Why isn't this translated into English?

Too much arbeit

My professor said he was a proto-fascist and responsible for Nazism. There's good reason not to translate some works.

>>7501042

Assuming you are the same fellow from the last thread, did your professor explain anything about his views and Junger being responsible for Nazism? To what extent did he just use 'proto-Fascism' as a reason to shove Junger into the Nazi box?


>there's good reason not to translate some works

Restriction of knowledge and ignorance is not one of them.

>>7501042
I've heard the same idiotic arguments for not teaching D'Annunzio. "Muh proto-fascism, muh problematic ideas".

>>7501042
That's bullshit. He was (as well as his brother) sort of influence for Heidegger (he was nazi, boohoo). Also, this work is important to see the change of Jünger's ideas (see Der Waldgang)

File: beee.jpg (446KB, 1000x718px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1000x718px

>>7501011
Underrated post

>>7501061

>all ideas are equally good and should be spread the same amount

It's because of people like you that no one has any goddamn idea what "free speech" actually means anymore.

>>7501277
Based on how you post I wouldn't trust your evaluation of ideas.

>>7501277

So you purport then that there is always a beneficial reason to hide a piece of literature and ignore it? I will try to address this as constructively as I can, but you should consider that you are already committing falsehood.

If all ideas are not equal, and indeed they are not, (for to give an abstract thing such a measurable quality as having value is shortsighted anyway) then how would you know them if we decided to restrict them?

We cannot tell that an idea is bad always from intuition, so it is innate then that restricting an idea only dooms you to accepting falsehoods as truth and being misled.

>>7501061
In fact he's not the same guy as before. That's me. Claiming he's a proto-fascist is nowhere near the same as claiming he's "responsible" for fascism, but that a genealogy of fascist tenants leads in part to Junger's work, in retrospect. Also I can't speak for anyone else, but for me labelling someone in this way is NOT a tactic of shoving Junger aside or declaring him intellectually and artistically invalid. For example, I spend a lot of time studying Carl Schmitt who, unlike Junger for whom the case is more tenuous, was quite literally a Nazi, their chief lawyer in fact, in the early years. He was also an unbelievably skilled and incisive writer and philosopher whose takedown of liberalism and the global liberal order (see The Concept of the Political) is still today a vital philosophical work even though the work does perform unseemly tasks such as seeking to philosophically justify genocide.

>>7501042
His son was killed by the Nazis. He was a conservative.

>>7501277
>It's because of people like you that no one has any goddamn idea what "free speech" actually means anymore.

You mean freedom of speech in the Communist sense, where it is just a mean of the party to influence the masses, and then removed when they seize power.

>>7503593
>Really thinks that this is how communism works.
Back to /pol/.