Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Economics Political Theory
41

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.

Seeing that you don’t know anything about Heathenry I’ll excuse the ignorance. Heathen was a derogatory termed used against those that didn’t except Christianity during the conversion of NW Europe, those that kept the old ways were called heathens, for those who “dwell in the heath” as converting those in rural areas was harder for the missionaries, and when the kings accepted Christianity they allowed those who didn’t convert to practice the old ways in private. The word heathen can be found in literature as old as Beowulf to refer to those who held on to the old religion, but there is nothing essentially negative in the word itself, so we’re called Heathens. If you want to get into it and asked someone of that time what they were they’d probably just say “these are my ways” or whatever cult they followed (seeing how there were various cults to Odin/Woden, Thor/Thunor, Freyr and Freyja, Tyr, etc. across NW Europe). Imitating? What am I trying to imitate except follow the way of my ancestors before some foregn middle eastern religion took root? Crazy revisionist history? Like what? I base and construct my beliefs on archeological evidence, myth/literature of the time, language, and any hard evidence that can build a strong foundation and structure to understand and continue the beliefs and world view of my ancestors from that period. Essentially, picking up their ways right before conversion.

I don’t read a bunch of kooky or “occult” nonsense. What I do is no different than any other mainstream religion, just a different set of beliefs and world views.

If you care, read this on Theodism/Heathenry.

42

I’m not sure what you mean here, sorry.

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here, either, but I don’t think there’s anything higher (or lower, for that matter) than physical reality.

If there’s no objectively necessary foundation or structure (i.e. one dictated by external reality), then any/all foundations and structures are necessarily subjective.

Ultimately, your explanation for the superiority/nobility/morality/honorability of your ethics - and everyone else’s, including my own - rests upon one or more premises. Those premises are necessarily arbitrary from the standpoint of logic, as are all premises.

Sure, but those social/cultural/traditional norms themselves may well be based somehow on moral instincts. (I think this is highly likely.) My point is, however, that such norms nevertheless reside entirely within the mind. There exists no magical force or set of forces which takes the choice of whether to follow this or that norm away from an individual.

So, Plato, just what is this “true upper world”, this “true being”, this “pure and abiding pleasure”?

43

I’m not sure what you mean here, sorry.

Until I finish Philosophy of Right this will be of discussion, because I won’t be able to discuss Philosophy of Right in full yet (or to fully understand it only 2/3rds in).

If there’s no objectively necessary foundation or structure (i.e. one dictated by external reality), then any/all foundations and structures are necessarily subjective.

Ultimately, your explanation for the superiority/nobility/morality/honorability of your ethics - and everyone else’s, including my own - rests upon one or more premises. Those premises are necessarily arbitrary from the standpoint of logic, as are all premises.

…and…

Sure, but those social/cultural/traditional norms themselves may well be based somehow on moral instincts. (I think this is highly likely.) My point is, however, that such norms nevertheless reside entirely within the mind. There exists no magical force or set of forces which takes the choice of whether to follow this or that norm away from an individual.

This can lead to some foundations or structures as those set by tradition and custom, or one of which does not exist (or which is of the making by the individual to suit the individual). One could say that such norms are of those of trial and error. Customs and structures that worked toward a positive outcome (to that of a negative) in one way or another (whether be material or not) and those that did not work were disregarded. It can be up to the individual to choose one or another, and one that person finds fitting.

I could just conclude this by saying it’s all subjective it it’s cultural tradition and customs compared to that of none and ethics and morality rests solely on the individual on what that individual believes to be right or wrong, and therefore it’s up to individuals acting in concert to decide what’s right and wrong, or good and evil. If that’s the case, what consensus is there for right and wrong, or good and evil? There would be none, and you’d have individuals with their own views of either, but what would happen to those indivudals? Would those of like minds cooperate towards what they believe or see to be in the best interest through trial/error and structure of which they form a foundation on (of which will rest their world view)?

I’m not sure if you’ll understand the Plato quote, but there are forms that can, or are, higher and lower. Again, this is subjective to what we percieve as right/wrong/good/bad/etc. Though, I’m sure you have your own views of higher and lower, good and bad, that you’d seperate from one another when you see something compared to another. These could show themselves in forms of music, literature, physical art, etc., in a way of how people carry themselves in accord with others. Have you ever thought to yourself when you see something that it’s not to your level or standards or way of thinking, that it’s “lower” or degenerate in some way? There are people who find pleasure in mindless and regressing arts that cause no real progress, it’s stagnant, only breeding much of the same which is no higher. What is higher and lower may be subjective to the group or individual, but we do decide ourselves something that’s less than and greater than in some way, and we put the negative away from us, and bring ourselves closer to a positive, higher, state of being.

I’ve noticed a certain anti-intellectualism going around this country; since about 1980, coincidentally enough. I was in Nashville, Tennessee, and after the show I went to a Waffle House. I’m not proud of it, but I was hungry. And I’m sitting there eating and reading a book. I don’t know anybody, I’m alone, so I’m reading a book. The waitress comes over to me like, “What’chu readin’ for?” I had never been asked that. Not “What am I reading?”, but “What am I reading for?” Goddangit, you stumped me. Hmm, why do I read? I suppose I read for a lot of reasons, one of the main ones being so I don’t end up being a fucking waffle waitress.

  • Bill Hicks. Now, this quote seems out of place, but I feel it attributes to the Plato quote I posted in a very blunt way.
44

Heathen was a derogatory termed used against those that didn’t except Christianity during the conversion of NW Europe, those that kept the old ways were called heathens, for those who “dwell in the heath” as converting those in rural areas was harder for the missionaries, and when the kings accepted Christianity they allowed those who didn’t convert to practice the old ways in private. The word heathen can be found in literature as old as Beowulf to refer to those who held on to the old religion, but there is nothing essentially negative in the word itself, so we’re called Heathens. If you want to get into it and asked someone of that time what they were they’d probably just say “these are my ways” or whatever cult they followed (seeing how there were various cults to Odin/Woden, Thor/Thunor, Freyr and Freyja, Tyr, etc. across NW Europe

Which is all I as pointing out

Imitating? What am I trying to imitate except follow the way of my ancestors before some foregn middle eastern religion took root?

You answered your own question. My whole thing is though all these thoughts are fantastically irrelevant - “ancestors”, grand narratives, geographic and political instutions, or events that happened 1000 + years ago is akin to worrying about square circles. And mythologies by Stan Lee, “the ancients”, Homer, Twilight, Jerry Falwell, Left Wingers, or Evola are all equally valid - except Stan Lee, Falwell, Twilight, and especially Leftists know how to make money or are smart enough to seek subsidy to survive - so good for them.

Crazy revisionist history? Like what?

Wow, I was actually thinking about nothing that would concern you - like Adam and Eve walking with dinosaurs on a 7K year old universe. Being that you got defensive, mentioned a “foriegn Mid East religion impedeing on your ancestors, (disturbing the purity and pristiness of their history, and Thor forbid their breeding lines?)” I’m sure you ave a hell of a “history” to tell…but I’m not going to discuss it. Nor am I going to discuss this anymore, the last word is yours if you want it.

45

I sort of think this went over your head, and you still don’t have the picture. Though I don’t see the point in discussing traditionalism/perennialism with someone who’s completely unfamiliar with it’s views and contributors. It seems anytime (the few times) this has been brought up it’s bashed by someone who’s completely oblivious to what it is, and then the moment Heathenry is mentioned someone talks about stupid shit like comic books.