Why do people who exist somewhere on the spectrum between normie

Schnittkean Dilemmas:

[Disclaimer: You may find the very same sort of dilemmas regarding the aesthetics of other author, but hardly with the same intensity, and, arguably, never at same level as you find with Schnittke.]

 It is half-preposterous / half-barbaric to be cynical about and expert in Schnittke’s aesthetics and episteme as embedded in his music (to detach the former from the latter, as many attempt, would be utterly preposterous). His works demand passion;

 It is half-preposterous / half-barbaric to be exclusively passionate about Schnittke’s music. Regardless of the modality of expertise – as in specialised knowledge – you will manage to accumulate, from strictly commonsensical / intuitive, to paradigmatic / scientific / pseudo-scientific, Schnittke’s aesthetics will demand some sort of systematic way of elaborating to yourself a fruition discourse about his works, which will enable you to assimilate them;

 It is half-preposterous / half-barbaric to play Schnittke’s works as incidental music. The moment you start playing it, supposing the two entry-points above, his music will arrest either your attention and emotions, or will undermine whatever you were trying to do or perform that called for your attentions and / or emotions;

 It is half-preposterous / half-barbaric to subsume Schnittke’s production to an ideology and / or to classify it as some –positive or negative -- response to an ideology, or political system, or to his tormented private life (hermeneutics of his ‘self’). This would be a silly, unnecessary reductionism of the reach of Schnittke’s compositional insights, and a violation of the poetic mottos backing up his music;

 It is half-preposterous / half-barbaric to either ignore the strong influence that the aesthetics of composers such as Gustav Mahler, Дмитpий Шocтaкoвич [Dmitri Shostakovich], and Luigi Nono cast upon his writing, or to try and single out each of those streams and figments of influence per phase in Schnittke’s ouvrage, or to deny or minimise the blissfully infectious patterns of their penetration;

 It is half-preposterous / half-barbaric to by-pass Aльфpeд Шниткe [Alfred Schnittke]’s if one loves music and / or wishes to build up a firm grip on ways through which modernity has been permanently invented and reinvented as a zeitgeist for music creation as an art-form, and as a commodity;

 Last but not least, a double-folded reminder. First fold: it is completely preposterous to attempt at disentangling the logics underlying music creation as art, from music creation as commodity in modernity. Second fold: ‘post-modernity’, like ‘tradition’, is a modern invention.

>>8872447
Its called dogmatism. They're smart enough to identify the systems of great thinkers but not smart enough to simply engage with the ideas themselves.

>>8872447
In some cases it's because they simply draw from a wide range of thinkers. Anarchism, existentialism, and pan-Germanicism all play a role in my worldview. This isn't an attempt to be some sort of special, hyper-unique snowflake. I would love it if more people felt the way I do. Not fitting perfectly into a single ideology gets frustrating at times. I'm too nationalistic and too opposed to nihilism for leftists but too opposed to hierarchy and racism, sexism, ect. for those on the right. If there was a movement out there embodying all of my values, I'd be thrilled but there isn't so I suppose I probably appear to be a contradictory attention seeker at first glance.

File: c36.png (432KB, 600x654px)

432KB, 600x654px

>>8872907
>anarcho-nationalism

>>8872454
kekwut?

What are you even on about?

>>8873043
As I understand it, most national anarchists advocate racial separatism and many harbor the same prejudices national socialists do. I'd rather not be associated with them. It's sort of comparable to how someone like Fidel Castro wouldn't identify as a national socialist despite being both a nationalist and a socialist. I think some national anarchists reall are anarchists though, unlike national socialists who are corporatists.

>>8873102
So you're pretty much left-wing nationalist/social patriot, except you're trying to sound special?

I'm a xenofeminist reactionary.

>>8873116
kill yourself bitch

>>8873116
Would that make you Aliens Ripley or Alien: Resurrection Ripley?

>>8872907
>draw from a wide range of thinkers

Did you mean: skimmed a lot of wikipedia articles?

>>8873108
I don't see how I'm trying to sound special. I guess I could be considered a left wing nationalist but that's rather vague, don't you think?

>>8873139
I have! Hasn't everyone? If you're trying to say I've arrived at these beliefs after doing a tiny amount of research and an even tinier amount of personal pondering, no, that is not the case. Kropotkin and Nietzsche are the authors whose works have impacted me the most. Reading Proudhon helped to solidify my opposition to absentee ownership. I haven't read very much Spengler or Kierkegaard but the bit that I have has stuck with me. Researching the history of the North Sea peoples and their myths has also influenced my beliefs. My own personal experiences have played a huge role in all of this as well. I also read thinkers I disagree with to challenge my beliefs. If there's something you think I ought to read to strengthen my current beliefs or to challenge them, feel free to recommend it.

>>8872447
Because people don't really know what these words mean, the thoughts they represent, the purposes they suit, or where they came from. People are momentary minds who want to belong. The world is full of willful dupes, patsies, and fools.

File: 1476729841578.png (117KB, 1360x972px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1360x972px

>>8873123
Kekked hard.

>>8873391

You don't need labels. Labels are retarded. You have the stances you have, the people who try to lump the hugely complex collection of stances any person is likely to have into a convenient word or couple of words is a dogmatic idiot.

>skim wikipedia articles
>pick and choose ideologies as if they're commodities
>mush them together so you seem unique and interesting