/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18426803]

Can we all agree that this was the man who ruined the world?

[Anonymous No.18426816]

Yes. He fundamentally shitted on the tradition initiated by his fellow countryman Montaigne.

[Anonymous No.18426830]

>>18426803
>Can we all agree that this was the man who ruined the world?
No.

[Anonymous No.18426833]

>>18426803
That's not Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18426851]

>>18426803
OP here wrong pic meant to post this
I'm trans btw forgot to add

[Anonymous No.18426859]

>>18426803
You mean the man that drove the world forward.
>>18426851 ruined it though.

[OP No.18426880]

>>18426851
Fuck you, but this one was really bad too.

[Anonymous No.18427044]

>>18426803
No, he was a good philosopher, even better when you link him with Husserl.

[Anonymous No.18427274]

The 10 books that ruined the world

>The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
>Discourse on the Method by René Descartes
>Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
>Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men by Jean Jacques Rousseau
>The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels
>Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
>The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
>Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
>The State and Revolution by Lenin
>The Pivot of Civilization by Margaret Sanger
>Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
>The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud
>Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead
>The Kinsey Report by Alfred Kinsey
>The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan

[Anonymous No.18427283]

>>18426803
Descartes was too much of a retard to ruin anything

[Anonymous No.18427307]

>>18427274
Hegel must be in there, otherwise it's not a serious list.

[Anonymous No.18427318]

>>18427307
I agree with you anon, take your pick of Hegel's trash and add, or might as well just throw everything he ever wrote right there.

[Anonymous No.18427332]

That would be John Locke.

[Anonymous No.18427336]

>>18426803
You overestimate ideas. It’s not the ideas but the material and economic forces they embody that make a difference. Marxists have figured this out more than a hundred years ago. This is why they keep running circles on the right while the right sits content with muh high culture, muh religion, why can’t things be the way they were before?

[Anonymous No.18427368]

>>18427274
several based ones, several cringe ones, and some literal whos

[Anonymous No.18427385]

>>18427336
The biggest marxist influence today is literally through ideas in academia and media.

[Anonymous No.18427394]

>>18427336
>just become a huge materialist with zero regard for the immaterial wealth of civilization bro, look how the left managed to brainwash literal mentally ill deranged people to become obsessed with physical self-indulgenceand playing with their buttholes, they're winning bro

[Anonymous No.18427413]

>>18426803
No, it was Oliver Cromwell, the bona fide anti-christ, who let the jews back into England, which enabled the Rothschilds to set into motion globohomo superbanking and usury on fiat currencies.

[Anonymous No.18427805]

>>18427385
Yeah, thanks to massive CIA and private foundation funding.
>>18427394
There is no separation between matter and spirit. The two are coordinated.

[Anonymous No.18427822]

>>18427274
>The Kinsey Report by Alfred Kinsey
read Bataille, the Kinsey report is based

[Anonymous No.18427841]

>>18427805
Marxism is just watered down Hegelianism. Hegel had the right idea. Spirit pervades matter. Whenever the red army moved, legions of demons moved together with them.

[Anonymous No.18427854]

>>18427841
it*
It’s not cause and effect either, but coordination or synchronicity. Think Leibniz’s (and Spinoza’s?) pre established harmony.

[Anonymous No.18427925]

>give her the D
>you didn't
>world ruined
It's all our fault.

[Anonymous No.18427949]

>>18427805
>There is no separation between matter and spirit.
Matter is temporary, ephemeral and meaningless in the long term. Abstract ideas and principles will rule over the sets of material circumstances, people and environments until they erode completely and are destroyed by time, and then, the ideas will rule over different circumstances, people and environments

[Anonymous No.18427959]

>>18427822
>read Bataille
ngmi

[Anonymous No.18427972]

>>18427336
Spengler denounced Marxism for having developed socialism from an English perspective, while not understanding Germans' socialist nature. It's not a be-all, end-all system. In fact it is quite shitty, and Marx is an overrated thinker and you shouldn't look into him if you want to get into Monism/Materialism

[Anonymous No.18427995]

>>18427949
Nay, matter is coeternal with spirit because they are two sides of the same coin.

[Anonymous No.18428003]

No, he only saved us from Thomist idiocy.

[Anonymous No.18428011]

This thread is like the literary equivalent of a luddite convention.

[Anonymous No.18428032]

OP is right. By inventing the modern subject, this malevolent little Frechman imprisoned us all inside our own heads and struggling only makes it worse.

[Anonymous No.18428044]

>>18427972
I’m neither a Marxist nor praising Marx. I’m pointing out that (even) Marx figured out a basic fact that classical liberals/conservatives don’t even suspect. That’s how far behind they are.

[Anonymous No.18428050]

>>18428003
youve never read Aquinas

[Anonymous No.18428101]

>>18428011
Luddites were primarily a labour movement. You've swallowed capitalist propaganda in casting them as technophobes.
>>18427336
>ideas are just the economy reflected into brains
This doesn't make much sense and Marxism itself is ironically a testament to the power of ideas. It's a damn shame the authentic anti capitalist movement was usurped by Marxism, which is rather a cult that was falsified by Bernstein 120 years ago.

[Anonymous No.18428125]

>>18427318
>>18427274
You would be my best friend irl

[Anonymous No.18428147]

Anyone care to explain why? I've read and studied the meditations and I don't get OP's point.

[Anonymous No.18428189]

>>18428101
>>18428044

[Anonymous No.18428202]

>>18428050
I’ve read enough about him and his ilk to know that he and the Islamic thinkers that influenced him were dumb.

[Anonymous No.18428206]

>>18428147
It’s mostly angry Thomists who are still upset that their movement didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.18428245]

>>18428147
OP thinks that ideas -> matter
Materialists think that matter -> ideas
The truth however is that there is a perfect synchronicity between ideas and matter. They are two sides of the same coin. When Napoleon emancipated the Jews, simultaneously Satan was released from his thousand-year prison. When Marx put pen to paper to write Das Kapital, a demon sat down with him in the spiritual realm.

[Anonymous No.18428246]

>>18428032
that was shakespeare. but the cart definitely pushed philosophy over that cliff.

[Anonymous No.18428257]

>>18428245
youre still functioning on a strongly dualist conception of idea and substance, which is very the cart-ian

[Anonymous No.18428259]

>>18426803
>give her the dick

[Anonymous No.18428305]

>>18428257
Not dualist, fren. Double-aspect monist.

[Anonymous No.18428309]

>>18427274
Machiavelli, Descartes and Darwin are based but I agree those books have been used to ruin the world. The rest is a selection of the worst things have have been produced in the west.

>>18428003
>>18428202
>>18428206
Descartes is Thomist in more ways than one (read Gilson among others on the subject). He was fiercely anti-Aristotelian, which of course made him anti-Thomist in other aspects, but those points were not specific to Aquinas and were in fact standard in early Baroque philosophy. Thomism regained much interest later, along with a general return of Aristotelian schools.

[Anonymous No.18428324]

>>18428305
interesting. was the jews and satan stuff shitposting or actually part of your belief system?

[Anonymous No.18428352]

>>18428309
Forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.18428391]

>>18428324
Dead serious. In the OT the angel of the Israelites battled against the angel of the rival nation whenever the two armies met in war. Similar beliefs are found in the Iliad and other ancient texts. The notion that spiritual forces acted simultaneously with human, and spiritual events with mundane, was non controversial, but became so as man progressed in the way of materialism.

[Anonymous No.18428406]

>>18428246
I was joking. Today's "thinkers" frequently talk shit on Descartes for inventing subjectivity, which is then somehow tied to colonialism and other evils, but he never uses the term and it was Kant who really used subjective and objective like that first, in an inversion of the Latin meanings. As far as the rational thinking thing, that was already in Aristotle and the scholastics.

[Anonymous No.18428432]

>>18428391
>>18428406
lmfao

[Anonymous No.18428440]

>>18428406
Descartes is certainly the progenitor of transcendental philosophy.
That might be what they mean by inventing subjectivity, at least that's the only way that makes sense. In a broad meaning of subjectivity, I would put it on Augustine if we have to single out one man.

[Anonymous No.18428483]

>>18428406
eh, you are right but cart definitely in an important way got the ball rolling on dualism and subjectivism, even if thats only because people misunderstood the important parts of his philosophy or focused on the wrong bits

[Anonymous No.18428492]

>>18428391
this this isnt really monistic when you consider there to be two distinct realms that are bridged. i mean, its trivial then to call it monism. also the distinction between matter and idea wouldnt really break down that way given that there is an idea/matter distinction in people and nature and a corresponding idea/matter distinction in the 'spiritual world' which acts on the material as youre describing it.

[Anonymous No.18428501]

>>18428492
You’re thinking in terms of causation. I think in terms of coordination/synchronicity.

[Anonymous No.18428503]

>>18428440
I wouldn't read too much into it, it's just an academic meme like the various myths about Hegel. Basically academics are often just like /lit/, illiterate pseuds who don't read primary sources and just parrot what they hear.

[Anonymous No.18428511]

>>18428501
so god coordinates the material with the ideal, but isnt that still dividing the two? whats the import of being a monist here

[Anonymous No.18428535]

>>18428511
They are not separable from each other or from God.

[Anonymous No.18428537]

>>18428535
so theyre are both outflows of god, in a sort of monistic-theistic spinozan (or something) way?

[Anonymous No.18428568]

>>18427959
>he hasn't read Bataille

[Anonymous No.18428822]

>>18428537
Spinoza, yes. No man is an island, no man or beast, or angel, or idea, or feeling, or will, or desire… The idea of Communism made itself felt in the barricade and in the point of the bayonet, and in the Soviet tank and industry. Even dimwits like Stalin and Mao had a faint feeling of this. Classical liberal/conservatives want to have ideas with their heads, but their heads are too small. THEY REFUSE TO HAVE GREAT IDEAS!

[Anonymous No.18428850]

>>18427274
>no Social Contract nor Two Treatises of Government

cringe

[Anonymous No.18428851]

>>18426803
Totally. Fuck Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.18428853]

>>18427274
you mean saved

[Anonymous No.18428869]

>>18428851
kek

[Anonymous No.18428887]

>>18426803
This guy actually.

[Anonymous No.18428905]

That's not Hegel.

[Anonymous No.18429026]

>>18428492
The way I see it however, this distinction, this parallel between the landing and his prey, this is the ultimate point for Descartes. The black bull is going ham, therefore so should you. There is no distinct realm, in that world, both the buck and his prey are one, and rossr53545 is the lucky viewer, understanding the bridge that exists between this world and the next.

Unbelievably, intuitively, he makes this notion, the monism, as you speak of, is reducing to the great theists ideas of asceticism and mystical properties of numbers (53545 is a harmonic ratio between all of thee numbers).

His position is completely monist, and in some ways, you can tell he is channeling Yahweh himself, not just relying on the wisdom on Descartes, and the old tribal Judaic gods are coursing through his veins, from the top of his head to the tip of his erect, Judaically circumcised penis, as he types the next phrase

"Fuck this black beauty so hard that her kin folks back in African can feel that dick"

With this phrase, he essentially makes one well aware of the Judaic roots of the Africans. They are the progenitors of the Earth's path, and their representatives in Egypt were here before Yahweh, and his Jewish magic. In some ways, he straddles the line though, urging the American man, on Judaic soil, plowing the African princess. He is assuring a union of the elements of the world to reformulated the earth.

And you think you've fully analyze this post, however there's more to fully decode. Surely, one thinks of "African" as a typo. But nay, nay I say it is a giving phrase, something congenial and generous from one genius to another he is giving his black Master, as people who knew from the beginning how important slavery was, for their dark pre-Judaical, demiurgical understanding of his willpower. He is reaffirming the foundation of the world with a simple pun, instead of Africa, its AfriCAN

[Anonymous No.18429048]

>>18426803
Can we all agree that this was the man who cured society?

[Anonymous No.18429147]

>>18428905
You’re right. I believe it’s Descartes (I might be wrong though).

[Anonymous No.18429155]

>>18429147
He could also be a demon.

[Anonymous No.18429157]

>>18429155
An evil demon?

[Anonymous No.18429536]

>>18429048
yes we can Gardner. Would you like some milk before bedtime?

[Anonymous No.18429928]

>>18426803
Hell yeah based

[Anonymous No.18429967]

>>18426803
No, you probably just didn't read him well enough. Or, possibly, you just didn't read him at all.

> There are at least two different readings of Descartes's cogito. Either it reifies the subject as wholly centered on itself (the basic premise of liberalism or Nietzsche's "will-to-power") or else it gets swallowed up by forces external to it, and disappears altogether (antimetaphysics Levinas, middle Derrida, etc.). The former reading is the liberal "Kantian" reading in which the self is fundamentally autonomous, self-caused, and in need of no one, whereas the latter reading is totally enraptured by the postmodern view that, in the end, all reality is a construction of language such that the subject altogether vanishes in the name of the objectivity of language.

I love Creston Davis's favoritism for the word "reified". I wonder if he hung out with Marxists a lot when he was younger or something like that. Anyway, Zizek, Jean-Luc Marion, and Michel Henry all provide good readings of Descartes that you should look into.

[Anonymous No.18431069]

>>18429967
Thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.18431100]

>>18429967
Both liberalism and postmodernism are fundamentally destructive and ruinous forces. You just proved OP correct.

[Anonymous No.18431224]

>>18426851
thread.

[Anonymous No.18431370]

>>18426803
Descartes? More like Gesfartes! (gay farts) LOL!

[Anonymous No.18431655]

>>18428503
I'm a stemfag and read philosophy on my own. What are the academic myths about Hegel? Is it some cool stuff like the "dark magician" fanfiction?

[Anonymous No.18431673]

>>18431655

[Anonymous No.18431675]

>>18429967
>Zizek, Jean-Luc Marion, and Michel Henry
Dropped hard, all three.

[Anonymous No.18432151]

>>18427274
the prince was just writting down what was common knowledge amougst the rulling class, it's more powerful as an idea than as an actual book, might as well put the 3 imposters there

[Anonymous No.18432175]

>>18426803
what about that one african guy who descartes supposedly stole his ideas from? was that ever proven? i never saw it talked about here

[Anonymous No.18432204]

>>18427274
Based post

[Anonymous No.18432334]

>>18426803
What makes you think that a man is capable of ruining the world?

[Anonymous No.18432559]

>>18426803
Outside of mass-immigration I honestly dont see or understand whats so bad about the modern world

You'd honestly rather be an illiterate inbred peasant, a slave to his lord, dying from a stomach bug?

[Anonymous No.18432597]

>>18432559
Mass immigration is not an isolated phenomenon. It’s a symptom of a society that has become so spiritually dead to the point of not wanting to physically exist anymore. And that is the direct result of the alienation and disenchantment brought about by modernity.

[Anonymous No.18432618]

>>18432597
But we arent spiritually dead, the immigrants are.

[Anonymous No.18432631]

>>18432618
Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.18432634]

>>18432631
Because they are inbred darkies. Simple as...

[Anonymous No.18432635]

>>18432618
Yes, we are. Descartes problem was that he introduced skepticism to the world and now we have to find muh meaning by ourselves or be depressed for the entire life and die.

[Anonymous No.18432644]

>>18432635
Thats good. Weak people should suffer.

[Anonymous No.18432646]

>>18427274
Kek, how did Mead ruin the world

[Anonymous No.18432656]

>>18432634
If you consent to being invaded and replaced there is something wrong with you on the inside. Simple as

[Anonymous No.18432669]

>>18432656
If you are the one leaving your country to leach off some other you are doubly sick. Fuck darkies.

[Anonymous No.18432671]

>>18426816
shat*

[Anonymous No.18432686]

>>18428309
I've been reading Gilson and thats not the impression I received

[Anonymous No.18432767]

ftfy

[Anonymous No.18432779]

>>18427274
Yo, that's not 10...

[Anonymous No.18432803]

Choose your fighter.

[Anonymous No.18432812]

>>18432767
That one was pretty bad too.

>>18432803
Muhammad lol

[Anonymous No.18432821]

>>18427274
The effects of plenty of testosterone in the mind

[Anonymous No.18432832]

>>18432646
>believe it bro, humans are naturally polygamists and all into free love and shit, I saw it in Samoa
>turns out Samoans were much more normal than expected

[Anonymous No.18433056]

>>18431100
Davis is arguing against both of those readings. He is trying to lead us toward deeper analysis.

> Zizek attends to this problem by formulating how Descartes arrives at the cogito -- namely, through the method of doubt that is essentially a process of transformation between the objectivity of nature and the process of subjectivity in concrete language. Zizek describes this process of coming to subjectivity through the experience of total loss: at the kernel of the cogito there is an empty abyss of negativity. The subject is a total void, and therefore does not exist.

Here's what Zizek himself says, in a different work:

> This violent reversal of the usual relationship between the bodily substance and its soul is what Descartes enacts with his notion of the cogito: . . . the Cartesian cogito is not the substantial form of a body, it rather designates the pure process of objectless thinking -- "I think, therefore I am".
> What one should bear in mind when talking about the cogito, about the reduction of a human being to the abyssal point of thinking without any external object, is that we are not dealing here with silly and extreme logical games ("imagine that you alone exist . . ."), but with the description of a very precise existential experience of radical self-withdrawal, of suspending the existence of all reality around me to a vanishing illusion, which is well-known in psychoanalysis (as psychotic withdrawal) as well as in religious mysticism (under the name of so-called "night of the world").

Descartes, according to Zizek, offers us a kind of Event of philosophical madness: a traumatic intrusion of something new which remains unacceptable for the "predominant view", the withdrawal into the abyss of subjectivity. This is kind of what Michel Henry says about the cogito as well, that it is a counter-reduction that brings us to the immediate immanence of the pure self, or whatever.

The theologian John Milbank, in argument with Zizek, opposes what he thinks is Zizek's constitution of the subject in the gap between nature and its representation in the symbolic order. He sees the "subject" itself as an invention of modernity, and though he agrees that the subject as finite being is not by itself substantially in and of itself anything at all, he thinks Zizek destroys all genuine finitude and contingency by transforming every moment into, as Creston Davis says, the "false reification of an esoteric process". For Milbank, Zizek ignores that eternity and time merge and that finite belonging is secured to the infinite order of things, and Zizek still discusses things in a way already framed in terms of the secular order sundered from the true ground of all things in God. So Descartes's cogito is always mediated not by a primordial violence against which the "subject" must struggle in order to exist, but rather through a more fundamental peace within which the self develops gift unfolding within the plenitude of being as such.

[Anonymous No.18433090]

>>18431069
Sure. Marion discusses it in his books explicitly named after such a study ("Descartes's Grey Ontology" or "On Descartes's Metaphysical Prism" for example). I know Zizek brings it up in his debates with theologians like John Milbank or Boris Gunjevic, as well as in his book "Event" and probably plenty others as well. Henry discusses Descartea and the cogito best in the first 40 chapters of "The Essence of Manifestation" but he also talks about it beautifully in that essay "The Four Principles of Phenomenology" which I read in "The Michel Henry Reader".

[Anonymous No.18433095]

>>18433056
>Zizek
Stopped reading right there. Get fucked commie tranny

[Anonymous No.18433098]

>>18431675
Why? They're all cool and smart.

[Anonymous No.18433110]

>>18433056
Not the person you are responding to but I'm with Milbank in this one, Zizek is greatly overthinking things.

[Anonymous No.18433179]

>>18433110
Milbank's theology is hugely attractive. I've been listening to his lectures on YouTube, read his debates with Zizek, and now I've got his book "Being Reconciled" on the way.

Another line from Davis's discussion of the Milbank-Zizek debate:
> Thus the true "self" is not so much a social construction a la Foucault, for Milbank, but has its being only insofar as it is participating in the infinite love of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Our being is truly a gift of the all-embracing self-Outsideness of God. It's almost like Milbank does to Blanchot's Outside and Disaster what Marcel did to Sartre's freedom and being. Because of God's very constitutive excess, the way He exists outside of Himself, we find a reality for the finitude within which the self is born. Neither God nor the cogito become an isolated self-founding thing, some sort of reduced substrate for something else. Both have substance in the very negative sense of self-sufficiency: the self is never stabilized because it is always unfolding into the infinite God Who also unfolds as the creation of love. Like Michel Henry's "originary Living", to make another connection.

I don't think Zizek should be disregarded, though, and I think he has a hell of a lot to offer to our considerations. Also, my explanations of these guys may be limited or a bit decontextualized, so you should probably just read the books if it sounds interesting.

[Anonymous No.18433189]

>>18433095
I am not a commie tranny.

[Anonymous No.18433792]

>>18433179
These are some really solid explanations anon, I'll definitely be checking John Milbank out.

[Anonymous No.18433919]

>>18433792
Thanks :) I really enjoy discussing this stuff so I could go on all day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sY-m9AuPvA&t=924s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRemJU5mTPc

These are a couple of good, short, introductory videos to just learn who Milbank is and what his "radical orthodoxy" is kind of about. One of my favorite things I read by him was his essay "The Gospel of Affinity" in that book "The Future of Hope" edited by Miroslav Volf and William Katerberg. His essay addresses postmodernity aggressively from the position of the Church as a set of cultural circumstances, and how there is actually an unavoidable affinity between the Christian Church and postmodernity. He's kind of like Dugin hahaha. He takes the typical Christian struggle against the forgetting of our life-beyond-life & the overrunning of the exceeding depth of our humanity by the fiendish, mindless material consumption in astounding directions. He doesn't stop at simply opposing capitalist self-enclosed structural egotism to a sort of relational love, he confronts relational love with its own ground of transcendence. I know at this point I'm basically fanboying, hahaha, and I'm not even that huge of a Milbank fan, but it is cool stuff to talk about.

[Anonymous No.18434061]

>>18432803
I'm exposing myself but who is top right (not the Shlomo profile)?

[Anonymous No.18434068]

>>18427805
you're kind of on the right track but at some point you've gotta stop being so narrow minded

[Anonymous No.18434080]

>>18427274
L

[Anonymous No.18434103]

>>18434080
I

[Anonymous No.18434109]

>>18434103
G

[Anonymous No.18434117]

Joseph Mohr did when he wrote Stille Nacht.

[Anonymous No.18434191]

>>18426803

Idk man, the scientific revolution was already happening during Descartes time, he only gave the philosophical fundamentals for it to gain adherence.

[Anonymous No.18434318]

>>18431655
The main one is "thesis-antithesis-synthesis", and that he was a proto-totalitarian who thought history had culminated in the Prussian state. There's a book on it called Hegel Myths and Legends.

[Anonymous No.18434413]

>>18426851
Beat me to it fuck

[Anonymous No.18435623]

>>18434061
Edward Bernays, father of modern advertising and nephew of Freud.

[Anonymous No.18436369]

Marxists are constantly complaining about Descartes as if they are holding a grand position on philosophy and history. They try so hard to be different from others, yet end up soulless. As Marxism lacks the individual, this hit to the ego of the individual must be made up for in other places, as shown here.