OK.
Have you read Evola’s critique on Sartre and Nietzsche or just assuming a position?
C’mon man, I already stated I am not looking for a fight. I was pointing out a systematic approach to talking about reality - and than I made one passing comment how it might relate to Evola (and said it was up to you to think about it, not me)…and I got a Rothbardian and an Evolite itching for a debate because I am not in line with their hobby. This is not my purpose for this thread. This type of attitude ought to set off alarms in your head.
This is my final word on any of this so a couple comments:
-
To answer your direct question, I have no clue. I have read bits and chunks of Evola and all I can remember was he believed in ghosts and had another “grand theory” of history (I think he put in gold silver bronze ages no less). I am pretty sure I’ve ready many of his types before, many focus on a critique of “modernity”, “the Enlightenment”, or bring up Descates and make him the whooping boy on a long and pointless narrative work. This happens from “spiritualists” (whatever the hell that means), to pretentious cranks like Walter Kaufmann, to left wing Frenchmen who have nothing to say and are pissed aboutthat very fact like Lacan. This is the “moral” hazard of “continetal” philosophy.
-
More to the point, everything Evola said about Nietzsche and Sartre is 100% moot to anything I said. They have nothing to do with Hegelianism of any stripe. I am no Nietzschean (nor do I consider him a philosopher outside of Geneology of Morality, just a brilliant social critic - which makes everyone of these dudes who focus on Nietzsche odd to me, and maybe even dubious.) I certainly have nothing good to say about Sartre or existentialism. I was talking about a systematic philosophy with systematic philosophers, and I made one passing comment how it could relate to Evola.
C’mon man, I already stated I am not looking for a fight.
Neither am I, I’m looking for a discussion. Evola came up in subject, you made a statement, seems like a good discussion piece.
I have read bits and chunks of Evola and all I can remember was he believed in ghosts and had another “grand theory” of history.
I’m a bit lost on that. Maybe you were reading something from him on his interest in Eastern religions, or you snabbed something from him about occultism, but that doesn’t reflect him on a whole (or Traditionalism on a whole).
Everything else you said is all I need, just an elaboration on what you previously stated.
Wait, which statement do you agree with?
Wait, which statement do you agree with?
The one you posted from Wiki, “Evola believes that the modern world has become totally corrupt and that the institutions and traditions of the ancient world that once allowed a person to fully realize his being have been lost.”
That quote is true, depending on how you define “lost.” I hate marx, but his linking of the alienation of modern society to a job is what supports his bankrupt ideology, even today. To deny that modern humans are spiritually broken is to deny the modern world.
Neither am I, I’m looking for a discussion. Evola came up in subject, you made a statement, seems like a good discussion piece.
OK cool, sorry if I sounded pissy. To clarify, Evola is nowhere near what I wanted to focus on for this thread - just dry falsifing or verifing sources / clarification points in Hegel and how it relates to people you mentioned.
just an elaboration on what you previously stated
Are you asking me to elaborate on something I said, or stating you are content with all the info I provided on Hegelianism?
I’m content with what you posted.
What does the emphasized part mean to you? I can’t make any sense of it myself.
What does the emphasized part mean to you? I can’t make any sense of it myself.
This is one of those things where you have to figure it out yourself. It can mean a lot to me, but to someone else who doesn’t know, they won’t know (it’s redundant, I know). You can ask yourself if you’ve reached your full being, or a higher state of [insert whatever here]. What the point of your existence is, what your world view is, how you stand in “society”, what you represent, etc
But I asked what it means to you. So what’s your take on it?
Anytime I hear/read statements like Wikipedia’s paraphrasing of Evola’s thesis, I sense an implicit claim that “fully realizing one’s being” is an objective notion - that is, “fully realizing one’s being” is claimed to be a fact about the world. I see absolutely no evidence for such a claim being true.
What’s the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it’s up to me to define it however I want, and there’s no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.
But I asked what it means to you. So what’s your take on it?
A lot of things. Fully realize my being? Not being conditioned by materialism and “lower” culture, finding a “higher” sense of being, living, and “enlightment” that has a positive impact on myself. To not succumb to the modern world and it’s problems. Not being dictated by forces outside of my knowing.
Anytime I hear/read statements like Wikipedia’s paraphrasing of Evola’s thesis, I sense an implicit claim that “fully realizing one’s being” is an objective notion - that is, “fully realizing one’s being” is claimed to be a fact about the world. I see absolutely no evidence for such a claim being true.
I don’t take it as objective.
What’s the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it’s up to me to define it however I want, and there’s no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.
…and here lies the active nihilism of existentialism.
… Okay then. As long as you’re not trying to force that meaning on others.
Then you necessarily agree with me that there’s no objective point to anyone’s existence.
Can you explain what you mean by “active nihilism”, or even just “nihilism”? Then can you explain why it’s apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply?
Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here.
… Okay then. As long as you’re not trying to force that meaning on others.
Far from it. Forcing anything on anyone doesn’t work, and forcing something that can be seen as rather abstract is far from productive.
Then you necessarily agree with me that there’s no objective point to anyone’s existence.
I meant that to fully realize one’s being is subjective, it can be subjective to the individual to what they may reach. When you ask if there’s an objective point to someone’s existence I feel like these are those questions that have sprung up in the past hundred (or 2 or 3 hundred) years when people forgot what they lived for (or maybe the past thousand years during the conversion of NW Europe), and you have existential philosophies trying to find the answer that push further into an abyss and far from an answer.
Can you explain what you mean by “active nihilism”, or even just “nihilism”? Then can you explain why it’s apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply?
Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here.
Well, to this statement:
What’s the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it’s up to me to define it however I want, and there’s no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.
By defining by whatever laws you want you can make up as you go regardless of anything. What structure and foundation do you have? You could change it at any time to fit your wants or needs, and what is the purpose, what’s the goal, what do you build towards with that? What ethics do you fall upon?
I’ll quote Evola from Ride the Tiger on the extreme end of that spectrum:
This trend appeared with the “teddy boys,” with their German analogs the Halbstarken, and the generazione delle macerie [generation of rubble]. Their style was one of aggressive protest, expressed through vandalism and lawless actions valued as “pure acts” in cold witness to their otherness. On the Slavic countries there were the “hooligans.” More significant was the American counterpart, the “hipsters” and the Beat generation. Rather than intellectual attitudes, these were existential positions lived out by the young, of which a certain type of novel is merely a reflection. Compared to the British types, they were more cold and unadorned, more corrosive in their opposition to everything pseudo-orderly, rational, and coherent-everything that was “square,” meaning solid, justified, and safe. They showed “a destructive, voiceless rage,” as somebody put it, a contempt for “those incomprehensible characters who are capable of being seriously involved with a woman, a job, a cause”. The absurdity of what is considered normal, “the organized insanity of the normal world,” seemed all the more evident to the hipsters in the climate of industrialization and frenetic activity that, despite all the triumphs of science, was meaningless. Alienation from their surroundings, absolute refusal to collaborate or to have any defined position in society were the rule in this milieu, which did not only include the young, and which recruited its members not only from the lower classes but from all social levels, including the wealthy. Some preferred a new form of nomadic existence; others, to live at the most elementary level. The methods used by the hipsters to survive the existential void through strong sensations included alcohol, sex, jazz, high speed, drugs, and even acts of gratuitous criminality like those suggested in Breton’s surrealism. They did not fear experiences of any kind, but sought them out to “receive tremendous blows on their own selves”. The books of Jack Kerouac and the poetry of Allen Ginsberg were inspired in part by this climate.
To the existentialist, or to anyone with ethics that are not grounded, not held up by tradition or established cultural norms, or are essentially made up out of thin air, what position is their to do anything, except live for the moment with no thought for the future? The quote about would be an example of a nihilistic position lived out by people who see that their purpose and ethics can be changed to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. It seemed Sartre even had trouble and was conflicted with the position of existential ethics, because in the end there’s nothing to fall back on (what’s the foundation?).
Well at least we agree on this. So it looks like our ensuing discussion will be “academic”.
If “fully realizing one’s being” is subjective, then there’s no objective grounding to it, is there? So then what (objective) position is there to reach for anything, except for the next moment with no thought for the future? Of course, I’d say that there is none and be done with it.
Objectively speaking, there is no necessary structure or foundation. However, human nature neither infinitely variable nor infinitely malleable. My own ethics follow from the notions of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, but those are just premises in terms of formal (logical) reasoning. There’s no force in the universe which makes us bound to hold those premises, and no other, as true.
No system of ethics is grounded. They all rely upon one or more premises - propositions that are simply assumed as true. People are, at least in theory, physically able to indeed change their purpose and ethics to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. The apparent fact that more people don’t actually do so is a testament to the power of our “moral instincts” IMHO. Of course, that has nothing to do with philosophy.
I suppose until I finish Philosophy of Right this will be of discussion.
If “fully realizing one’s being” is subjective, then there’s no objective grounding to it, is there? So then what (objective) position is there to reach for anything, except for the next moment with no thought for the future? Of course, I’d say that there is none and be done with it.
Do you think or believe there is something more to the material to reach a “higher” state of being, or that this plane is it, and you can only move forward in time not transcending states of knowledge and worth?
Objectively speaking, there is no necessary structure or foundation. However, human nature neither infinitely variable nor infinitely malleable. My own ethics follow from the notions of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, but those are just premises in terms of formal (logical) reasoning. There’s no force in the universe which makes us bound to hold those premises, and no other, as true.
Would a foundation or structure be necessary? I have ethics regarding the material which is also self-ownership and non-aggression, but as you say nothing bounds me to those, but I can explain a foundation and structure for those and why I believe they are in some way superior, or more noble or moral or honorable than another.
No system of ethics is grounded. They all rely upon one or more premises - propositions that are simply assumed as true. People are, at least in theory, physically able to indeed change their purpose and ethics to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. The apparent fact that more people don’t actually do so is a testament to the power of our “moral instincts” IMHO. Of course, that has nothing to do with philosophy.
If more people don’t act according to their own will to whatever suits them (for whatever sensations they want) then they fall back on moral instincts, but it could also fall back on social/cultural/traditional norms they have formed a structure and foundation.
I want to use another quote that I find rather relevant from Plato’s Republic.
Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure. Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fill themselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent.
Do you think or believe there is something more to the material to reach a “higher” state of being, or that this plane is it, and you can only move forward in time not transcending states of knowledge and worth?
There is no “higher” What is, is… all and all unto itself as itself, for itslef, and from it’s own “creative nothing” from which it sprung. This is basic, basic, basic sociological and obvious thinking. At the very “least” everyting else self refutes, and the best I can do is come up with word limiters like “determinism”, “materialism”, “will to power”, or 100 other such terms to counteract nonsense phrasing - as a blood pressure medication can constrict or dilate the flow of blood to a various heart diagnosis, I can at best determine the type of category of nonesense. “Higher” or “lower” to self makes no sense… time to being, makes no sense. Logic of words and consequences of actions does .. Basic observation ought to confirm that at all times, at every time (if not I will say you are lying or mad). The funny thing is how this apes and flips idealism and rationalism on it’s head i nto a radical empiricism hat the “hobby horse” scientism critics critics of Austrianism just don’t get, nor do I expect them to…in the end, it is good to sound like the bastard grandchild of Spinoza though.
This is fairly mainstream stuff- the problem is people just tend not to associate it with economics, sociology, or psycology because it happens to not quite be in the priestly language of our time
Look here the three sociological basics in life:
-
War of all against all. barbarians in loin clothes . This won’t happen as it simply isn’t our nature, we’re to smart and self interested for such silly notions - and not enough people play D&D and care about Norse myths that aren’t real norse myths.
-
Small tribal communal orginizations. This won’t happen in full either. We are too smart, self interested, or prosperous for this at this point. Leftist priestly language can hurt us, but not fuck us over this bad, as this is essentially a nonsense sociological position.
-
"boring’ technocratic, bourgoise, epicurean, capitalistic, modern, rationalistic, liberalism. This is essentially the world, and forever more probably always will be. We are just trying to figure out the minor details the details at the moment and find out how to deal with the "leftist priestly language’ that dominates culture. After that we are even more set and in the gravey than we already are…bonus!
Due to the amazing wealth created and division of labor -this world gives schlubs like us leisure time to do our worthless metaphysics on the state of "man’ and ‘the world’
There is no “higher”
Do you ever look at culture and see it as “higher” or “lower”, that something could degenerate over time, and what or how that culture could have affected or conditioned someone to think a certain way?
This won’t happen as it simply isn’t our nature, we’re to smart and self interested for such silly notions - and not enough people play D&D and care about Norse myths that aren’t real Norse myths.
Uh, what? As far as my ‘religion’ goes I’m a [reconstructionist] Heathen, so I’m a bit confused on this. (Probably because I don’t equate a board game with myth and culture and it’s embarrassing when I get these comparisons because people aren’t familiar with Heathenry and now people are more familiar with a myth-butchering comic book movie about a Teutonic god than the actual myths.)
Small tribal communal orginizations. This won’t happen in full either. We are too smart, self interested, or prosperous for this at this point. Leftist priestly language can hurt us, but not fuck us over this bad, as this is essentially a nonsense sociological position.
In Heathenry there’s kindreds which probably could count as “small tribal communal organizations”, but I don’t think kindreds are any different than a church or temple gathering.
On the rest of what you said I’m a bit confused on the point you’re trying to make, seems to be a battle of semantics.
Nothing is more to me than myself. And that is not an aesthetic, but a very real inescapable ontological fact.
As far as the other stuff - I guess when I get really drunk I like to ramble on in internet theology. Either way, all these forms of thinking about “transedence” are the same to me - they are all just as wrong no matter how “sophisticated” they think they feel. The fact that they retreat to esotericism is even more baffling to me.
The only use/ way I can call one better in some way over the other is if they can make more money for their entertainment value via art, psychologism, or whatever. Though I do find it odd one would call themselves an ultra reactionary term like heathen - not even the “heathens” you aren’t imitating called themselves that…unless you are reading crazy revisionist history to support your aesthetic. If so, whateves.
If you want to call your self an “aristocrat of the soul” or the emperor of China - sure…but there is nothing you can say or do to make that relevant in any way that matters. Esotericism is bunk, everything conservative/reactionary, religous, transendental “poetic”, immeterial or whatever has been refuted in practice, word, and basic basic everyday observations seven ways to Sunday. Say what you will about leftists, at least they know how to manipulate “priestly”/psychological languages to gain in actual social position and currency - which is real power. Not only that I bet their best “priests” sell better than Evola anyway which makes them better.