* the greeks are ofc Awesome. who's *not* into Heroic Objectivity? who's *not* fucking exhausted with infinite relativism & decadence? ok. but it's not so easy to *just say* We Should Go Back. to my mind it has to be about *going forward* but in the *right way.* taking a step beyond post/modernism into something which is in one sense mystical and in another pragmatic. a kind of nonduality that doesn't amount to only a sort of flaky mysticism, but isn't completely ungrounded from the world either.

this really gets at the central nerve-clusters of what i'm trying to work out. it's a kind of consciousness of ethics, but it doesn't have a political form. like in the tao, the Law itself manifests only when something *higher* and *more natural* has already been *lost.*

so christ, for instance, overturns all laws. girard understands this. the question is, does this loose anarchy on the world? what would a post-anarchic sensibility look like? is it even conceivable? is it just virtue ethics? maybe. chardin thought he could reconcile faith with science. for girard religion is everything. peterson is up to something in this vein too.

these are the kinds of things i'm interested in. a sort of rational nondualism or a nondual rationalism. god only knows why. it's connected to capitalism & other stuff, these ideas of human meatbags being connected on this insane planet.

something like an intimation of a second axial age perhaps. but not on an urban model. much more on a planetary/cosmo-politan model.
>you seek to have the power of international shame girardfag is it not so
>yes yes that's right gives it to us
>kek fuck you then

>>9780780
ehhhhhhhhhh

>>9780780
like the first one should be his family then himself

File: d8e6c24762808222b8689ffd842deaee.jpg (30KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x480px

>>9781204
>only within an institutional setting that symbolically commands and controls the millennial trans-modern integration
yes. exactly. it's not even so deranged: i'm just asking for some kind of fucking beginning to the idea of reclaiming a philosophical education. *something.* some kind of project, some way of looking at things that articulates what, surely to god, people are feeling. peterson is doing this already in some sense. nick land has articulated very well *why* this is necessary. we don't want to become the spartans, but it's also madness to drift too far from this. humans *are* scary but the *total pacification of them is also not a good scene.* philosophy in some sense should be as heraclitus described it: it's often painful and discordant to think, but with a much higher meaning going on.

there are also other interesting questions to ask here in this regard. again peterson: he's a behavioural psychologist, so he *does* get to invoke this medicinal idea: he *is* "authorized" in a way to tell people how they should live their lives. but *only* i would say once their lives have hit on a kind of a *crisis.* it seems to me that something like a better concept of *education* in this regard would have something to do with perhaps not needing education to always come in the form of a crisis - that is, via *tragedy.* b/c tragedy always instructs, one way or the other, and for better or for worse. but if you or i aren't in a tragic scenario ourselves, or the world wasn't, then maybe there would be room or time or energy left over for other things: maybe grand-soundingly political, maybe as simple as, as socrates says, doing what is perhaps the only thing to do: lie on the grass and praise the gods. which is perhaps all that matters.

>no longer can the sacred be said to be profane, no longer can comedy efface tragedy. Only in the great situation will the institutions rise, buzzing orange and ringing obsidian.
yes

>all that necessitates humanity is an earth, a universe, the logos.
i agree. this is where i want to get to as well. having a higher threshold for not only *political* or *social* ambiguity, but cosmological ambiguity as well. i don't know how deleuze did it but he got there. he managed to be able to care about philosophy, see the kinds of things that he did, and not turn his back on the world or on humanity.

heidegger is a good look, in many ways. the things that he says and writes *are* very similar to what you have written here: namely, the fourfold and so on. but first of all, trying to turn away from the inevitability of machines & tech is a bad look for more than one reason.

and the second reason is because maybe it's better to be a way-out-there castanedian nagual than The Conscience of the Nation: aka, the Hortator. sometimes it's not the tyrant himself who does the worst but the advisors & counsels to the tyrant. the secret Men of Good Conscience who, really, are just iterations of Grima Wormtongue in the end.

>>9780409
>>fix thyself first. and maybe you can fix others
>agreed. 100%.

Creative solutions require mistakes, breakdowns and repairs, destruction. The fix is in. Ignorance will guide you to bliss my son. So compile, dismiss, dismantle, strain yourself to fit into the straitjacket.

File: 57c540ca779a057bd3c70090c3bd3a8e--gilles-philosophy.jpg (20KB, 545x181px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 545x181px

>>9781245
what makes deleuze truly exceptional is that he didn't in the end take a massive steaming dump The Masses. which is *so* fucking easy to do. baudrillard does it. heidegger does it. now ofc both of them have their reasons: in a word, it's a kind of *conscience.* baudrillard is first following marxism all the way to the end because - why shouldn't he? and then when he feels things slipping out of control, he goes back to nietzsche. in both cases i would say that there *is* a kind of deep concern there, beneath all the mysticism. he knows *something* is rotten in the state of denmark.

with heidegger it's not so different. he wants to drill deep and find that which is revitalizing. and guess what? *he fucking does.* unfortunately, it means first quarantining the western tradition down to the presocratics, nietzche, and himself, and then of course fascism.

the real issue for continental philosophy seems to me to be connected to one very easy and very understandable, though dangerously seductive, notion: the *crowd.* the *masses;* das man or whoever.

philosophers need to be *humble* about this. they can't be smarty-pantses who Know Something You Don't. that Something does not exist. objet a is for real, no doubt, but *you cannot psychoanalyze a crowd, or a mob, or an abstract notion of a people.* Dasein is for real but turning your back is a bad scene.

for better or for worse, however tortuous, you have to leave the door open. this is a derrida thing but even he became too inaccessible, too snobby, in a way. no ivory towers.

you know what was a good look? a good old-fashioned graeco-roman stoa. diogenes in his barrel is too much: going street to street looking for an honest man is cynicism. etiquette is good. you can hang with confucius or zhuangzi. look at some koh fish. contemplate chaos w/deleuze. read great literature w/girard. clean your room w/peterson. these aren't so crazy.

an agoge is good too. but hunting the helots w/a krypteia? it seems a little much.
>being helots and insisting you are not? this also. but this is arguably what's going on today.

>>9781269
>Creative solutions require mistakes, breakdowns and repairs, destruction. The fix is in. Ignorance will guide you to bliss my son. So compile, dismiss, dismantle, strain yourself to fit into the straitjacket.
kek. how true is this, how true is this.
>a girardfag looking at himself in the mirror and unable to shake the feeling that somehow he's still having a good hair day in spite of the straitjacket
too good anon, you are too wise.
>goddamn these captcha buttons are tortuously slow now

File: 83d43408ee4d3eb4ef3861238e531614--jelly-fish-jelly-jelly.jpg (45KB, 460x569px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 460x569px

>>9781282
the real sin today *is* a kind of progressivism, the Bloody Nihilist Postmodern Neomarxism that JBP talks about. that's it; that's the toxic miasma we all breathe. irony having become the real, the real being *only* that which can be spoken of ironically. that is where the face drawn in the sand at the edge of the sea is constantly disappearing.

it's not that Das Man is a problem, it's that *intellectuals are an even worse form of Das Man* and they *don't even realize it.* it's very hard to not want to Address the Crowd, be the Hortator. but there is no crowd. there is no spoon. there's only us chickens. enlightenment may not always come along with a gentle meditation soundtrack. it may in fact be so goddamn deflationary that we will do literally anything to avoid confronting how unutterably tiny & ridiculous we are
>merest boneworms, looking for love
>give us your love
>give your love to boneworm
>tfw your nervous system is just that

oh that sea though. man. what a sight.
>kek those things are fucking toxic death machines & even worse you sentimental fuck
>well yes that is true but ok from a distance tho
>kek get fucked girardfag
>*strains in straitjacket* i'm trying i'm trying

so i preach metaphysics > politics but i'm not quite there yet. as soon as i stop hammering myself in the face over Muh Capitalism and learn to just accept all of this, to speak *without* this weird accent
>or to not feel the *compulsion* to say anything at all, but just be a smooth taoist metatechnician
>not metaphysician
then maybe i'll be able to feel that i've accomplished something

>tfw you know this straitjacket isn't so bad after all
>door slams
>roll credits
>post-credits scene
>door mysteriously unlocks
>go outside
>see straitjackets everywhere
>look like joker
>wat do
>wat do

>>9781282
>>9781316
So your end state (or goal?) is a kind of immanent phronesis, right? What do you think of Ranciere?

It's interesting because we have the same views on pretty much everything (from what I've been able to tell following your posts over the past year) and even read all the same authors in all the same ways, barring like one or two exceptions. But in the end my own Deleuzo-Heideggerian "uh oh am I just thinking of 'good fascism' now" philosophy has come to hinge on the possibility of Carlylian hero/redeemers rather than some kind of societas of phronimoi open to Tao-ish Being.

I'm really torn between the two possibilities. Either mankind's final, politically utopian state is a bunch of guys in togas sitting around a grove and disclosing their beings to one another, or it's accepting that we're the child at play and that all play is war at the end of the day. Or something in between. Or a new thing we can't see yet. And that brings in the problem of: What do you do when you don't know what to do, but you need to do things in order for "what to do" to dialectically emerge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mEzgc_ne60

>>9781316
>>or to not feel the *compulsion* to say anything at all, but just be a smooth taoist metatechnician
>>not metaphysician

I don't kek, but I did chuckle.

>tfw you know this straitjacket isn't so bad after all
>door slams
>roll credits
>post-credits scene
>door mysteriously unlocks
>go outside
>see straitjackets everywhere
>look like joker
>wat do
>wat do

It's weird to think how long it took for the makeup people to be happy with their work, how uncomfortable it was to play that part and sit in that chair and be silent and still while someone, paid a fraction of your pay, diligently made you you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyuJQ_UO7OE

Third man references make you more stylish and profound. I mine for these one up moments. Much better than (You)s.

File: 6207e7bea8632bfa901e9c2eff3237a6.jpg (340KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1920x1200px

if one of the mysteriously consistent metaphysical concepts of the 20C is the Crowd - the Masses, the Working Classes, Das Man, et al - then in the age of memes another turn of the screw produces Anonymous.

speaking anonymously is an interesting way of speaking. once again girard: the scapegoat resolves the discordancy of chaos and forms it into a whole, produces identity at the price of holy murder. quite a phenomenon. especially when we conceive of media reality as an interesting process, an ongoing waltz of reality/virtuality. is facebook hyperreal? or is it just real?

maybe dfw was right. maybe new sincerity is the thing, but requires anonymity. names suck, they're hideous. anonymity is cooler. but eventually you wind up being recognized whether you like it or not. the more you conceal, the more you leave a trace.

things i learned on /lit/. best to float on the great meme sea, one jellyfish among others

>>9781358
>we have the same views on pretty much everything
crazy, no? and it's probably not just us. there's Other Me out there somewhere, who says what i am always-already thinking even better than i do. that's *indescribably* weird. what you said about the Prince w/a Thousand Enemies. hit me like a bullet

>a kind of immanent phronesis, right?
kind of. something like the ethics of immanence, expressed or communicated via aesthetics, which is - unless it's deleuze, or baudrillard, or heidegger - better than theory. because it's harder.

>ranciere
haven't read him yet

>good fascism
kek you fucker me too goddamnit i think this too aaaaaaaaaargh

>guys in togas sitting around a grove and disclosing their beings to one another
yes

>or something in between
yes

>or a new thing we can't see yet
yes this too

>and that brings in the problem of: what do you do when you don't know what to do, but you need to do things in order for "what to do" to dialectically emerge?
shitpost like a mofo
shit
post
& shit
post
again

anonymity has its own dialectic. hivemind a thing

>how is it that music makes people feel & act the same way
>about that
>why is music dope & ideology sucks b/is so unutterably dependent on aesthetics
>b/c aesthetics are the deal & always were

looking for an appropriate theme song here. basically just trying to unscrew myself from years of brooding on critique of ideology and get back to something like music again. politics sucks & so does capitalism. we always argue in the master's language
>gotta de-Master yourself
>hard tho. i have such good reasons!
>but so does everybody
>and if i'm not a master-sovereign-Hortator won't i just be a slave?
>kek you're already a slave retard, you're a slave to your persona & you don't realize it. you make your own matrix & like cypher choose to remain in it b/c the steak tastes great

better to be a disarmed Nobody than an armed Somebody. that's got to be the way to go, i think.

Chill music b/c reasons. Air did/does nothing wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g72Lsx3sss

>>9780859
you probably, seeing how don't understand satire and sarcasm. he's mocking a person to attack his position.

>>9781358
>Or a new thing we can't see yet.

This is a concern directly related to the age of sail and the discovery of the new world, and how that compares to space travel and habital planets. Thought imprisoned, or thought given a gift. The gods war of cognition ends in thoughts imperialism.

>>9781475
ok you definitely have aspergers

File: don__t_panic_by_jamesrandom.jpg (36KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1024x640px

>>9781470
what's interesting about putting girard + deleuze together is that girard offers what is essentially a *hermeneutic of mass panic.* b/c chaos is scary, and this indeed is what produces the Hortator - either good or bad. fascism thrives on crisis, but there are of course *well-intentioned fascists* (aren't they all?)

deleuze tho. deleuze says, start with chaos and *stay* with chaos. deal with it through art, through philosophy, through science, but *not*
>not not
through *politics.* because that's what politics is - chaos management - but that's also *all* that it is. the force of the Law derives from precisely this effect: well, if *I* don't take care of this, what then? and all propaganda follows
>what did *you* do during the war, daddy?

politics is exactly the *problem* and not the solution. i get badiou, he's seductive af - but ultimately he's politicizing the metaphysics and i think it's better to get metaphysical about politics.

the problem is, of course, that you are then required to put your straitjacket on, flee the city, flee forever, remain forever-nomad. not cozy. would be better to have a Nice Cozy Spot. unfortunately, the Nice Cozy Spot only *looks* cozy. and most of the time when you talk to people *in* their Nice Cozy Spots what you tend to hear are a lot of anxieties, somewhat muffled, but very clearly there.

the whole move-to-the-desert-and-eat-peyote-and-be-a-demented-shaman-thing just makes so much sense sometimes. politics a headache.

girard gets panic & understands it. it's political. the sovereign has to deal with it for the Greater Good. better just to try and not panic in the first place, tho. try & remain calm & stoic. read the tao. don't be a retard. stuff like that.
>while the plane is crashing and your eyeballs are telescoping out of your head
>ah what a lovely day

>>9781497
yep, you do. and no amount of mental acrobatics in trying to attack what i said will let you escape from that realisation: that you cannot understand why and how people apply extreme sarcasm to parody a strawman.

File: Forest_Seven-Samurai_1954.jpg (533KB, 1400x988px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 1400x988px

ofc when you *do* have to kill bandits or whoever, do it like this.

this movie is must-watch for me. just says it all. the villagers need the samurai, and then dispose of them afterwards. it can't be any other way. the samurai can't take it out of their hides afterwards, b/c if they did they wouldn't be samurai. the relationship between the ronin & the bandits is subtle but it's there, and perhaps parallels the relationship between the philosopher & the sophist. except - and this is where it gets interesting, perhaps - *the village is not a polis.* it doesn't have a Law, it only has people. it will only have people.

Seven Samurai is sort of like a marginally more cheerful version of Blood Meridian, in a sense. all of the violence and cruelty is there. except this time it's not that it's pointless and insane. it's that one aspect of it is inseparable from the other. it's not that the Bad Guys never die, it's that the Good Guys never live. just as fucking teeth-grindingly frustrating, but true, in the end.

File: 2124964-x_mencota.jpg (331KB, 1040x1200px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1040x1200px

>>9781507
remaining calm & stoic would be *easier* however if you had a based confederacy of fellow warrior-traveler people to do it with, however dissimilar they seem. seven samurai working together can do more than a lone samurai by themselves. same with a team of super-mutants. if you roll james bond, you need a good M. if you roll batman, you need a good commissioner gordon.

better in general to have a posse for both metaphysical *and* political reasons. so that at least you can talk shit out before you start wrecking fools.

things, of course, the greeks also knew. and many others.
>hnng those *greeks* tho
>how fucking cool were those greeks

>>9781508
That your final diagnosis doctor? You sure you get why strawmen talk to each other? Was it a heart, or something else? I forget.

File: Joseph-Campbell-hero-cycle.gif (81KB, 596x477px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 596x477px

the only real place where politics and metaphysics wind up, in fact, is in the path of the hero. and then only by implication.

it's why screenwriting is good, perhaps, but hard as balls, because you actually have to articulate the sense of an ending. it's possible that screenwriting is always theopolitical in this sense. the masters - melville, mccarthy, joyce, any number of others - are able to get past this.

i'm still seduced, tho. that's basically my problem. because you can't resolve act 3 w/o ideology, and i'm not sure what ideology i have.

it's fear, for lack of a better word. failing to complete this project turned me into a philosophyfag. so now i'm marginally more cognizant of how memes work but in doing so i have become a kind of meme myself. it's why petersonian self-authoring works. we're all scribing private myths, but what really needs to be done is to get over one's own tortuous obsession with symbols: to 'traverse the fantasy' as lacan says

>and so girardfag delenda est

but even lacan did not ultimately succeed in doing this, i think. he spent his final years obsessing over knots and his analytical sessions worsened. heidegger had his turn, baudrillard also had his, and nick land opted for NRx and the love of bitcoin. maybe shit like that is inevitable.

but. but but. still artists now and again pull it off. herbert would never have reached the end of his dune saga, but he did write some good shit along the way. tolkien managed to get the ring into mount doom, rowling snuffed voldemort, and ahab eventually got his whale. the wachowskis jumped the gun with the matrix but part one is still dope. kurosawa managed to film seven samurai and not lose his shit. people do still manage to resolve their complexes.

it's just that artistic complexes are too easy to resolve via coup d'etat. politics is something to be overcome, not tragically endorsed, or turned into some kind of Event that you can then give yourself the imprimatur to spend your whole life waiting for.

artists, for lack of a better word, are capable of *shutting the fuck up* and *moving the fuck on.* this too is my endgame. everything else i say is really only so much deferral of this bare and simple truth: that in the end, the best thing you can produce is a kind of silence, a small and habitable clearing in the chaos.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (174KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1920x1080px

and for truly no joke great great art, this takes the cake. everything else is playing catch-up, imho. has it all. has everything. the bad guys nuke the world and they weren't even bad, they were just experimented on. killing the bbeg doesn't change anything; if anything, it's fucking anticlimactic. world's fucked & full of monsters. heroic resistance a meme. nature spirits are wild but can't be controlled. there is no one true hero.

but you *can* suplex a train. and fly an airship. and go to the opera. and wait for the ninja.

leibniz & the doomsday clown. girard & the apocalypse. heidegger & tech. the whole shebang.

this game was so ahead of the curve it's mcdiculous. i'll have to give ff7 a run-through again soon to see how well it measures up.

anyways, that's enough shitposting for today.

>>9781524
That shot is from Sword of Doom. Am I going insane?

>>9781765
oh shit, i think you're right. you know the scene i'm thinking of, but of course, the actual killing happens off screen.

you're not insane at all, i'm just retarded.
>aaaaaaaah these new captcha buttons oh my god
>it's like they're there so you don't shitpost so much & so foolishly or something

i need a break. check with you guys later.

File: almost transparent blue.jpg (13KB, 288x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 288x400px

1/2

>>9781470
>there's Other Me out there somewhere,
Still here, and following this thread.

>who says what i am always-already thinking even better than i do.
I can't tell whether it's because I say less stuff that what little remains is more concise, or whether I just have less stuff in my head.

>>9781657
>in the end, the best thing you can produce is a kind of silence, a small and habitable clearing in the chaos.
And that's the beauty of anonymity. If you don't have to say something, you don't say it, because you're not obliged to spout nonsense just to participate which is a necessity for interpersonal politics. Nonetheless, when you have something to add, then you just do it if it's something that needs to come out. And so it's selfless in a way, but also an assertion of individuality. Or rather, an assertion of capital A Anonymity. Speaking for Anonymous. Making a contribution to the hive mind. I'm not too cool on the individual as a concept and I def have my beef with a reduction to that even if ultimately you have to Fix Yourself First.

2/2

>>9781789
Finished Almost Transparent Blue recently by that other (and arguably, much better) Murakami. I don't think he ever says it, but there's a nationalistic undercurrent somewhere there that is nonetheless absent from at purely textual analysis with a dead author. His latest novel has some Japanese delinquents, outsiders, people who are the furthest thing from the establishment, fighting North Korean invaders. The ousiders. The ronin rescuing the village. Nationalists from outside of the state. What a theme.

So the characters in Blue revel in American counter-culture, drugs, and promiscuity, and there is no positive solution presented or no problem that is even raised, nor is there any kind of judgement (the Hortator!) saying This Fucking Sucks or whatever. It's up to the reader for form his own judgement.

There's politics there. But it's not stated. Rather it's shown. Black cocks. Real long, fucking the Japanese whores. Here's this degeneration. We don't know who's responsible. But if you have some kind of dignity, maybe you'd decide that this American culture seeping in isn't such a good thing. Even if you "enjoy" it.

And I still maintain that politics is a kind of metaphysics in itself. But maybe there are some parts of it that you can't say. Because blatantly stated it becomes Ideology. This doesn't mean you aren't doing politics. You are always doing politics.

>All the time, since I didn't know when, I'd been surrounded by this whitish curving.

>The fragment of glass with the blood on its edge, as it soaked up the dawn air, was almost transparent.

>It was a boundless blue, almost transparent. I stood up, and as I walked toward my own apartment, I thought, I want to become like this glass. And then I want to reflect this smooth white curving myself. I want to show other people these splendid curves reflected in me.

>The edge of the sky blurred with light, and the fragment of glass soon clouded over. When I heard the songs of birds, there was nothing reflected in the glass, nothing at all.

What did he mean by this? Maybe the thing is to fashion oneself so one becomes a microcosm of the state, before one attempts to force or lobby changes to the state. The Republic as Self Help book. There's a part of your mind who's the philosopher-king and he needs to step the fuck up.

File: 1416719466193.png (132KB, 1311x399px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1311x399px

>>9776508
>Before philosophy was baseline masculine

lel

File: kuroszava_akira_het_szamuraj_sicsinin_no_samurai.jpg (46KB, 430x323px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 430x323px

>>9781524
i can't resist one more. one more. back later for other stuff but this first.

kikuchiyo is the figure that matters here because he's caught in between impossible extremes. he's not a samurai, or a villager, or a ronin. he sulks like an infant and when he goes to war he needs nine swords. he is the Weird One Who Does Not Belong. he gets fucking shot.

then he drags himself like a revenant across the goddamn floor and murders the bandit leader.

kurosawa knew how it was. that's fucking incredible. no ubermensch here. no need. no need at all. kikuchiyo knew exactly what he was and the role went to exactly the right actor. he knows that he's peasant village scum *and* that he's not a samurai *and* that he's not a bandit either. so what the fuck is he? who knows. in the end he dies with the others and that's that.

now if that doesn't bake your noodle i don't know what.

File: alan-moore-1.jpg (954KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 3264x2448px

>>9781811
>The Republic as Self Help book.
i can into this. same w/hegel. both phenomenologies of spirit, models of thought. hegel's god is trinitarian & dialectic, plato's is formal. you can't fault either of these men for reaching the conclusions that they did.

>marx's god tho is a diabolical process the likes of which the world has never seen

polytheism is a good look. maybe that's what we should be writing about. not commentary or critique. just talk about how you attain knowledge of the eleusinian mysteries and bizarre panoplies of gods in your head.

pic rel gets it. he worships his own bogus snake-god cult. he also wrote the most face-meltingly awesome superhero comic ever written. i started the watchmen at 10:30 one evening and was finishing it just as the sun came up and was fucking shrieking at how he brought it together.
>no. no fucking way. no way you end it like this

alan moore is a fucking deity.

but let's talk about phenomenologies of spirit. because how about this: what if there is no Other. because that's the hurdle even lacan couldn't jump. like all great thinkers he created a concept that will stand the test of time - not him of course, hegel also, many others - but what you want in the end is perhaps not to be trapped in your own symbolic reality.

isn't this what we want? don't we want airtight, foolproof systems? that we can sell and be praised for? surely we do.

unfortunately that's not, i suspect, how the artistic mind works, which is constantly pulling all of that apart. you have to finish the story, just as girard says, you have to overcome and understand some fundamental lesson of desire and *transmit* this. but that means it can't be a meme, it can't be ironic, it can't be a simulacrum. it almost certainly *will* be tragic, some harrowing-out of the gods: but hey, you know. you can always keep your eyes and ears peeled for new gods. it's not like the world isn't flabbergastingly interesting like that.
>sounds great. where's my cheeseburger faggot
>coming right up, random dude

phenomenology of spirit tho. not allegory. not parable. not symbol. *phenomenology.* *of spirit.* b/c you're right about that. you're there in the bookstore reading self-help books but, of course, the one you need to read is the one that only you can write, and by the time you write it, of course, you no longer need it. witty's ladder. or hegel's dialectic. or plato's exit from the cave.

all the same thing.

File: quote-those-who-restrain-desire-do-so-because-theirs-is-weak-enough-to-be-restrained-and-the-william-blake-49-55-90.jpg (61KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 850x400px

william blake would have been an absolute nightmare for freud.

Great bait.Great thread.

File: the-end80.jpg (18KB, 512x258px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 512x258px

reading self-help books is a kind of fun, but really what we need to do is write self-help books which are ultimately intended for no one at all, not even you. otherwise it's just soma.

seems pointless. but fuck politics. write a phenomenology of spirit. everyone should write one of these.
>indeed wouldn't it be great if that was what happened
>you'd get an encyclopedia of PoS's

clean your metaphysical room, slay all of the gods, have a quiet internal ragnarok & then get back out there & move the chains in the blood war like everybody else.w/o all the woody allen nonsense. or the despotic/Hortatory nonsense. the same but different perhaps.

maybe I is an Other but only at the midway point. maybe, as the Sufis say,

>the final end and ultimate return of the gnostics...is that the Real is identical with them, while they do not exist.

kill the buddha and all that. or odin, perhaps, if that's who is on the other end of the line. or whoever.

what other reason is there, ultimately, to write? it surely can't be Social Change or for the bucks. bc you're guaranteed to be misinterpreted and only a weenie would rejoice in this. you write because it's the only way to break up a complex and get the internal philosopher-king to the destination (>>9781811). or even just *bust him out of the mud* so that at least you know that there is mud and you are in it. if you're plato, or hegel, or or heidegger, or the neetch, or wittgenstein, ok, you see things differently.

but if you know you're just another pleb? write a private phenomenology of spirit, shill it on amazon, call it a day and put on your uniform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVRcjmgxJEQ
>tfw should have learned to play the guitar
>tfw should have learned to play them drums
>tfw Hortator

>>9780662
>muh discourse
Back to /r/eddit

>>9780826
Science is invalid ideological wankery. Reality doesn't exist.

>>9776508
>>9776578
Poor people learned how to read and were less and less grateful for what they had been given. It climaxed in French and Russian revolutions, and ended up creating a nanny state.

>>9782085
Blake predicts borderline every thought of Nietzsche. Did Nietzsche ever read Blake?

File: c053624352d1aa637678e69aebbdd98a.jpg (870KB, 1431x2187px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 1431x2187px

>>9782504
nature > reality

>>9782658
not sure. feels as though if he had he might have mentioned it
>or, as is not entirely unimaginable, feigned ignorance b/c it might have skewed with his sense of originality.
>or just that he encountered him later in his life after his shit was sorted out
>and also he was coming unglued

but i doubt this. had he read him he no doubt would have written something about it. can't hate on the neetch. he's the boy & all that.

but blake was one in a million. maybe more than that. weird that deleuze doesn't really seem to mention him either in fact. could be that blake had a different concept of god than spinoza

i'm not super well-read in blake so if there are any blake-anons into him it would be cool to talk about that. it's certainly all there with him

imagination, yo. no ubermensch concept in blake, afaik. not sure if that makes him more interesting or less so. worth thinking about

File: quote-energy-is-an-eternal-delight-and-he-who-desires-but-acts-not-breeds-pestilence-william-blake-18848.jpg (50KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 850x400px

>>9782687

yikes
>tfw realize you have bred pestilence & resentment like a mofo
>but mimetic desire tho
>what about it?
>well i thought we couldn't share
>only when rivals fail to recognize each other for what they are
>well what if i'm not into that and i just want to fucking be a resentful cynical douche about it
>then you shall share pestilence instead
>damn that's harsh
>hey, that's what you get for being uncharitable with the eternal delight
>ok but what the fuck i didn't want it in the first place. i didn't ask for this
>too bad. them's the brakes. lrn 2 heidegger. make art or some shit

File: IMG_1422.jpg (46KB, 440x386px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 440x386px

>>9780803

>>9781215
(silly potentially off topic ramble, but attempting to point to a point)
These politics and news throw away our magic, experience, our precious time, attention, wonder, for some it has been called growing up, for many it is merely deemed necessary, a necessary sacrifice of existing in a democracy, for every individual to always know everything going on, for some a matter of survival, some believe the future depends on it and always has, the masses being and staying informed, and in forming. The currently world going ons is a spectacle as all things are, and in all ages there were those more and less consumed by the news, local and abroad, those more and less who felt they could, should, do something about it, those who more and less could, and always whos to say how right and wrong, how better and worse. I used to be in perfect bliss before I started considering the news, the larger world, the sufferings of many others, the unrighteous acts of some, my one life in a long struggled to be made paradise, full of the best gifts of the hstory of human kind. How much can the people really change and how much should they about the ways of the world, how much coherent power do they actually have? Lots of people pay attention to the news, national and inter going ons, how much power do these people have and what might be done if no one payed attention? Already with all the people that do daily pay attention, and still have so much to complain about. Thats my point, but I guess it comes down to agreement. Everyone knows almost everything about the ways of the world, the fear is that if they did not keep up to date with the going ons, that powers could get away with doing things they do not like/agree with?

My perception is that the people potentially have very little power. That nearly every single american could agree on a single issue, for instance, the government passing a bill, or deciding to take some particular action, every single american (besides those passing the bill) could say we dont want this bill, we dont like this or agree with this action, they can have protests, sign letters, and polls, and say collectively 99% of americans "dont pass the bill", and the government can pass the bill.

Is there anything in that ramble you think has any value to touch upon, do you see any of what I am getting at and how it relates to the current situation, and the past situation, of left vs right, alt left vs alt right.

In summery, everyone pays attention to politics because they are afraid if they collectively do not Power will do something they do not agree with. Power does things they do not agree with, and they are powerless to stop them.

That is part of the problem, the masses do not agree with each other, they are divided and conquered, so 51% of them manage to get a representative elected, and then that representative has full power, need not listen to the populous any more, the government is autonomous.

>>9781215
>>9783149

that status quo is usually way to comfortable to change, way to much mass and momentum, so as much as is may be considered how what is and what is not being done right now, and right now, and in 10 days, and in 5 years, effects 10 days after, and 5 years after, it is just rode out, and figured the momentum and mass can handle whatever problems come then, as long as the status quo is majorly upheld now. As long as many people are working and eating, thats all that matters, as long as many people are making money and spending money, and moving and organizing and collecting substance to do that, thats all that matters, everything else is icing and cherries. It is believed without question, any storm can be braved, the few are nothing compared to the many, the many are nothing compared to a few. And thats all that matters.

>>9776573
This accurately sums up my disdain for /pol/ ideology.

>>9781215
>>9783225

does America want, can America have, a population of a billion?

What are the most important issues? What is most important? What is currently wrong?

File: Spook in the Shell.jpg (222KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1000x1000px

>>9780592
>murder is real, and there are many words you can call it.
I disagree. Not because "murder" doesn't happen and people don't die, but because murder is a very specific thing that requires a PoV to be understood. There's just so many variable for things dying or being killed than simply saying "murder is wrong" strikes me as shortsighted.

>wrong, illegal, are a few.
Those two words alone mean pretty different things. Making a mistake isn't breaking the law, nor are both evil, nor are being incorrect epistemological. Just because things tend to overlap doesn't make them the same.

>>9780595
Getting kind of ad hominem here. But your question on law is interesting. I'm not sure if we should get rid of law. Perhaps what we think of as law -if we accept that it arised at some point in history and so on- can be replaced with something better. Of course, this entails understanding the *world* in which these laws are going to function; 'cause "do not steal" or "do not murder" don't really cut it if we live in a cyberpunk world (to give one example).

File: 470184main_magnetosphere2-unlabeled_full.jpg (242KB, 1576x1182px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1576x1182px

>>9780446
>Could you put a percentage on how much of the human world is evil?
more guilt than evil

>But there is definitely something to do with the selfish and selfless. How that is playing out, in right and left.
you're not wrong about that.

i'm going to assume you're also
>>9783149
so we'll go with that.

>Is there anything in that ramble you think has any value to touch upon, do you see any of what I am getting at and how it relates to the current situation, and the past situation, of left vs right, alt left vs alt right.
mimetics. it's just mimetics. it's all there in girard. all of it. top to bottom. how us humans are composed. if life on terra in the 21c is best described by D&G's mechanosphere - and i see no reason why it should not be - than however it is we might go talking about our persona should probably use the word magnetosphere at some point. like pic rel. quantum physics a thing. and if capital is just energy, and it runs on Desire, well...i don't know, it just seems crazier not to get really Out There with this stuff rather than try and torture our language half to death. let's be cool flaky new age dipshits instead of modernists. b/c where is modernism heading? only mimetics.

>everyone pays attention to politics because they are afraid if they collectively do not Power will do something they do not agree with. Power does things they do not agree with, and they are powerless to stop them.
yes. but power really works through your unconscious processes. it's the shit you do *automatically* and *without thinking* that is worth paying attention to. because, ten seconds ago, you thought you knew why you did it...

>does America want, can America have, a population of a billion?
we're going to find out and it won't be pretty

>What are the most important issues?
rescuing the intelligent from the tyranny of crowd opinion and preparing them for civilizational salvage ops

>what is most important?
intelligence
>or just a conspicuously consistent absence of total retardation

>what is currently wrong?
how much time do you have

it's all about capitalism. we are now beholden to processes entirely out of our control. maybe it was always meant to end up this way, maybe not. but it needs to be treated with respect. it *is* Feels > Reals now, except it will be the *robots* to take care of the Reals. wealth stratification, lunatic progressivism on either side of the political spectrum, ecological damage, the importation of middle-eastern theological clusterfucks into the back country of germany, much else. politically speaking i spent much of 2015-2016 sweating the shit out of this.

in 2017 and from here on out i preach metaphysics > politics. just learn to think so as not to be fully beholden to your own libido. that's really it. and maybe philosophers can give some impression for how fucking pants-on-head-retardedly interesting heidegger, deleuze, baudrillard & girard are. so that maybe then we don't feel the need to scapegoat anyone.

File: unnum2-1643.jpg (170KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 640x640px

>>9783415
>totally out of our control

now *in a sense* this is not actually a bad thing. the fact is that, i would argue, things were never really *in* our control to begin with. even the greeks were possessed by gods. europe was riding high in the enlightenment but all this came prior to the neetch and others. which is not to say, of course, that wtp (or bergson's élan vital, or whatever) was not in effect prior to that. it was.

but *media* and *capital* and *cybernetics* link the whole world up. see mcluhan for more details. and once linked it stays linked. the spice must flow. and i believe that, just as an electrician can figure out how electricity can work, economists - and how much i love that phrase, Well, You Just Don't Understand Economics* - maybe should understand that there is a much larger psychic ecology at work with all this stuff. global brain &c.

now radical marxists like tiqqun will say, if you abolish property you also abolish *privacy.* and so so much for tiqqun for me. i may not have any property worth making a fuss about, but i do like privacy, very much. but of course all of this belongs to how it is that we conceive of the subject and their relations and so on.

it's why lacan matters. it's also why deleuze matters. and heidegger, and girard, and baudrillard. because all of these guys are making some deep & fruitful investigations of what it means to be a subject, but in the 21C we are going to learn that this means being a subject of capitalism. which is like being a fish in the water. it's just everywhere, it's all around you.

i'm out on the far reaches of speculative realism and lovecraft and so on. i get it, of course. those are powerful metaphors and you can always find something new and even more depressing as fuck in your unconscious if you look hard enough. but beyond a certain horizon it just makes sense to make an intuitive leap and assume you probably know enough to be able to "live" the rest of your life.
>and the quotations are there b/c sometimes it's honestly so fucking depressing i can hardly stand it

but depression is old news and woke cheerfulness is the new hotness, even if there's no reason to be cheerful. or maybe because of that reason. because you almost always have some kind of Because Reasons argument for being miserable, and happiness is a kind of an interesting mystery.
>because it's not all about you
>i want it to be all about me tho
>well it isn't
>ok but still
>no fuck you
>sigh

everything connects, for better or for worse, on planet meme. that is the blessing and the curse of the internet and the electric age.
>so, you must use the power for good, and not for evil
>what about pornography
>that's evil
>unless you're *making it*
>still sort of evil
>but less so

*i don't
>still tho

File: 1500150812809.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>9783509
>pornography
ofc i am being hyperbolic about this, in case anyone was actually wondering.

has tlp finished his book on this yet? i feel as though he hasn't but i read somewhere that he was reading *all media as pornography* and that kind of shit rings my bells like you wouldn't believe.

File: 1454953690445.jpg (134KB, 653x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 653x1024px

>>9781149
Here's something on Stirner that I loved:
https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=BLCCGfcc_CQC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=%22artificial+barbarian%22&source=bl&ots=QjuGfLdQ4D&sig=CFJcFWSyVhRmqQk2iYthOjWHRkc&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVu8eBgJnVAhUCMSYKHR46D6IQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=%22artificial%20barbarian%22&f=false

It's missing a couple pages, but to me it manages to summarize why Stirner managed to do what Marx and Nietzsche couldn't. Sadly I haven't managed to find the book elsewhere on the net or read more by/on Calasso.

>a sort of holy lie
http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu17.html

See now, it's one thing to be clean cut and honest, if brutal, with people. To go "here's the golden rule, I live by it because otherwise we'd be ripping each other's throats off". But that has its limits and doesn't work with evil people, who don't work inside the law, but on the convenient places the law leaves out or creates; plain honesty also has the problem of creating cults, which no matter how correct the cult figure is, always end up devolving into making people less unique and less responsible (fuck you Amitabha), while at the same time encumbering them with morals, which was the opposite of what was intended.

So how do you go about solving this? Remember trying to make things more safe will create the demand for a larger thief (Zhuangzi). Instead you have to put the thief in a situation in which they end as the cop, not in the way they *wanted*, but in the way they *said* they wanted but only said to get power. Like a monkey's paw, but one that benefits everyone, and makes the wishmaker honest to others rather than themself. Rather than get rid of tragedy and crime, one uses them as a means; rather than keep evil at bay in perpetual cycles, you imprison evil in death drive.

>>9781215
Certain laws are necessary and the foundation of community, society, civilization, order. The current law books are likely over 100 volumes, I am sure you can find some lines to argue about, but questioning obvious foundational laws is quite silly. Once you start doing that you are saying it is alright for you to be kidnapped right now and put in a cell for amusement.

File: 1499258407416.jpg (37KB, 425x483px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 425x483px

Is chaos a lack of priorities?

File: f9c07587ed74f7bec5e307fef52af5d9.jpg (56KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x500px

>>9783590
>all secret services share a mission that is far more important and far more effective than all their conflicts: the annihilation of secrecy
>mfw
that's fucking awesome!

all right, so this looks interesting *as fuck.* as fuck. i really, really loathed stirner when i read E&iO but this really looks cool. i go hard for philosophy but honestly my literature reading is lagging pretty far behind. i'll check this out for sure. /lit/ does it again. cheers boss.

>he who does not trust enough will not be trusted.
the fucking Tao man. every line just fucks with you. it's insane. ofc it makes sense. it *kills* you how much sense it makes.
>maybe you're just a sentimental brainlet girardfag
>and? your point?

>plain honesty also has the problem of creating cults
is it wrong that i am laughing about this? something about this is incredibly true. it really is. radical honesty fucks with people. you just can't believe what you're hearing, you're mesmerized by the sight of it. that's fucking tremendous also.
>is this how the greeks did it? is that it? is that the secret of charisma? not seduction, but total honesty?
>b/c fuck rhetoric
>but you need, well, something interesting to say as well

>Remember trying to make things more safe will create the demand for a larger thief (Zhuangzi)
pic rel also
>but talking about thieves is so much more interesting, and talking about laws is exhausting
>romans cannot in2 stealing
>that greek cunning of odysseus that always finds a way
>adorno so mad right now
>jung is into it tho

>Instead you have to put the thief in a situation in which they end as the cop, not in the way they *wanted*, but in the way they *said* they wanted but only said to get power
oh man. thief school. thief academy. oh my
>lycurgus: stealing is good

the *ethics of stealing* are really interesting to think about. every major religion says, don't lie, don't steal. they're all correct, of course. but if you want someone to really understand how this works, cognitive strategies are the way to go. yes.

>rather than get rid of tragedy and crime, one uses them as a means
yes yes

>rather than keep evil at bay in perpetual cycles, you imprison evil in death drive
yes yes

although, of course, evil never stays imprisoned for long. eventually it winds up in therapy
>but it would be better to wind up in art

>>9783642
>quite silly
you're not wrong about that. hyperbole is a habit i picked up from baudrillard. the laws are a thing, no doubt. i like them also.

so laws are there, but i'm following from girard on this. at a deep, mythic level, it's Order and Chaos. the Law in a sense comes afterwards. in parts of the world arbitrary state cruelty & whatnot *do* happen - whether now, or even historically in the West. so i'm casting the net wide, is all.

>>9783649
not a crazy question. might also be an excess of unresolved priorities also. it's going to vary person to person, no? otherwise ideology?

>>9781316
>Bloody Nihilist Postmodern
how is this not just a result of freedom? And I thought freedom was the best thing, give me liberty or give me death?

Is what is being suggested that people, youth, are ignorant and what they do with their freedom, they will certainly regret? They just don't know it, so certain freedoms, in some ways certain freedoms from ignorances must be restricted, for peoples own good?

The only rule is freedom and law. Freedom results in a state of the world, a condition of every single person and their inter relations. People complain about the state of the world, and certain ways of certain peoples lawful freedom.

What can be done? Change some laws to restrict freedom (fascism), or attempt to 'prove, educate' the people on why what they are doing with their freedom is bad for themselves and everyone else?

File: Caesar.jpg (125KB, 449x640px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 449x640px

>>9783681
>romans cannot in2 stealing
this was dumb of me to say
>how about i just steal gaul for the empire & pay these debts back
>and steal your hearts too while i'm at it w/the time i told those pirates i was worth way more than what they were asking for me
>and then check this jawline
not stealing, ofc. just...adventuring

we all say dumb things sometimes.

File: think-like-a-man-henri-bergson-quote.jpg (93KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x800px

>>9783690
>how is this not just a result of freedom?
you're right about that. it is

>and I thought freedom was the best thing, give me liberty or give me death?
true. that also. but i skew very gallic on this. first, you're not free from your drives. and second, give me liberty or give me death applies just as much to dick cheney or whoever as it does to you and me. freedom *from conscience* is the one i get stuck on. down that road lies nietzsche. and my perspective wrt consumer society is that it is driven by a kind of freedom that gives with one hand and takes with the other. it's the pessimism i acquired from reading a lot of marxists. sometimes unwarranted, sometimes not. mos def hyperbolic. very cautious about the idea of liberty.

>Is what is being suggested that people, youth, are ignorant and what they do with their freedom, they will certainly regret? They just don't know it, so certain freedoms, in some ways certain freedoms from ignorances must be restricted, for peoples own good?
i want to give you an unconditional yes to this but it would make me sound like an arrogant douche. so how about an unconditional maybe.

>The only rule is freedom and law. Freedom results in a state of the world, a condition of every single person and their inter relations. People complain about the state of the world, and certain ways of certain peoples lawful freedom.
true

>What can be done? Change some laws to restrict freedom (fascism), or attempt to 'prove, educate' the people on why what they are doing with their freedom is bad for themselves and everyone else?
first, and obviously you know this, not every restriction of freedom amounts to fascism.

also, why put 'prove' and 'educate' in scare quotes? sometimes it's true. what we want isn't always what is best for us.

look. nobody *really* has the right - for better or for worse - to tell other people what they Ought To do with their freedom. personally? i think we are beholden to a lot of deeply crazy inner processes that suggest that we are less free than we think we are, once we look under the hood. it's not a bad thing, and it doesn't mean the state must be revolutionized. my thing is capitalism and the consumer society, which *does* run on liberalism, with all that that entails. i am *suspicious* about freedom, especially individuals who regard themselves as *perfectly* free. legally, in some senses, they are; and no news is good news.

but everything comes from somewhere on planet meme. terrorists happen for, if not exclusively, US dependence on foreign oil. that oil is in your car and my energy bill.

i'm not trying to offer some kind of apologia for hysteria
>although i'm doing a good job of that
just trying to say how it is i see the world. which is to say, one big meme energy field. cannot unsee.

sanity > cynicism
>obviously

nothing too crazy. just a little healthy skepticism about the endgame of consumption.

>>9783389
Ok, so say someone breaks into your home right now and takes you back to theirs and locks you in a cage, are you ok with this?

>>9783415
>>Could you put a percentage on how much of the human world is evil?
>more guilt than evil
In what way? Should we care about everyone in the world?

>>9780478
The most contradictory combination of statements ever posted on 4chan.

File: legacy-slides-confucianism-of-heidegger-9-638.jpg (84KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 638x479px

>>9783838
>In what way?
ressentiment. the neetch was one of the most interesting humans who ever put his thoughts down on paper. guilt is a thing. makes people do crazy things for beauty. always has. always will. for better or for worse. these are things worth paying attention to.

>Should we care about everyone in the world?
now here is the 64m question. *so.*

the great wisdom traditions are what they are because they work. confucius fits this category. so does the buddha. so do many others. including, i would say, latecomers like heidegger. truly canon-level thought is totalizing. it works, it explains everything. and, most of the time, anyways, great advances in philosophy are made not by proving anyone wrong, but by proving everyone right. sometimes, of course, there has to be Teh Great Refutation. but usually the big guys all have something to say that stands the test of time.

that's one thing. now, *should* we care about everyone in the world? i mean, this is a pretty serious question. if you have an interest in perceiving yourself - for *whatever* reason - as moral, ethical, &c, then yes, because *consistency matters.*

i didn't use to feel this way. i used to be okay with a topsy-turvy, This Now This universe. but the bloom came off that rose after a while, for many different reasons. i just didn't like the idea of a Universe of Tricksies. b/c what happens if you want to be serious? or if you just want to be able to sleep a little better at night? or Smite Evil? or...anything?

so i found it necessary to begin to work out some kind of stance that was okay for me, but i really did have to dig pretty deep in looking into it. b/c you're right: *should* we care? okay, let's say we don't. then what? how do we go on justifying ourselves? what makes *our* situation any different from anyone else's? why *shouldn't* i Have It My Way? lots of people do.
>and some of those people are inveterate dickbags

one interesting word in that is *care.* this is actually why i had such a good response to heidegger: for him being *is* care. i really liked that, b/c it actually explained *moods* really well, which was something i didn't think anyone else had done or even could do. so caring about others was also caring about myself.
>and really, i was still the only one i wanted to care about anyways

but, little by little, you wind up thinking about your *context,* both in space *and* in time, and then...and then.

so really it's up to you how wide or deep you want to throw the net. i tend to throw mine pretty wide, if only because i'm curious to see what i'll find.
>which is usually much weirder & stranger than i was expecting
>but also more interesting

care management mos def a thing. but sometimes bigger is better. true, sometimes bigger is also more unmanageable. but the thing is, it all connects. so why not think big?
>b/c you'll go insane, that's why
>well there is that

>>9783778
>you're not free from your drives.

freedom merely implies one is free to have drives and attempt to freely deal with them.

>and second, give me liberty or give me death applies just as much to

Which is why there ought to be just and righteous laws just and righteously enforced.

What other way do you think it could be? Better question; What current freedoms would you want to restrict?

>as it does to you and me. freedom *from conscience* is the one i get stuck on.

examples being, sweatshop labor? And? ok I just read your terrorism oil example (these things are surely against the law) And solutions?

More perfect laws more perfectly enforced?

>also, why put 'prove' and 'educate' in scare quotes? sometimes it's true. what we want isn't always what is best for us.

because then people might try to prove and educate that playing video games 12 hours a day is not good, or youth raves or gender study degrees is helping ruin the nation

File: 8a88f2dcb81fb0b9b83024cfd7fdda6b.jpg (80KB, 500x648px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x648px

>>9783825
I honestly wouldn't know. It would depend on a lot of things. Am I getting fed? Is the place dirty? Is there a chance for me to escape? Are they going to be doing something with me? What was I doing before they kidnapped me?

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Are you talking about freedom? Because I'm not that worried about my freedom. If I'm locked in a cage forever I would simply work on my meditation or just let myself die.

>>9783909
what do we actually want? What do we actually want to accomplish? If our lives are relatively perfect and stable and nice and enjoyable and fun and challenging and ok and decent and good and great, is that ok? If you had this could you be content? What else would you want? What is the source of the interest of others besides oneself? Of other nations, of politics, sociology, economics, is just living so boring? Losing the mystique of fiction, non fiction becomes the predominant form of entertainment? And there becomes a desire to steer? There becomes a judgement of good and bad, better and worse, content and discontent, right and wrong, and those who agree align and attempt to steer the future toward what they believe they are correct in believing is the most desirable direction? All so that, individuals can have the best opportunity to seek lives that are relatively perfect and stable and nice and enjoyable and fun and challenging and ok and decent and good and great?

Is it just many trainwrecks we cant look away? And/or we want to prevent all trainwrecks we are currently and historically have been too much witnessing? Do we all want peace and quiet, do we all want safe spaces wherin we can safely make safe noise? Do we want everything to be ok and fine and right?

And/or do we think in the future unimaginable changes are coming, and that is why we maybe more than ever, or uncontrollably almost, are glued and intrigued, that humanity is on the cusp of a technological revolution exponentially grandeurer than the previous ones, which have always been unimaginably grand.

>>9776508
>>9776627
>>9776654
You seem to have quite an obsession with sissies.

File: 3x3.jpg (256KB, 920x920px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 920x920px

>>9783838
here's my cornball 3x3 list. given how little i have been meditating of late the buddha would probably move himself off this list and mcluhan would take his spot. outside there's a waiting room where de maistre, junger, some stoics and a bunch of other guys are hanging out.

my whole thing is, i think, how to live. just that, how to live. it's why i'm keen on the idea of writing a kind of phenomenology of spirit that takes this stuff and turns it into a fable-ontology so that i can move on from being a girardfag and just be an anonymous dude out there in the world again.

but heidegger tho. it's just about being an individual. caring about the world is part of individuating, and too much care can prevent you from fulfilling *that* even more necessary obligation. there's no need to be a martyr. girard argues very persuasively that we already *have* one of those and that one is plenty.

i'd love *not* to care. i sincerely would. i would love not to give a shit about politics - even metaphysics. i'd love to be able to just let all of it go. unfortunately, i can't. i'm still stuck in the world and surrounded by other people who, in spite of my alienation, look and sound much like me. i am sometimes bothered by this. but i have reason to believe that people are much the same everywhere. this bothers me sometimes, b/c o the fun things humans do to each other in the name of the good, the beautiful, and the true.

but there's no other way to go about thinking but with the continentals. the analytics are good for sharpening your tools, but for Being and the big questions, it's the continentals all day.
>and the clusterfucks they get themselves into

so it's good to care, but it's even better if you can care in the right way, care effectively, care in a way that is mutually beneficial to all involved.

>>9783953
>freedom merely implies one is free to have drives and attempt to freely deal with them.
nothing mere about that my man. the sky's the limit

>better question; what current freedoms would you want to restrict?
restricting campaign finance spending in US presidential campaigns would be good. maybe inheritance taxes for the 0.000001%. the kyoto protocols. i thought JBP was correct about bill C-16. there are others. the girardfag Hey Don't Be a Fuckface Decrees For A Better, Happier, Sexier Meme World, Today
>forthcoming

>sweatshop labor?
not a crazy example

>and
and? sweatshop industry labor sucks. sadly, it's an inevitable suck
>muh capitalism
>yes. i know. but it sucks tho. and the solutions are not simple

>solutions?
wear a condom, study hard in school, call your mother & go to church. if you are a small pacific micro-state just Do What Singapore Did
>if you can

>playing video games 12 hours a day is not good
probably true

>or youth raves
hey i liked raves

>or gender study degrees is helping ruin the nation
big questions indeed. gotta be cool & articulate. can't get trigged. that's job #1.

>>9783981
ok so you are not one to speak to about the nature of society and law. You could have just said so.

>I dont care if I die, someone can kill me right now and thats fine
>hey everyone, all 7 billion and to those in the future who value your lives and the world and strive to live, be fruitful and multiply and take great pleasure, pride, honor, and love in living, listen to what I have to say about laws and particularly how I wouldnt care if the status of laws were such that it made everyones lives greatly more miserable with the chance of much unwanted death and suffering, hey society I dont care about the destruction of society, actually my stance encourages it, listen to my stance and consider implementing it

>>9784018
Could he be the same anon referenced here? They're around the level of pseud.
>>9764054

>>9776664
underrated

>>9776508

>intended to evoke vague connotations of importance and grandiosity.

luckily, your post made no such attempt.

File: The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man.jpg (53KB, 791x1186px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 791x1186px

>>9784028
>phenomenology of spirit
not just me tho. i think it would be cool if this was just a thing that people did. a thought prompted by this thread.

>>9784017
>what do we actually want?
desire for Being, i think. existential fulfilment. to formulate some answers to the Question of Life and Death, to have a goal and reach it. to work our shit out with Society.

>What do we actually want to accomplish?
fundamental existential goals:
>who am i
>and what the fuck am i doing here

>If our lives are relatively perfect and stable and nice and enjoyable and fun and challenging and ok and decent and good and great, is that ok?
of course!

>If you had this could you be content?
i think so

>What else would you want?
more of it! and to share some with people i love
>and the occasional one-legged french prostitute

>What is the source of the interest of others besides oneself?
absolutely nothin'

>of other nations, of politics, sociology, economics, is just living so boring?
fuck no it's the opposite. it's disgustingly interesting

>Losing the mystique of fiction, non fiction becomes the predominant form of entertainment?
never going to lose the mystique of seduction

>And there becomes a desire to steer?
i don't know what this means!

>There becomes a judgement of good and bad, better and worse, content and discontent, right and wrong, and those who agree align and attempt to steer the future toward what they believe they are correct in believing is the most desirable direction?
now i do!
>and yes!

>All so that, individuals can have the best opportunity to seek lives that are relatively perfect and stable and nice and enjoyable and fun and challenging and ok and decent and good and great?
yes!

>Is it just many trainwrecks we cant look away?
it is!

>And/or we want to prevent all trainwrecks we are currently and historically have been too much witnessing?
I think so!

>Do we all want peace and quiet, do we all want safe spaces wherin we can safely make safe noise?
both!

>Do we want everything to be ok and fine and right?
mostly! except when we want to play far cry 2

>And/or do we think in the future unimaginable changes are coming, and that is why we maybe more than ever, or uncontrollably almost, are glued and intrigued, that humanity is on the cusp of a technological revolution exponentially grandeurer than the previous ones, which have always been unimaginably grand
179% correct!

this was fun. i enjoyed the lightning round. for some reason this book occurred to me, maybe it's something you'll be interested in, maybe not.

>>9784028
>it into a fable-ontology so that i can move on from being a girardfag and just be an anonymous dude out there in the world again.
I do think your thoughts are interesting and unique enough that you should not be stamped as someones apprentice, but hey bro...just be yourself, even if that is anonymous person, or psuedynmhn, but of course you can do what ever you want
t. Plato'sbitch

I wrote this last night but didnt post it, dont remember why, maybe because I was too uncertain of my understanding of heidegger, but think its fitting now that you mention him again (again for me, its individual vs/with whole), is it about happiness, is it about health, is it about access to materials/variancy/nutrients, the best mixture of all these? There are some poor people that have access to 1st world things but maybe a poor fisherman in the Philippines is happier, what actually matters though, that fisherman hasnt seen good tv and movies or art, though, or eaten fast food or had good ice cream etc.):


>it's all about machines and chaos. which i think is undoubtedly the way forward. but we can pour one out for heidegger now and again also.
A while ago I tried to write a sci fi idea, and one aspect was the thought of, far future super technological abilities, but also on earth still lived primitivish people, kind of how there are still indigenous tribes and amish today.

What do you think of that, there could be cyborg humans living 500 years zipping around in flying cars with their immortal sentient AI friends and would they be expected to leave alone in peace, a community of simple living farming peasants who work and live as they did 1000s of years ago?
Are these people that dont want to take part in progression just crazy? For missing out on all the fruits of humanity + earth has to offer?

to my very limited knowledge of heidegger, I thought maybe he is towards that way of thinking..well at least he is for, human quality of life, feeling, being is most important? And technology innovation for the individual at least is not worth the sacrifice of the individuals potential to experience its potentially good being, to become a slave to the machine?

In society there are varying degrees of the individual relatively sacrificed to/for the collective but the individual certainly gains to degrees, and this is partly the crux. The arguments of levels of individual and collective sacrifice for what, and what is the alternative.

>girard argues very persuasively that we already *have* one of those and that one is plenty.

I suppose you are speaking of christianity. Interesting, as if, if anyone in the world is struggling with life, they have something to turn to, somewhere that can help. This has also been attempted by the state, but the church attempted this too I guess, and for a long time and in places still, there is church and state, and there are many different churchs.

>>9783228
I want R*ddit to leave.

>>9784064
>>phenomenology of spirit
>not just me tho. i think it would be cool if this was just a thing that people did. a thought prompted by this thread.
its called facebook, and my diary desu, and open mics, and blogs

>>9784028
>girardfag
at the same time, its good for getting people to maybe check out a writer you really like, and to have a name to track or keep your posts

>>9776508

>What is the name of this mental disease?

Being human

File: 1483483257733.jpg (125KB, 849x1052px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 849x1052px

>>9784033
The grown ups are talking Dear.

File: berserk's idea of evil.jpg (430KB, 800x586px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 800x586px

>>9783681
>is it wrong that i am laughing about this? something about this is incredibly true.
Not at all. It's actually crazy how easy you can distinguish between a proper religion and a crazy cult. Evil cults have appeared in Japanese media since the Aum Shinrikyo did its Sarin attacks and when they pop you can tell a *mile* away what they are and will do. It's the honest people that are a problem. First because most people try or at least wish to be honest, if for selfish reasons. Second because, even if someone who doesn't join a religion isn't honest about it at first, they might very well end up like that; and even if they themselves don't, their kids will. Here it's not simply a matter of working-as-if-it-was-true as Peterson would posit as a middle ground. Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, or any other example *do* believe it is true beyond a doubt. That's what Taoism is getting at, letting go of your alienation *is* the way to get legitimate power. Just accept the death drive, give up your little name and you'll live on. Ethos is built outside-in; Pathos is built inside-out; Logos is built inbetween. Accepting you don't have a particular essence is the same as owning all the world.

http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu33.html

This to me is why Xunzi's version of good is so promising. Goodness *is* a hipocrisy. You can't have the Good and the True. And it's not only a matter of social civility that you can't be honest. It's not simply done to mantain the society into stasis. (You) have to put the chips on the table. You can't just say it was practical, or the right thing, or whatever. It's gotta be You.

(cont)

File: 1484708302487.jpg (130KB, 465x600px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 465x600px

>>9783681
This is also why it always rocks my socks off to see the Japanese deal with Christianity. Because they either don't understand it at *all*, and they're going for base aesthetic appeal; or they resonate with it in a way that's almost magical; automatic, in Synchronicity.

Evangelion is the apex example of this. Eva is so fucking Western people don't even *realize*. They see the babbling and go "oh, that's just Psychology/Science/Science-fiction" like that shit exists on its own. But hey it's not a retelling of the Bible and there's no, so it's not really "Christian". /m/ can bitch about it ripping Ideon all it wants, but it was always only superficial. In Ideon the issue is that humans are using a basic force of the universe to perpetuate the bad karma of humanity; it's the karmic apprehension of history the Japanese tend to have, but with survival instinct powering WMDs instead of nuclear power. But Eva isn't like that. The giant robot is powered by fucking electricity. Its power is a demonstration of what humans can do as a collective. This is why Eva is the only mecha show that can have legitimate shades of epic. But the power that makes the world isn't the human spirit; it's the barrier between people. The Eva is only an amplifier for the Absolute Terror Field. And the AT Field doesn't *only* work when humans are being naughty and tampering with Mama Natura. It's *always* on. Nobody can be without it. It's fucking with your life in a million ways. And the problem isn't that it wants you dead, or that it wants you to kill; it's not the duel or Darwin; the problem is that it forces you to *live*. And -here's the punchline- the villains don't seek to exploit it: they want to destroy it. And they succeed, and the Mother returns to the Earth. Everyone's back in the womb. And then the weak boy that's repeatedly lost everything in his life, that has comitted unforgivable crimes for a life he doesn't even want, gets up and tells the denial of self to fuck off.

And this was the show that allegedly used a Greek title because "it was cool".

>>9783909
>i just didn't like the idea of a Universe of Tricksies
Exactly! As good as it sounds you just end up in connoisseurism, like it happened with Buddhism in Japan.
>It's okay plebs be plebs.
>Maximize your sensual earnings.
>Jus' don' bother nobody.
>Keep to your private life.

File: heidegger-crop.jpg (356KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1024x768px

>>9784079
>I do think your thoughts are interesting and unique enough that you should not be stamped as someones apprentice
thx

>but hey bro...just be yourself
i'm trying. at this point i'm basically trying not to be a girardfag & transition into just being a normal dude again. i think the sillies are mostly shaken out. we'll see

>t. Plato's bitch
nothing wrong with that, plato's cool af

>is it about happiness, is it about health, is it about access to materials/variancy/nutrients, the best mixture of all these?
it's about Being, care, all that good existential shit. heidegger's a boss, his obscurantism is way overrated. being & time is incredible. read the zimmerman guide if you're struggling but otherwise get Daseinpilled. too good. Being is the thing

>What do you think of that, there could be cyborg humans living 500 years zipping around in flying cars with their immortal sentient AI friends and would they be expected to leave alone in peace, a community of simple living farming peasants who work and live as they did 1000s of years ago?
there probably will. my joke about the jetsons is that yes, they happened. but it will literally be *just them.* and maybe not the rest of us. acceleration is much spooky

>Are these people that dont want to take part in progression just crazy?
everybody wants a part of capitalist progression tho. that's the thing. even if you want off the ride it's not that easy. capital a thing. we all have to deal with it one way or another

>For missing out on all the fruits of humanity + earth has to offer?
sadly yes. but, as in, *it sucks.* but that's humanity & 21C civilization for you. it's complex, but better to have some sense of what's going on, i think. do a little reading. enough to not get blindsided

> I thought maybe he is towards that way of thinking..well at least he is for, human quality of life, feeling, being is most important?
he's complex, but he likes humanity. he's worried about tech. he's got big feels about art & poetry & language & idle talk. they don't call him the fundamental ontologist for nothing. he swings for the fences

>And technology innovation for the individual at least is not worth the sacrifice of the individuals potential to experience its potentially good being, to become a slave to the machine?
being a slave to the machine is a bad look. but really it's the *machine-thinking* that we *automatically do* without realizing it. this was his thing, the reversal of descartes and the working out of existential time. you won't unsee it
>and basically the invention of existential psychotherapy, by accident
heidegger is a Big Deal. he's definitely worth reading. again, not as hard as you might think. and he's well aware of what's going on with technology, how it gets out of control. but it's connected to *how we think*

(cont'd)

File: tumblr_m1o89f5sMt1qec6vao1_1280.jpg (147KB, 602x982px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 602x982px

>>9784079
>In society there are varying degrees of the individual relatively sacrificed to/for the collective but the individual certainly gains to degrees, and this is partly the crux. The arguments of levels of individual and collective sacrifice for what, and what is the alternative.
yep. that's it. the individual and the crowd. this is partly what i was saying earlier (and again, this is another big deal with heidegger). the individual and the collective. it's too easy to shit on The Masses/The Normies/&c. bad move. bad philosophical manners. the individual is always in some kind of struggle w/the other in society, but ideally i think it would be becoming for philosophers to be *on the side of that individual.* if you see someone drowning, throw that man a rope, don't kek at him and light up a gauloise. be charitable.
>philosophical charity is super-important for this reason
>certainty a spook, but skepticism a meme
>gotta leave the door open a crack

>I suppose you are speaking of christianity. Interesting, as if, if anyone in the world is struggling with life, they have something to turn to, somewhere that can help. This has also been attempted by the state, but the church attempted this too I guess, and for a long time and in places still, there is church and state, and there are many different churches.
yes. big fan of the church these days. a lot of my favorite writers are catholics. my fave alternative to meme politics
>well, those and peterson lectures, i suppose
>but peterson is cooler after having done the reading also

>>9784101
>its called facebook, and my diary desu, and open mics, and blogs
true, but those aren't quite as good as unleashing your inner hegel/inner plato/inner X, is what i mean. facebook is like web-designing your own fucking obituary & my diary desu meh
>open mic, i guess
>blogs are ok
but i was hoping for more like a *book* that i could read, or a cool screenplay or something. this idea of writing not for the reader but really, ultimately, for how you come to understand your own thought process seems interesting to me. and ideally it wouldn't mean a kind of meme manifesto either. have to let this one cook a little more

>>9784137
>becoming a namefag
it honestly wasn't my attention. really wasn't. meant to only be anonymous. now it's stuck. the endgame is now how to shed this identity and not be a meme. everything i write only defers what is probably the thing i should be doing
>but i do really love this place & i learn a fuckload in these threads by working shit out too
>damnit /lit/ y u so good

>>9784334
>Just accept the death drive, give up your little name and you'll live on. Ethos is built outside-in; Pathos is built inside-out; Logos is built in-between
holy fuckballs. see? this is why i can't fucking not keep coming back here.

>xunzi
fuck he was so interesting. def a standout text from my super-chinese phase

(cont'd)

>>9783415
>but power really works through your unconscious processes. it's the shit you do *automatically* and *without thinking* that is worth paying attention to. because, ten seconds ago, you thought you knew why you did it...

Yet he has a hard time with my vague term "new gods". And why can you not dispel with your notions of historic symbology and begin again with a new practice of divining? A simple stick, a field, and an unknwon that is a presence - the rod does not hang, but pierces your heart. The symbols here though are a gift that you hand off to scientists. Their problem will be one only of their "becoming" validated without the possibility of a conception.

Winter again on my mind.

Individual consciousness and group consciousness.
Chaos theory and fish schooling, or bird flocks.
Epistem (sp?), zietgiest, civilization/culture, gene communication.
Patter recognition, architecture, consciousness does not exist outside of group consciousness.
Democracy, political animals, legitimacy.
Gods, technology, a history of objectivity, Jungian archtypes.
Ghosts, deamons, shamanism, gods, and the calling forth of the individual.
One does not equal one, a deamon’s law of gravity, chaotic substructures
architecture, insanity, the mental health of a mackerel, learned judgment
what is a group, can the individual ask this question, political animals and their environment
legitimacy, communication, violence, music/mathematics
animal tools, alien technology, subversion and breakdown of ego, power
epistem, art, conscious, gods
group consciousness, cohesion, self-reference, legitimacy

----

The ants are crawling on my legs and biting me. Each colony I name a god. What are their communication tools? How is power structured unconsciously for the ant, for the colony, for the god?

>>9776627

you are a nigger

File: quote-albert-einstein-when-asked-what-he-considered-to-be-the-most-powerful-force-in-the-universe-mignon-mclaughlin-124544.jpg (77KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 850x400px

>>9784334
>you can't have the Good and the True
jon roffe said something interesting about this that i'd like to share with you tho. i didn't quite understand it & i still don't:

>hile orienting- his reading around the falla cious assertion of the primacy of the One, Badiou introduced a new way to enter into Deleuze's work, one that has not ceased to invigorate the recep tion of this work itself. We are led, therefore, to the assertion of a rule of thought (perhaps a correlate to the Nietzschean demand cited above) that is not inconsequential: one should always strive to have more than one master. This relation, however, must take the form of a submission, not to the level of human existence, but to what, in those we take as our masters, is excessive and inhuman.

"one should always strive to have more than one master." be interested to hear what you make of that. somehow this seems to me incredibly true in ways i can't even quite articulate. maybe it's because a sense of divided loyalties is what makes for ethics? and because serving The One is going to lead to martyrdom, fanaticism. suicide, who knows? maybe this is why some *prioritization* of metaphysical principles is a thing? and how about the Tao on this? right?

i mean the Tao is super-smart. it always clears the way for us to do what we need to do. but. this idea - if we *are* to have masters, and *not* to be true sages - that we must have *more* than one. just crazy shit to think about. i don't know. but i'll be interested to hear what you think.

>And it's not only a matter of social civility that you can't be honest. It's not simply done to mantain the society into stasis. (You) have to put the chips on the table. You can't just say it was practical, or the right thing, or whatever. It's gotta be You.
yup. no doubt. unfortunately. the irony is that this is the kind of place i wanted to get to, and now that i'm here i'm reluctantly realizing how much has to go into it. can't just be a cool mysterious name-dropping existentialist forever. ugh. and that *sucks*

>that's what Taoism is getting at, letting go of your alienation *is* the way to get legitimate power
but this is so very true. *lose* the alienation, *gain* power. keep the alienation? no probs. however, there's a catch: you now make cheeseburgers
>artisanal cheeseburgers?
>no, shitty fuck you cheeseburgers
>i suspected that was going to be the case

pic not really rel, just interesting.

(cont'd)

>>9784017
The death of the western antihero is replaced by a battle-royal to claim the rise of the hero, the return of the hero, the birth of the hero. Without question, the arts cannot any longer sublimate, and so some look towards technology. But the culmination of major advances in technology with this battle-royal smacks of a spilling of libidinal forces into politics. How well do you think we can think our way through to the opposite, if I were right?

File: beasts-to-superheroes-to-gods-41-638.jpg (46KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 638x479px

sorry for the long posts gents

>>9784334
>Ethos is built outside-in; Pathos is built inside-out; Logos is built in-between.
this tho. maybe you could explain a little more about this one so i understand you correctly. there's something about this i like a lot

>>9784339
>This is also why it always rocks my socks off to see the Japanese deal with Christianity. Because they either don't understand it at *all*, and they're going for base aesthetic appeal; or they resonate with it in a way that's almost magical; automatic, in Synchronicity.
hells yes. watching the japanese deal with anything is interesting. anime just does that very particular kind of sincerity or Openness that works all the magic. the face of the anime girl a perfect blank slate for a world with a *profound* understanding of blankness and surfaces. we overrate depth & darkness too much, forest > trees

>But the power that makes the world isn't the human spirit; it's the barrier between people. The Eva is only an amplifier for the Absolute Terror Field. And the AT Field doesn't *only* work when humans are being naughty and tampering with Mama Natura. It's *always* on. Nobody can be without it. It's fucking with your life in a million ways. And the problem isn't that it wants you dead, or that it wants you to kill; it's not the duel or Darwin; the problem is that it forces you to *live*. And -here's the punchline- the villains don't seek to exploit it: they want to destroy it. And they succeed, and the Mother returns to the Earth. Everyone's back in the womb. And then the weak boy that's repeatedly lost everything in his life, that has comitted unforgivable crimes for a life he doesn't even want, gets up and tells the denial of self to fuck off.
jesus fuck. i feel like printing this out and stapling a copy of it to my chest the next time i feel like writing anything that *doesn't* actually evoke something like this. well fucking said

>>9784425
i saw this post the other day and thought, damn that anon sounds interesting. glad to see it again

>new gods
pic rel. quite a thought

>And why can you not dispel with your notions of historic symbology and begin again with a new practice of divining?
kek. because i'm still a repressed modernist capitalist shitlord fuckwit obv. i like to preach that others should get in touch with their feels but i am as jealous as smaug when it comes to doing this myself

>The symbols here though are a gift that you hand off to scientists. Their problem will be one only of their "becoming" validated without the possibility of a conception
love it.

>How is power structured unconsciously for the ant, for the colony, for the god?
this will indeed wig you out to think about. delanda on assemblage theory, serres on parasites, woodard on slime. all things biopolitical have to invoke these today. shit is real fleshy. personally if i was told my own unconscious worked like a swarm of wasps or an ant colony i would be fine with it. fearful symmetries everywhere.

>>9776532
Indeed.

Funny how poseurs continue to post nonsensical rubbish to this thread to this very day.

>>9776508

Dr. Pomo

>>9776508

Literally Woodstock.

>>9776508
You're a yokel, and having an internet platform for your griping against upper class luxuries such as introspection will not change the fact that the educated elite can buy and sell you like a piece of livestock.

>>9784607
Same time tomorrow, Fred?

>>9776654

yes I also want to be a anime

>>9777131

Im an agent of the matrix huehuehue

>>9784619
I'm not familiar with talk radio memes.

File: 1415316844015.jpg (37KB, 498x330px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 498x330px

>>9784476
>maybe it's because a sense of divided loyalties is what makes for ethics?
Ever wonder why you have a mother *and* a father? Why do things not just clone themselves? Or why nature doesn't just pop a phoenix or two?

Now if you choose to identify with one and not the other, what's the point of you? If you keep outside of their relationship or become a messenger, then it's sort of the same at some point, or you're not doing your job right. But if you agree with one and then with the other, then they both disagree with you but agree with each other, the three do not agree, and so on... then things are Actual. Not correct, but actually there. Otherwise, if you only have two things, you get into ineffability (trying to describe the Buddha for whom is, is not, both and neither, all aren't applicable) and then pedestrianism and connoiseurism.

This is where Stirner is important again. Because Stirner is Interested. He doesn't give a flying fuck about truth, life or health, but he Cares. He exorcises because ideological zombies Bother him. He's not there to justify squat. He's there for what's His, his Property, his Goods.

>i mean the Tao is super-smart. it always clears the way for us to do what we need to do.
Wisdom gonna wise. Ever hear girls go "oh don't listen to them", "who even are those bitches" and so on? Ever wonder why they never get anywhere? It's not 'cause they're wrong, y'know.

This why Zizek's flip on Dostojevkij is pertinent. When you're with the Logos you can justify anything to anybody. With God dead, nothing's allowed, you're responsible for your every action. Everything's wrong.

But the other option is what La Li Lu Le Lo fear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKl6WjfDqYA

>can't just be a cool mysterious name-dropping existentialist forever.
Thank Tian for that. God knows the Academia's had enough authors about authors about authors.

>>9784551
I was thinking of clarifying it myself!

Ethos, though it is "your" position, is built with others in mind. It's theatrical. Ethos is what you don't share with your audience; pathos is what you do share, not about some personal interiority. It's basically the opposite of what you'd expect. Logos, meanwhile, appear to be outside both, a sort of mediator; but it's again the opposite and it's inside both, it's language, the relationship.

>watching the japanese deal with anything is interesting.
Yup. This is why I have no pity for conservative classcism in art. It's the drone's position.

>well fucking said
Thanks.

...I gotta accept compliments some time y'know. I just don't like to because I'm mortified by the hope of Doing Better Tomorrow.

>>9777257

I guess Let's all just have a good time

File: c3d3732f18f3494a8e8ed8d04e1b65bf.jpg (65KB, 770x575px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 770x575px

>>9777300

Battle Royale.

File: Title.jpg (39KB, 550x309px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 550x309px

>>9777303

Battle Royale

>>9777362

batman begins.

File: domino-2005-poster.jpg (108KB, 511x755px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 511x755px

>>9777765

>>9780272

if you stop you die
if you die it stops

>>9784339
religion is essentially communityism, culturalism, usually of a particular type

>>9784366
checked

>>9780349

Coldplay sucks!

>>9784419
>>becoming a
I have nothing against it at all, and understand any potential positives of it

>>9780803

THIS

>>9781215

you were right about ONE thing: the negotiations were short.

>>9781316

Great Scott!

oh that sea though. man. what a sight.
>kek those things are fucking toxic death machines & even worse you sentimental fuck
>well yes that is true but ok from a distance tho
>kek get fucked girardfag
>*strains in straitjacket* i'm trying i'm trying


that made me think. filters are a human invention. obv the jelly fish are "bad". but human poetic filter can make them "good". and that's automatic - Modern Love is Automatic - we dont even need to think about why jelly fish make us think of say spaceships or the ethereal. it just "comes" to us.

perhaps we are human smartphones with our collective, automatic, intuitive filters. perhaps that is a Purpose?

>>9782203

Horton.

>>9784476

and that man:s name: Albert Einstein.

>>9784704

wu!

>>9785401
*sheathes katana*

File: li-pasricha-pilot2.jpg (141KB, 1124x1063px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1124x1063px

>>9784704
>Ever wonder why you have a mother *and* a father?
this is a legit good point. not everyone does...but point taken. it also helps me to clarify why i am so big/wonked out by the Law. things imbalanced. ethics &c. checks out.

> the Buddha for whom is, is not, both and neither, all aren't applicable
this. asia is full of good nondual thought.

>because Stirner is Interested. He doesn't give a flying fuck about truth, life or health, but he Cares. He exorcises because ideological zombies Bother him. He's not there to justify squat
i guess. some folks just cannot in2 stirner but point taken.

>ever hear girls go "oh don't listen to them", "who even are those bitches" and so on?
kek too good

>when you're with the Logos you can justify anything to anybody. With God dead, nothing's allowed, you're responsible for your every action. everything's wrong.
except, although guaranteed you already know this, imho the problem is exactly the opposite: god *isn't* dead b/c Hey I'm Okay. and that okayness is grounded is precisely sweet fuck all. what makes a person Okay With This is the militant absence of philosophy
>which does what exactly?
>why, it bores a hole in their heart and unleashes skull-faced ice spiders into their soul
>right. and you're saying people should study this b/c why exactly?
>because - ah - i mean ok let me back up a sec
>*amused perplexity intensifies* wouldn't it be cooler to just learn a trade and not think about it tho
>well yes yes i mean ofc but *sweats* *backpedals furiously*
>it's ok. take your time

>mgs2
kojima is a genius. geen-yus. true auteur. a rare bird. managed *not* to be stuck on philosophyfag plateau. cleared the bar. made it *accessible.* didn't *suck* about it. ultracool guy

>ethics is theatrical
i wholly and not partially support this remark, which is *way* smart and basically the flashpoint for where i repeatedly & continually reveal that for all of this reading i am still far from the kind of place i would like to be at. this this this. b/c ethics is *not sexy* but that's how it works. it's not grounded in anything & so long as it *is* it *is not ethical.*
basically says everything. a truly good society, or person, *would* be ethical, but first they have to *disarm* and it's *very difficult* to disarm on planet vampire meme. at least for some. b/c contingency
ethics > power, but to some it will always appear exactly that - *theatrical* - and this is why it is such a thing in meme wonderland. b/c everything connects

ethics is endgame stuff. but first you have to shake the neetch. and that's not easy

>thx
you're welcome. take a compliment once in a while. i feel the same way

>I'm mortified by the hope of Doing Better Tomorrow
i know this feel. but ultimately i think to some degree it's necessary to own the fact that there are places you can't get to w/o radical shifts

>girardfag delenda est

>>9785287
>Modern Love is Automatic
i don't wear novelty t-shirts but i would be okay with this

File: the-starry-night-over-the-rhone.jpg (136KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1000x666px

>>9785678
>Which Does What Exactly?
(cont'd)

>be internal voice #408
>still wondering about this
>look out window
>b/c it's true. that is the fucking weak point. what does it do? fragilize you? fragilize society? what the fuck do you want? what the fuck are you saying?
>nothing really. just sort of articulating it. saying it. to see if it makes sense. so that it's said. thymos. memery
>so talk therapy then?
>i guess
>& do you feel therapized yet? traversed the fantasy &c?
>i think so. weirdly yes. b/c i've been stuck on one archaic psych problem for a long long time & when i went to dwell once again on the same bone-strewn pit i kinda sorta realized that it actually wasn't a problem anymore in the way it used to be. it had always been about desire & violence &c but for a reason Stranger Than Strange i realized that in having shaken out some sillies on /lit/ i didn't need to be tortuously hung up on Self & Other & Spectacle & Representation
>b/c articulating the weirdness dispelled the weirdness of needing to supply an Answer for a thing that was never really, though it felt like it, a Question in the first place
>so tell me what the fuck does that mean
>*bafflement*
>you haven't answered the question tho. why does it matter. why study this stuff. why. why why. what the fuck do you want
>i want not to want. to reshape Wanting for Understanding. it's what everyone wants i think. it's why phenomenology of spirit matters. b/c there really are no answers & even analysis is trumped by having a private alan moore moment of articulating not the answers to your own problems/questions but *ontologizing the shit that fucks you up* so that you can well & fully grasp that *there is no spoon.* *there is no lack.* there is no other. there is no gap or split. it's way cooler than that
>so you're saying it's all about you then
>i'm saying that it was when it was & now maybe i can almost see that this is the wrong way to go. but first i had to be a wholly fake person
>and now that you are aware of this can you stop using the same fake voice? asking questions that aren't questions? being the Hortator and urging people to Do Something about Crises that only you can see?
>capitalism tho
>spooks tho
>i disagree. it still sucks.
>ok. but. but but. philosophy is a thing that has to be transcended. not submitted to. you have to find something *useful to do* that isn't just being an Acolyte of Suspicion
>yeah
>so go and fucking do it then you cunt
>what is it tho?
>*bzzt.* wrong. wrong answer. not a question. not an argument
>molyneux sucks tho
>no doubt. but so do you. you have to *make* something. *make an argument.* write a phenomenology. don't tell others to do stuff. do it yourself.
>sigh
>*checks watch.* girardfag delenda est. you gotta do this
>i know. i like this place tho
>well come back later then. when you have taken what *you* are playing to level 2. don't fucking roll over and it take it in the ass from nick land. fuck that guy. he sucks

(cont'd)