Pneumatic Manifesto: the Metamodern Moment in Time

[Anonymous No.20674184]

Earlier title: "The Creation of Meaning: the Metamodern Moment (How to create meaning in a world where "nothing" is real?)"

Alternative titles:
or the Case for a Self-Sustainable Economy of the Future, or
Praxis for the Modern World, or a Refinement of Ellul, or
How to Defeat Fascism? Actively Contain the Bullying Factors, or
"We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident?" A Neo-Neomarxist Praxis for Life.

Alternative descriptors:
or Anti-philosophy, or the Theory of Everything, or Ethics for the 21st Century, or One Monism for Everything in (meta)Modernity, or Neomaterialism/neophysicalism/neoscientism/neo-Hegelianism/neo-CT/neo-CT as Psychology (Monist Psychoanalysis) or neo-neoplatonism/neo-gnosticism

[Anonymous No.20674190]

I.
The Doctrine of Pneumatism (at heart a political ideology/economic system, not an attempt at philosophy/religion)
Disprove one Axiom, and the theory falls. Can you?

1. Reality exists.
2. If you call the existence of reality itself into question, congratulations, you're a solipsist. The problem is, this is a philosophical dead-end, it offers no Praxis nor guidance to politicians, the people who rule this world.
3. The ultimate goal of the zoon politikon is for the world around them (the matrix upon which to imprint a Dasein) be a better, more authentic place.
4. Dualism doesn't exist. It's an illusion created by the Self after its creation at around the age of 3-4 when the Self (abstract thought) is "burst into existence" (Heidegger's "Being in Time") and struggles to connect the chaos surrounding the abstractly thinking Being. Thus it falls into dualism to better categorize the world, into opposing binaries. Opposing binaries are social constructs, illusions. See: the Pauli-Jung conjecture. In fact this is what Hegel from the start preached: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. What did he mean by this?
5. Reality is One.
6. The future will either be harmonious or there will be no future at all (by "the future" I don't mean any particular civilization, just the Human species as a whole)
7. A harmonious future is possible to envision.
8. To accomplish this, we need a historical materialism.
9. Marxist historical materialism was a wrong interpretation of Hegel. Thus, it was pseudoscientific. How to define this? Popper has an answer, that really isnt new at all. A scientific theory rests upon 3 principles: it must be falsifiable in theory, empirically testable in practice, and it must strive to minimize interference of the observer upon the studied subject.
10. A scientific theory of History is possible. Popper's theory of science is, funnily enough, pretty much historical materialism, even though Popper fought historicism unto his death.
11. To accomplish a harmonious future, we must devise a scientific theory of history (i.e. one that is true and works), because then such a theory has predictive power, and then you can structure policy around it. This is VERY important for Praxis.
12. A scientific theory of history must be theoretically falsifiable (claims about the Human nature), empirically testable (matter of policy) and minimize the interference of the observer and his biases, with the subject (History)
13. Monist neo-Hegelianism, or neo-Hegelian Monism is the way to go about constructing an architecture of the human or a scientific theory of history and future (and policy).

[Anonymous No.20674196]

14. If monism is true, then all binaries are always wrong. If dualism is true, then no unifying theory is possible and philosophy is useless (Wittgenstein: "philosophy is either obvious or useless" nonetheless, Wittgenstein's failure in actually constructing a sensible Tractatus does not mean it's impossible, this line of thinking does not track and Wittgenstein's nihilistic approach to philosophy is a failure)
15. We can either construct a monist or a dualist theory of history. In the last 14 points I've laid out why a dualist theory of history is doomed to fail. How to construct a monist theory of history?
16. The Self/Being (Dasein) is everything to history.
17. The study of history reveals that the evolution of history is really just the evolution of the Being.
18. The evolution of the Being is impacted by just 2 environmental factors: (1) the physical size of his community (2) the set of information carried by this community. These 2 factors produce a varying number of pathways for the Dasein to self-actualize. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers had a limited number of pathways to self-actualize and were thus happier.
19. Technological progress is unstoppable. History proves that.
20. Attempts at reverting technological progress, or reverting to the primitive Dasein, are doomed from the start. It's a reactionary expression that does not lead anywhere productive.
21. Reactionary thought only leads to suffering, doubly so when it's coupled with a totalist mode of policing. Reactionary thought is the thought of the Nietzschean Last Man. Reactionary thought is an unconscious and unwitting replication of the master-slave paradigm, a paradigm which does not lead to a reduction of suffering for anyone.
22. The status quo is always bad. Until it isn't. And you must always fight to change it. Until you don't. But we're not there yet. That moment is called post-scarcity. We have not achieved it yet. That's why we suffer. We live in a world of scarce resources and near-infinite information on how to obtain them. This creates schizophrenic potential for the post-modern Dasein.
23. The master-slave paradigm serves to at best continue the status quo, at worst change it into something much worse.
24. If the future must be harmonious for it to exist at all (fig. 6), how to envision it? Most important crises for the post-post-modern Dasein must be identified (this is the moment we're in right now: the metamodern moment). The crises are the following from most important to least & each follow the former: (I) the national identity crisis, (II) the personal identity crisis, (III) the demographic crisis, (IV) the climate crisis, (V) the authoritarian crisis (it's a master-slave-paradigm-replicatory crisis in general), (VI) wealth inequality

[Anonymous No.20674200]

25. A harmonious future must be produced by an individual with a sense of self so strong that in creating a vision to unite all of humanity he will not abandon his own self and die before the vision is set on the path to successful completion.
26. A harmonious future will be a vision that combines solutions to each of the 6 underlying crises of modern human existence, some of which are new but most of which are really as old as humanity itself.
27. The answer to answering the personal identity crisis lies in answering the national identity crisis.
28. A rebirth of nationalist thought is needed that is mindful of the 5 other crises.
29. A harmonious future for everybody will be based on 3 key foundations: capitalist post-scarcity created through full automation of the entire work force which will then be covered by UBI, liberal democracy, pacifism
30. Since binaries don't exist and Monism is true, the policy that will bring us to a harmonious future is neither left-wing nor right-wing, but taking crisis V into account, it must not lend itself into fascism, and while taking crisis VI into account, it must not lend itself to stalinism.

[Anonymous No.20674204]

31. Capitalism (finance especially) operates on self-fulfilling prophecies and herd mentality.
32. The key problem of policy is to create a positive self-fulfilling prophecy that does not allow for negative self-fulfilling prophecies which cause crises.
33. There is only one positive self-fulfilling prophecy, because there is only one positive Future—that which is harmonious.
34. Monism is physically correct: everything is One. The Universe is One. Energy is everything. Matter is energy. Everything is One.
35. Consciousness in the Monist worldview is neither material nor spiritual. It is metaphysical in the sense that it, being material, represents a separate physical force. How could it be scientifically defined? We need to look out of the box. Consciousness is a physical force which may slow down the entropy of the Universe unlike any other physical force, but it's yet unrealized. Normal ("unrealized") human consciousness as it exists right now can be thought of as potential energy (this is who the neoplatonists and gnostics called hylics and psychics). Human consciousness that represents a Nietzschean Ubermenschian Dasein can be thought of as kinetic energy (this is who they called pneumatics).
36. The goal of wise policy is to create a truly pneumatic society. More precisely, the goal of wise policy is for the world to be united, under globalization, voluntarily dominated by the economic power of the United States (most pneumatic state in the world), and to cause the society as a whole to become pneumatic without even having the capitalist "herd" be aware of being pneumatic.
37. The meaning of life lies in being pneumatic.
38. Endless and self-sustainable economic (& technological, again, One and the same, economic practice = technology) growth based on green energy (nuclear & renewables) is possible and pneumatic.

[Anonymous No.20674265]

>>20674184
Are you high on speed or just feeding a bot undergraduate's essays and posting them here?

[Anonymous No.20674271]

>>20674265
I'm reformalizing Hegel's philosophy for the modern age.

[Anonymous No.20674281]

>>20674271
I don't care, how about posting it in some discord server where your retarded incoherent ramblings can raise you to lolcow status? At least you'd achieve some form of notoriety.

[Anonymous No.20674285]

>>20674281
It's not my problem if you find it incoherent :)

[Anonymous No.20674290]

>>20674285
>>20674281
Actually it's embarrassing problem for you if you find it incoherent because this is just a simple work of logical deduction

[Anonymous No.20674312]

>>20674290
Stop shitting this board please

[Anonymous No.20674391]

>>20674312
where else should I post? this is the only board to talk about this truly

[Anonymous No.20674494]

bump

[Anonymous No.20674564]

>>20674190
>>20674196
>>20674200
>>20674204
This is all just garbage recapitulated twitter "philosophy".
>>20674271
Why don't you actually read Hegel instead of watching superficial youtube lectures and blabbering nonsense on 4chan? Can you even explain what metamodernity is? Or is that just another buzzword you saw in a Nick Land meme?

[Anonymous No.20674598]

>>20674564
again, not an argument

[Anonymous No.20674684]

>>20674598
It is an argument, even if indirect. Nice evasion.

[Anonymous No.20674693]

>>20674684
it's not. you're not saying anything of substance

[Anonymous No.20674716]

>>20674693
That's literally the essence of my critique of your post.

[Anonymous No.20674728]

>>20674716
i literally posted 38 points of only substance and no fluff. the doctrine i already outlined could be elaborated over the course of an entire book or two, but manifestos have to be short from the start, a booklet, under 40 pages, and that's my goal

[Anonymous No.20674790]

>>20674728
Directionless nonsense without explication is not substance
"the true is the whole" - gwfh

[Anonymous No.20674839]

>>20674790
>Directionless
you didn't even read what i posted, why should i continue engaging you? the direction is outlined across the entire doctrine (a harmonious future), the specifics of it in points 31-38

[Anonymous No.20674867]

>>20674839
>why should i continue engaging you?
You will to get more (you)s and to bump your own post. You don't give a shit about actually arguing bc you've already made it up in your mind that you wrote something important. And yeah, I did actually read your ~500 word schizobabble dogshit

sage

[Anonymous No.20674875]

>>20674728
it's actually only one point of substance because you argue that monism is true

[Anonymous No.20674876]

if any other pseud wants to criticize the doctrine I laid out, lemme tell you: it's nothing new. it's just an abstraction/generalization of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and a look at how to apply it in the modern world

[Anonymous No.20674903]

>>20674876
If you read Hegel, then you'd know that he never says
>thesis, antithesis, synthesis
But I'll bite anyway. What makes:
>A harmonious future for everybody will be based on 3 key foundations: capitalist post-scarcity created through full automation of the entire work force which will then be covered by UBI, liberal democracy, pacifism
Harmonious?

[Anonymous No.20674919]

>>20674903
because that is the kind of state in which the individual can (at least attempt to) fully realize their free will, that is, in the Hegelian sense

[Anonymous No.20674944]

>>20674919
>fully realize their free will
what does that even mean, and why is that good

[Anonymous No.20674971]

Check out Belief by Gianni Vattimo for a work exploring the development of beliefs in a process he calls the Secularization of Belief. It's relevant to your points on the development of human thought through history. Interesting stuff op I liked reading it

[Anonymous No.20674977]

>>20674944
well, would you rather be a slave?

Actually now that i think about it, none of this is new and it's actually as OLD as almost philosophy itself! Think about:
>Hegel
>Hegelianism (what he stood for)
>The Philosophy of Right
>Absolute idealism
and once you connect the dots you realize that:
>mine is just a reformalization of Hegel, who himself was just a reformalization of Plato!
philosopher king! back to high school, bro. why did Plato have this philosopher king idea?

[Anonymous No.20674982]

>>20674977
so basically:
>the last 200 years of philosophy are just a sophisticated emotional reaction to Hegel
>the previous 2300 years of philosophy are just sophisticated emotional reactions to Plato

Plato is the King. The "god" of Philosophy. The true father of philosophy and the one who started and ended it. Philosophy drew a circle that began with Plato and ended with Hegel and thus ran its course and that's why it kinda seems "dead" since Hegel.

Circular nature of Time as expressed by Nietzsche (and really, Hegel, and really, Plato, and really... pre-socratics). Epic.

[Anonymous No.20675007]

>>20674977
>well, would you rather be a slave?
Some "slaves" live well. Like janissaries or mamluks. To me, "being a slave" isn't what bothers me the most about slavery. Rather, it's the lack of virtue. When we desire freedom, it's usually because we find our chains limiting our ability to pursue the good. Freedom for its own sake is a form of nihlism and can even lead to a new form of self-imposed slavery. e.g. algorithmic echo chambers, wage-slavery, hedonic treadmills, etc.

[Anonymous No.20675016]

>>20675007
good socratic dialogue I just had with you. thank you

[Anonymous No.20675035]

>>20675016
No worries. Glad you enjoyed it. By the way, there's a good reason to return to Plato and the Socratic Dialogues, since they were closest to examining what virtue is through commentary on the elusive Form of the Good. Most other philosophy doesn't come close, or ends up missing the point by viewing history through an assumed telos of freedom without questioning freedom for its own sake.

[Anonymous No.20675084]

>>20674190
>2. If you call the existence of reality itself into question, congratulations, you're a solipsist. The problem is, this is a philosophical dead-end, it offers no Praxis nor guidance to politicians, the people who rule this world.
You are evading critique of your first premise by calling it a philosophical dead end. This does not support your first premise or your retarded philosophy, which coinicidentally is also a dead end.

[Anonymous No.20675087]

>>20674944
it means you can flash your cock at people in public without any legal ramifications

[Anonymous No.20675153]

>>20675035
I am actually of the belief that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle already figured out everything and the last 2,500 years of philosophy is just science catching up with what that trio already knew and expressed!

[Anonymous No.20675155]

>>20675084
solipsism is just a stupid person's idea of an intelligent idea. authentic solipsists are just tools for the non-solipsists i.e. literally everyone else in the world

[Anonymous No.20675182]

>>20675155
pretty sure I talked to you in a discord call once

[Anonymous No.20675195]

>>20675153
>Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
HUGE conflicts between Plato and Aristotle on many things. They didn't even have stuff figured out by themselves.

[Anonymous No.20675209]

>>20675182
I haven't used discord in a long time. I'm trying not to use social media too much nowadays (except for basic contact with people and other basic stuff). Besides 4chan, which I use as a sort of Greek agora/Roman forum.
>>20675195
well, yeah. that's my point. just like Marx-Nietzsche-Freud didn't have a coherent philosophy yet are recognized by CT as the three masters of... what?

suspicion

which is what, really?
Philosophy! the inquiry into the nature of reality!

[Anonymous No.20675220]

>>20675195
>>20675209
the tldr is such:
Socrates - the Thinker
Plato - the Idealist (the Poet)
Aristotle - the Scientist (the Novelist)

this classification of literary relations applies to every major intellectual trio of correlated thinkers in Time (chronology)

it goes like this:
>1. the Thinker (the man who sets forth a revolutionary idea)
>2. the Poet (the man who abstracts the idea and "idealizes" it)
>3. the Novelist (the man who generalizes the idea and applies it to material reality)

[Anonymous No.20675231]

>>20675220
this can apply to other fields, such as Physics, too:
>Newton - the Thinker
>Einstein/Planck - the Poets
>modern physicists - the Novelists

Poetry precedes Prose, and Poetry is preceded by Thought. I know, it sounds esoteric, but just think about it! I'm not a schizo!

[Anonymous No.20675251]

I reworked the Fifth Axiom of the Idea (that's what I'll also call Pneumatics—"the Idea")

>5. Reality is One. Ideal reality, that is. There is also the hitherto, material reality, which is dualistic because it's fed by illusions about the Real created by the weak Being between the ages of 3 and 8. So, in the material world, dualisms exist. People are either Good or Bad. In the Ideal world, only Good and only Truth exists, because Good is Truth and Truth is Good, and falsity doesn't exist, because again, monism, only Truth exists and falsity (the absence of Truth) doesn't exist, because... it's absent. This is literally Plato, guys. And it's True!

[Anonymous No.20675254]

>>20675231
you can make anything fit that pattern to explain everything and thus explain nothing

[Anonymous No.20675256]

I'm currently working on the second part of my Pneumatics: the Practice (Praxis) of the Doctrine

II.
The Practice of Pneumatism

39. Pneumatism/Pneumaticism/Pneumatics is at heart an economic system, pragmatically it is a political ideology/theory, and also functions as a theory of sociology, philosophy, history, religion and the future.
40. Referring the Fifth Axiom: in the material world, Humanity is divided into 4 categories: people with a strong sense of Self (Being, or Dasein) who are Good and people with a strong sense of Self who are Evil & people with a weak sense of Self who are Good, and people with a weak sense of Self who are Evil.
41. To practice Pneumatism, as a Pneumatic/Pneumatist, is to first find likeminded people (hereafter referred to as Pneumatics or Pneumatists), and then work together for the betterment of Humanity to help achieve the ideal world in the material world, thus bringing the ideal world to reality by realizing the monistic doctrine of Pneumatism.
42. As a Pneumatic, you need to find likeminded people, Pneumatics, because that in itself is a Pneumatic activity, it acts like a springboard for action. Synchronicity & synergy in political Praxis.
43. To find Pneumatics, you will first have to practice Pneumatic morality and learn to distinguish the Good from the Bad. Important distinction. People with a weak sense of Self are not necessarily Evil. Likewise, people with a strong sense of Self are not necessarily Good—in fact usually they aren't! People with a weak sense of Self are more often Good than people with a strong sense of Self, because people with a strong sense of Self, regardless of morality, attain power over people with a weak sense of Self, and power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely).

[Anonymous No.20675263]

>>20675256
44. But does it? Thus begins the practice of Pneumatic morality. Find likeminded friends and actively contain toxic enemies. More precisely, try to attract people who are Good, regardless if they have a strong or weak sense of Self—help Good people. Likewise, when facing people with a strong or weak sense of Self who are Evil—actively contain. By this I mean: do not answer aggression with aggression, generally practice pacifism in life. On two necessary conditions (and only these two) insults are good: (I) if you target them at toxic people (II) if you at the same time do not try to belittle their very sense of Self (Being/Dasein) with them. So there are good (constructive) insults and bad (toxic) insults. So, this is active containment. Contain but do not ignore threats. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt: "talk softly but carry a big stick." Applying this IR philosophy to local matters is a life-changing experience. This is true assertiveness, i.e. being neither aggressive nor submissive.
45. People who are Good at heart are to be your friends, but even people who are Evil at heart can (might) have a change of heart with a good enough Praxis.
46. Sometimes, though, a person is just so Evil that no amount of good Praxis can salvage them.

[Anonymous No.20675329]

Here's the funny thing:

Pneumatic psychology allows you to criticize the Jews without getting called an antisemite by them. Want to learn this power?

[Anonymous No.20675379]

>>20675254
that wasn't my point. my point was that with that trio (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) humanity already began to figure everything out. they set the motion to everything and were quite right in a LOT of their initial conclusions. that is epic

[Anonymous No.20675392]

>>20675379
>were quite right in a LOT of their initial conclusions
about what?

[Anonymous No.20675408]

>>20675392
Socrates about the socratic method and the general philosophy of philosophy, Plato about his Idealism and his general political solution, Aristotle in his Scientist approach to the world and his work in logics and methodology (where Plato also dabbled in)

[Anonymous No.20675419]

>>20675408
dude I really feel like you just read Wikipedia articles about these thinkers and didn't actually read them

[Anonymous No.20675423]

>>20674190
>7. A harmonious future is possible to envision.
>8. To accomplish this, we need a historical materialism.

stopped reading, this is brainlet cope.

[Anonymous No.20675456]

>>20675419
First and foremost, I understand them, and continuously read them in fragments, but my understanding of them funnily enough (ironically) did not arise from reading them but from thinking on my own. Same goes for Hegel. It's incredibly difficult stuff to parse as a fresh mind. I am 20 years old and have dabbled in philosophy and literature for the past few years, and dabbled in critical and analytical thinking for the past 15 years

[Anonymous No.20675460]

>>20675423
Unironically go read Hegel

Good summary/elaboration of what I'm talking about: Kojin Karatani's "Architecture as Metaphor." Incredibly great term used there: will to architecture

Will to architecture...

[Anonymous No.20675470]

>>20675460
>tells people to "go read Hegel"
>still says thesis-antithesis-synthesis
massive Dunning-Kruger alert

[Anonymous No.20675479]

>>20675470
synthesis = thesis + antithesis is a good summary of Hegel's absolute idealism, that's what it is. there exist opposing binaries in the material world which doesn't exist in the ideal world

[Anonymous No.20675482]

>>20675479
>which doesn't
which don't* sry

[Anonymous No.20675489]

>>20675470
synthesis = thesis + antithesis is a good summary of Hegel's absolute idealism, that's what it is. there exist opposing binaries in the material world, which do not exist at all in the ideal world, which according to Hegel is a monist world, where Everything is One. German idealism as a whole is really monist, hence the German affinity for Eastern religions, which have their monist side more pronounced than Christianity (which also has it, in its orthodox doctrine)

[Anonymous No.20675513]

>>20675489
Why don't you just keep saying shit you don't understand?

[Anonymous No.20675533]

>>20675456
>read them in fragments
>my understanding of them funnily enough (ironically) did not arise from reading them but from thinking on my own
>dabbled in philosophy and literature
Average /lit/ poster. Doesn't read and then wants to lecture you about books and authors he hasn't read. It was obvious from the start.

[Anonymous No.20675553]

>>20675533
very few people actually read Plato's and Aristotle's Complete Works, and remembered and understood what they read. not just on /lit/ but in academia in general. I do not understand your criticism, which is not really based in theory but is a fallacious attack on my reasoning i.e. an ad hominem attack on Pneumatics

[Anonymous No.20675597]

>>20675553
You have no idea how retarded you sound. You haven't even adopted Socrates's most banal principle

[Anonymous No.20675598]

OP here.

I decided. This is it.

I'm joining a political party.
How bad is it, /lit/bros?

[Anonymous No.20675602]

>>20675597
>You haven't even adopted Socrates's most banal principle
"i know that i know nothing" that's true, but that misses the point: what is science?
if "i" know nothing, then how can we know what true science is?
obviously, if we start to see personal limitations on the grounds of epistemology this severely, then even science as a whole is discarded, basically, it is some form of idiotic solipsism when this socratic principle is taken too literally

Science exists. The scientific method does too. What does it teach us?
>1. A scientific theory must be theoretically falsifiable
>2. A scientific theory must be empirically testable in practice
and this is the most important:
>3. Science must strive to eliminate the observer's interference upon the subject

What I'm doing is basically take the Human (Being/Dasein) under the microscope. Electron microscope.
How to do this when it comes to history, and everything? I think Kojin Karatani summed it up succinctly: parallax. You take two already existing analytical models, and you observe the gaps between them, and through a kind of "parallax" of these two grand overarching models you try to work out the golden mean, thus removing as much of the "i" as possible from gnosis, approaching objective Truth

[Anonymous No.20675694]

Expanded tags:
>monism
>objective truth
>agnosticism
>anti-philosophy
>anti-politics
>anti-dialectic
>anti-cultism
>marxism
>anti-marxism
>anti-anti-marxism
>romanticism
>neo-romanticism
>positivism
>anti-antipositivism
>theory of everything
>neomaterialism
>neophysicalism
>neoscientism
>neovitalism
>neo-Hegelianism
>neo-neomarxism
>neo-CT
>neo-CT as psychology (pneumatic psychology)
>neo-neoplatonism
>neo-gnosticism
>neotraditionalism
>esotericism
>symbolism
>phenomenology
>capitalist techno-communism
>"fully-automated gay luxury communism"
>deconstructivism
>post-structuralism
>Derrida
>Derridanism
>Continental philosophy
>neo-Continental philosophy
>post-structural functionalism
>Hegelianism
>Platonism
>absolute idealism
>Heidegger
>Bloch
>Jameson
>materialist idealism
>psychoanalysis
>romanticism
>neo-romanticism
>philosophy
>hermeneutics
>new radical hermeneutics
>critical hermeneutics
>hermeneutic idealism
>hermeneutic realism
>analytic hermeneutics
>economics
>history
>politics
>sociology
>theology
>pedagogy
>science

[Anonymous No.20676013]

Finalized tags:
>monism
>anti-dualism
>objective truth
>agnosticism
>historiography
>Annales school/Total history
>Braudel
>history of climate
>anti-philosophy
>anti-politics
>anti-dialectic
>anti-cultism
>marxism
>anti-marxism
>anti-anti-marxism
>anti-binary
>anti-gender
>feminism for everyone
>Judith Butler
>romanticism
>neo-romanticism
>positivism
>anti-antipositivism
>theory of everything
>architecture of knowledge
>neomaterialism
>neophysicalism
>neoscientism
>neovitalism
>neo-Hegelianism
>neo-neomarxism
>neo-CT
>neo-CT as psychology (pneumatic psychology)
>neo-neoplatonism
>neo-gnosticism
>neotraditionalism
>esotericism
>symbolism
>phenomenology
>capitalist techno-communism
>"fully-automated gay luxury communism"
>deconstructivism
>post-structuralism
>Derrida
>Derridanism
>Continental philosophy
>neo-Continental philosophy
>post-structural functionalism
>Hegelianism
>Platonism
>absolute idealism
>Heidegger
>Bloch
>Jameson
>materialist idealism
>psychoanalysis
>romanticism
>neo-romanticism
>philosophy
>hermeneutics
>new radical hermeneutics
>critical hermeneutics
>hermeneutic idealism
>hermeneutic realism
>analytic hermeneutics
>economics
>history
>politics
>sociology
>theology
>pedagogy
>science

[Anonymous No.20676027]

What do you think of Jason Storm's metamodernism book?

[Anonymous No.20676036]

>>20676027
I haven't read it but I might try. I'm wary, because metamodernism is still a new concept and so I decided to take the intellectual initiative and develop the concept myself

[Anonymous No.20676052]

>>20676036
Do try it cause he has the same approach as you
It's an exceptionally well theorized book by a frustrated pomo academic drawing on wide range of sources.

[Anonymous No.20676056]

>>20676052
>Do try it cause he has the same approach as you
that's disappointing. does he arrive at any conclusions? that might be the major difference! (i do)

[Anonymous No.20676192]

bump

[Anonymous No.20676240]

>>20674184
If you really want to sell your system, OP, you should write focused culture-crit essays that leave the axioms implicit, letting the results speak for themselves. The 'big axiom flowchart' method just feels like assembling philosophical lego bricks into a structure that could just as easily be assembled into a different system. It's only through concrete application that ideas become compelling instead of arbitrary.

See for example Adorno on Odysseus, Heidegger's 'What is a Thing?', Foucault's heterotopia essay, or any one of the chapters from A Thousand Plateaus. Take a specific cultural or political object and show how your ideas reveal a dimension to that object that, once exposed, seems absolutely essential to it.

Hegel's system is compelling -- and evidently the result of being hyper-sensitive to his historical conditions -- because everything example he takes seems to already contain his ideas within its internal structure. It stops being an arbitrary personal mind palace and instead seems like the necessary response to what's essential in that historical moment.

[Anonymous No.20676290]

>>20676240
I'm 20. I already managed to formulate a self-regulating philosophical-mathematical framework of Life. I am in the process of applying it, but instead of culture crit, I'm more interested in Praxis. Politics. Economy. National security & game theory.

See what I mean?

[Anonymous No.20676294]

>>20676240
>>20676290
as for the cultural application of my system, to "sell" it (however disgusting that word sounds): I think I just need to make it artistically "cool." Wrap it up in cool symbolicism, like Pynchon

In a way, do what Pynchon couldn't. Formulate a coherent philosophy. I'm gonna read Pynchon and PKD more, and also gonna study Theosophy for an inside look at esoteric symbols and pick out the coolest ones

[Anonymous No.20676404]

bump

[Anonymous No.20676405]

>>20674184
>gets btfo in the last thread
>doubles down on chinese room regurgitation of 800 wikipedia articles about philosophy
and people are afraid of AI? we already have so-called humans doing DALLEposting

[Anonymous No.20676494]

>>20674190
>not an attempt at philosophy
yeah I can tell

[Anonymous No.20676496]

>>20675489
>synthesis = thesis + antithesis is a good summary of Hegel's absolute idealism
no its not. Its Aufheben and you've clearly never read Hegel.

[Anonymous No.20676513]

>>20674184
Germane is that you?

[Anonymous No.20676863]

>>20676496
What is Hegel's underlying philosophical school of thought? Go on, pray tell

[Anonymous No.20676867]

>>20676405
i got btfo where exactly?
again, btfo'ing me is this simple: just btfo 1 of the 38 underlying "Axioms & Deductions"

[Anonymous No.20676875]

>>20676867
everybody pointing out that you don't understand the thinkers you're supposedly drawing on. you have terminal undergrad syndrome. go read books for 5-10 years and come back when you have your own understanding.

[Anonymous No.20676876]

>>20676863
the fact that you unquestionably regurgitated Fichte's thesis-antithesis-synthesis as being Hegel's thought demonstrates that you're a lazy imposter

[Anonymous No.20676881]

>>20676875
again, not. an. argument. you are:
>reactionary
>never presented an original thought in your life
>never authentically dealt with Theory and Praxis in your life
and thus, your resentment. present a case, or stop wasting my precious time and piss off

[Anonymous No.20676889]

>>20676881
you're wasting your own "precious" time by doing this shit instead of going back to the books. and you're clogging up the board with shit threads.

[Anonymous No.20676890]

Germane I know its you, don't play coy.

[Anonymous No.20676894]

>>20676876
Hegel's underlying philosophy is absolute idealism which is monistic. In fact Hegel himself wasn't original, really all of that was thought up by Plato 2,300 years before Hegel. The ideal society, the "Philosopher King" (basically the vision Hegel set forth as his ideal society was a society ruled by freely thinking people who are like philosophers), and most crucially, the materialization/realization of the Ideal World of Ideas, which is monistic.

And so the very idea of ascertaining what a pure idea (a monistic idea) is based on a world of opposing binaries is thesis + antithesis = synthesis

the caveat is that what Hegel proposes isn't a simple compromise between the features of each side but a completely new, 3rd thing. this is what Jung also thought about, later formalized as the Pauli-Jung conjecture

start with the Greeks my man, unironically. less Dunning-Krueger, more reading ;)

[Anonymous No.20676922]

>>20676894
Actually, you sound like an original genius, who has clearly understood all of these people. Why don't you publish your work? I think academia would be floored by your thinking.

[Anonymous No.20676940]

>>20676922
see, so you first criticized me without even knowing what thesis + antithesis = synthesis really was about the whole time. you thought of the synthesis as a mere compromise. kek. anon i'm not gonna call you retarded because my own doctrine of pneumatics lays out to be good to people with a weak sense of Self but who are good at heart, but i will tell you one thing: you are a pseudo-intellectual. but when you self-actualize, you can become an actual intellectual. go harness your intellectual power, which surely is there somewhere, i believe in people, i believe in you. this is pneumatics. peace

as for applying pneumatics, see:
>>20674204
>>20675251
>>20675256
>>20675263
>>20675329
>>20675598
>>20675602
>>20676290
>>20676294

[Anonymous No.20676969]

>>20676940
Why are you attacking me? I'm only thanking you for showing me the true brilliance of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.20677001]

>>20676969
the brilliance of Hegel is the same as of Plato. it's a brilliance that is moderated by their experience as middle class subjects of the hegemonies of their eras. if Hegel lived today he would write much more like me. instead, as he aged, he went down the ethnic nationalist & imperialist road. he was also inspired by Napoleon. Hegel was thus mostly right, a bit wrong. there is also the question of how much Prussian censorship forced him to concede

[Anonymous No.20677025]

>>20674190
>1. Reality exists.
About as vacuous as saying "Existence exists". Existential judgements are acknowledgements or rejections of objects, not predication of properties, so nothing is attributed to reality by saying it exists.
>2. If you call the existence of reality itself into question, congratulations, you're a solipsist.
Lol, no. A solipsist refuses a shared reality with other agents, not any reality (for him reality is his solipsistic being).
>3. The ultimate goal of the zoon politikon is for the world around them (the matrix upon which to imprint a Dasein) be a better, more authentic place.
If by "better, more authentic", you mean "that allow its existence", ok, otherwise this applies to all living beings.
>4. Dualism doesn't exist.
There are at least two radically different facets to reality, mind and matter. A minimal dualism is at least true insofar as that cannot be reduced completely away, however in that these two facets are only related in that they are absolutely different to one another, dualism is an inaccurate way to represent it.
>5. Reality is One.
Lol no.
>6. The future will either be harmonious or there will be no future at all
Lol no, humanity is an ever-swirling toilet bowl that refuses to flush.
>7. A harmonious future is possible to envision.
But not apply.
>8. To accomplish this, we need a historical materialism.
: (
>9. Marxist historical materialism was a wrong interpretation of Hegel.
: )
> [...]
>13. Monist neo-Hegelianism, or neo-Hegelian Monism is the way to go about constructing an architecture of the human or a scientific theory of history and future
XD...
FFS my dude what are you doing?

[Anonymous No.20677249]

>>20677025
>About as vacuous as saying "Existence exists". Existential judgements are acknowledgements or rejections of objects, not predication of properties, so nothing is attributed to reality by saying it exists.
it's just an axiom. from axioms you derive logical statements
>Lol, no. A solipsist refuses a shared reality with other agents, not any reality (for him reality is his solipsistic being).
the solipsist argues that it's impossible to make statements about reality because of epistemology being absolutely subjective
>If by "better, more authentic", you mean "that allow its existence", ok, otherwise this applies to all living beings.
i believe in pro-natalist deep ecology—make the world a better place for every living being
>There are at least two radically different facets to reality, mind and matter.
wrong, there is neither mind nor matter. the mind is just a part of the Whole that is referencing itself. it's the self conscious particle of the One (the Universe)
>A minimal dualism is at least true insofar as that cannot be reduced completely away,
there's no reductionism going on, the synthesis of the pure idea in the material world is a completely new, creative act. you're just a hylic at heart with a limited vision
>Lol no.
Start with the Greeks my dude
>Lol no, humanity is an ever-swirling toilet bowl that refuses to flush.
Again, your hylic brain and perception shows
>But not apply.
as above

[Anonymous No.20677265]

>>20677249
>my dude
I can smell the onions through my screen

[Anonymous No.20677293]

>>20677265
Oh no!
He said the word!
The bad word!
The word I don't want to have said about me!
Now I am sad.

[Anonymous No.20677612]

>>20677293
he a hylic bruh. he a slave

[Anonymous No.20678900]

This is what lack of religion does to a mf.

[Anonymous No.20679078]

>>20674271
You do not understand Hegel. You have likely never read him in the context of a serious academic setting. Your post is juvenile, philosophically stunted, and naive at best. Do something better with your time.

[Anonymous No.20679090]

>>20676867
You're not interesting. Your "axioms" aren't interesting. You're a philosophy DALLE who isn't even clever enough to be set up as a twitter bot

[Anonymous No.20679091]

>>20679090
You should get OpenAI to refute the Pneumatic Manifesto.

[Anonymous No.20679121]

>>20679091
Maybe I'll write a Hydraulic Manifesto... you see, all things can be reduced to the heraclian flux, and this is attested to by no less than 47 philosophers I've found through clicking links on wikipedia. My 33 axioms are as follows... in conclusion it shall not be possible to move past hypermodernity unless we first extra-territorialize our desires upon the body aquatic and affect a carthago-magnagrecian revolution in our approach to social and economic questions. It is the polyreme war machine that settles all questions of sovereignty, even the Romans would ultimately realize this in their quashing of proto-Albanian piracy.

[Anonymous No.20679129]

>>20679121
I'm sold. You got a Patreon yet?

[Anonymous No.20679134]

>>20679129
I prefer substack which is a platform favored by intellectuals; you can subscribe to my content under fiftyshadesofgreymirror

[Anonymous No.20679150]

>>20678900
>>20679078
>>20679090
>>20679091
>>20679121
>>20679129
not an argument

and my point isn't to be interesting but to be right. all these 38 points interlock logically. refute 1, the house of cards falls. it's that simple.

history is ultimately defined by only 4 human pursuits:
>love/respect
>freedom
>truth
>power
history is the result of people having wildly different conceptualizations of these, as well as the economic/social class impacting the moral choices and preferences of the acting party. which is why Plato was brilliant but not fully, or Aristotle thought that women had fewer less healthy teeth. or why late Hegel thought that the Great German civilization was the greatest and should spread. if you're just gonna continue writing ad hominems, you're the one who resembles GPT-3 (not DALL-E, DALL-E is just an application of GPT-3 for imaging) who just collects zany 4chan replies, more than me collecting anything

in fact, to create a revolutionary thought in 2022 one needs to already begin by acknowledging one thing:
over the course of the last 2,500 years, Man has already discovered all there is to discover, axiomatically speaking. that's why there's so little original thought nowadays and it's all just a rehash of past tropes which gets boring. so to create a revolutionary thought, we need to collect all the knowledge acquired and craft a synthesis

[Anonymous No.20679153]

>>20674190
>1
undefined
>2
>If you call the existence of UNDEFINED itself into question, congratulations, you're a solipsist.
not clear how that would be the case, also solipsism is just an alternate path for realizing oneness
I'll stop reading right about here.

[Anonymous No.20679154]

>>20679150
You're right, genius. I wasn't making an argument. I was making a suggestion. Not everything is an argument.

[Anonymous No.20679177]

>>20679153
>undefined
it's an axiom. reality = the Universe. that's defined. whether the Universe exists or not, that's not really something philosophers wanted to spend their time debating. like, ever. because it's a pointless discussion to have. only sophists in their naïveté dwelled on these topics more but still their conclusions assumed that reality exists otherwise they'd have been stuck in analysis paralysis like analytic philosophy in the last 100 years ;)

[Anonymous No.20679213]

>>20679177
riveting tale chap, but you still haven't defined it, and I await for you to do it without resorting to circular reasoning or unfounded assumptions.

[Anonymous No.20679237]

>>20679150
Look at you boiling each philosopher down to one of four platitudes! So interesting! What compelling analysis. That makes your database more searchable. Excellent work, bot/offshore tech support.

[Anonymous No.20679240]

***Earlier account of the historiosophy of my Pneumatics, here's where this isn't just a barebones amalgamation/synthesis of past thought*** (though this is where I basically refine Heidegger and Ellul's thought, credit goes where credit's due)
Here's the problem that I'm trying to solve: the level of disintegration of Self in the 21st century

The original human Self (Being/Dasein) already begun disintegrating with the advent of agriculture and first permanent/long-term settlements some 10-14 thousand years ago. More immediately relevantly though, in the 19th century under industrialization (atomization of society), which brought with it an explosion in information and the spread of industrial civilization, the Self was set on a course of disintegration unlike ever seen before. then in the 20th century came many different crises that impacted the Self—from feminism & emancipation (gender equality), to WW1, war communism, stalinism, fascism, WW2, the Holocaust and then everything post-WW2 being a reaction to these fundamental existential political crises

Now in the 21st century we're witnessing a disintegration of the self even further, as philosophy & a truly intellectual pursuit is no longer treated seriously. this anxiety really began with Popper & popperists and is now continued by educators like Sabine Hossenfelder, who are trying to truly move science forward while respecting THE PHILOSOPHY of science. Indeed I will be using the words "truly" and "authentically" liberally here, following the footsteps of Adorno, the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory in general

Native Americans, for example, had a very limited set of information about the world. So their "spiritual" (Dasein) pathways were limited. This satisfied their Dasein. the problem with the 20th, and especially with the 21st century, is the OVERLOAD of information, which causes the number of pathways to really approach infinity. this causes the Self to go into flux, to disintegrate completely

Now, basing all of this on the theory of positive disintegration, I believe that in fact our civilization doesn't have to be in decline yet, in fact I believe modern civilization is ripe for a new beginning and new growth. basically, now that the Self has almost completely disintegrated under the progress of capitalism and disintegration of intellectual/philosophical guidance, we can create the Self anew, for the new world. Essentially, what we have to do is collectivize the Ubermensch. that is the goal of my vision of Monism for the 21st century. the complete ridding away of Jungian opposing binaries. and a synthesis of them in the Jungian sense too, i.e. not merely a compromise between each of the opposing binaries, but a truly new third thing. I believe this can be done, and in answering this lies the solution to our undergoing civilizational collapse. what also needs to be recognized is where exactly Ted Kaczynski was wrong

[Anonymous No.20679245]

>>20679240
Cont.:
To solve the upcoming civilizational collapse, one needs to first identify the set of crucial crises that are underpinning this civilizational collapse. to do this, we need to first ask ourselves: what are the founding axioms of civilization? basically, from the Neolithic revolution onward, we can see the departure of the notion of "society" first from small "bands" of hunter-gatherers of ~20-150 people each (a few families composed of people who knew about the dangers of incest), to agricultural settlements. then in these agricultural settlements really is created the first modern conception of the Human, as in, a person that goes beyond the natural order as his Dasein gets under pressure and he must create some new form of order for himself. thus, begins civilization. and it does not begin with writing. it begins with politics. civilization begins when the agricultural communities depart from proto-communism and establish a hierarchical structure to better face external pressures in the context of Humanity (and the new agricultural Dasein) being still new. hierarchy was the easiest way out of this, as it also kind of was in hunter-gatherer bands (which were never truly anarchic). and then it's the same story again, when in these hierarchical agricultural settlements Power inevitably concentrates in the hands of the few. this comes up as a result of tangential benefits both for the Master class, and the Slave class (the Master class offers protection and guidance, the Slave class offers their labor, and so it all works together). therefore, the beginning of civilization can really first be witnessed not through the creation of writing, but through the creation of walls, because such an effort in an agricultural community necessitated being a carrying out of orders of some form of Master class (be it an actual ruler/landlord or, most likely, a priestly class). where can we see walls being built for the first time? the proto-city of Jericho. this is extremely important, because the flawed modern notion of civilization is the beginning of writing. but really Jericho is where civilization began, this also weirdly legitimizes the Bible, or at least the biblical story. this already presents an accumulation of information and a further disintegration of the hunter-gatherer Dasein. and only then next comes writing, and again, this is an extremely important pattern. the cultural institution of writing is really just a response to a partial disintegration of the original hunter-gathered Self, where Trust was of utmost importance because on Trust was relegated the survival of the entire group (band). with the advent of agriculture, Trust was called into suspicion, and thus the first grand narrative of Humanity was called into suspicion. thus, we can visualize the later (and ongoing) redefinitions of the Self accompanying the progress of technology, as a way of coping with techno-social change, to maintain a Dasein.

[Anonymous No.20679258]

>>20679245
Tldr: a falsifiable, scientific historicism (theory of history) CAN be created.

My vision: this Theory of History is monist. It belies a realization that the last 2,500 years of philosophical thought, and really thousands of thousands of years of perennial philosophy (even beyond the Dead Sea scrolls) belie 3 fundamental problems (from most significant, to less)
>1. dualism vs monism
>2. What is consciousness, is there any, and to what extent can we trust it if it exists?
>3. Is there objective Truth?
>4. Is there free will?

The logical framework for my treatise:
>Reactionism is an intellectually bankrupt exercise. To create coherent thought, we need to look beyond. The question of objective Good does *not* present a fourth fundamental problem of perennial philosophy because the question of objective Good is ultimately reactionary. To what it is a reaction? To the question of objective Truth. In this sense, ultimately, objective Truth and objective Good are expressions of each other. This is the axiom of my thinking, which I shall dub "monistic" or "neo-Popperian"

1. Dualism is part of the reactionary framework. I believe that dualism begins in the very beginning of abstract thought in any individual human. Dualism is first represented in the behavioral development of an individual human between the ages of 3 and 8. This representation is basically an unconscious internalization of the master-slave dialectic. We arrive in the world (in the Heideggerian sense) with abstract thought and are thus completely alone with how to organize our conscious lives. So we unconsciously internalize the master-slave dialectic (in the Hegelian herrschaft und knecht sense, but also kind of in the Nietzschean sense) as a means of securing our initially extremely insecure selves (Dasein). Then what follows throughout behavioral development is first a fracture of dualism at the age of 8-10 when we begin to question external (outside of the Family) meta-narratives/grand narratives, and then at the age of 14-16 starts the questioning of the meta-narratives/grand narratives of our own parents, and whether they have any. And we tend to realize, because that's the case for most people, that our parents don't really have an epistemological narrative which fully explains their Dasein themselves. And so, what follows from here, is an existential crisis for the adolescent. And from there on, behavioral development diverges into either of 2 things:
>(a) obscurantism in the Popperian sense
>(b) enlightenment in the Popperian sense
most people, unfortunately, fall into (a). those lucky few who fall into (b) have a realistic possibility of becoming Nietzschean Ubermenschen

[Anonymous No.20679266]

>>20679240
>The original human Self (Being/Dasein) already begun disintegrating with the advent of agriculture
You only have a self because of the individualization afforded by the anthropocene. Animals don't live like we do

[Anonymous No.20679268]

>>20679258
Cont.:
1. And so what I'm trying to logically and scientifically arrive at here, is that the sheer concept of ontological and epistemological DUALISM itself is just a regurgitation of the insecurity we all habe when we are thrust into the world as lone Beings capable of abstract thought

Essentially, the Human (Dasein) is created at the age of 3-4, when abstract thought is created (more precisely, the theory of mind, i.e. what can be empirically and scientifically tested via the Sally-Anne test). Then what follows is an epistemological dualism as a REACTION to the fear of the abstract thought module (your brain) being alone in the world when facing the fundamental problems of ontology and epistemology.

So, in short, the Human is created precisely at the age of 3-4, when abstract thought gets developed in the brain of a growing child. THEN what follows is an identity crisis which really doesn't ever become solved (not since the age of 3-4 when the real *you* i.e. Dasein gets created) unless the individual achieves true enlightenment i.e. becomes a Nietzschean Ubermensch

And this has implications for raising children and pedagogy in general. If you could raise an Ubermensch, how would you go about it?

[Anonymous No.20679277]

>>20679268
>And this has implications for raising children and pedagogy in general. If you could raise an Ubermensch, how would you go about it?
So the problem with creating an Ubermensch is the same problem as with raising and educating children in general. How to instill a sense of Self (Dasein) into the Child, without impacting it with our own biases, prejudices and delusions?

My answer according to the doctrine of monism I preach, which I think is truly scientific and also spiritual:
The way to create an Ubermensch is to make Them realize Their Dasein without having to intellectually flee from actually having to create their Dasein.

The way to achieve this is to now study the biology of "a human" (as opposed to the Human, Dasein, that is born after the age of 3) between conception and the age of 3.

So basically, a human between conception and the age of 3 is, mentally, non-existent. It is not a Dasein. The Unborn Psychology is an amorphous, homogenous 50/50 mixture of the genes of the mom and the dad.

The problem with the creation of an Ubermensch's Dasein is to raise your child monistically, in a way that completely disintegrates dualism. Because what the child will do at the age of 3 up to around the age of 8, is they will consider their sense of Dasein (but not THEIR dasein) as a HOMOGENOUS mixture of their dad and their mom. Essentially, the Dasein of a 3-8 year old child is a conscious abstraction of the epistemology of the toddler's self as a "copy of my mom AND my dad" (in a psychological sense)

So to raise an Ubermensch from the start, we need to make the child realize that they are NOT a copy of their mom and their dad. They are their own thing. A new thing. And this is the Pauli-Jung conjecture. A true synthesis of the thesis-antithesis binary will not be merely a compromise between the two, but a third, entirely new thing.

To make the Child realize their unique Being in the world, you would need to explain to your Child how children *really* are born. i.e. how their Dasein *should* be born (this is a falsifiable, empirically-testable assumption). Specifically, that the Child is an entirely new thing, and not merely a homogenous copy of their mom and their dad, because the way that the genes of their mom and dad combined was not homogenous! It was HETEROgenous! The basics of biological science that parents never teach their children!

So basically, children have their own "searching," "potential" Dasein from the age of 3, because the very act of genetic recombination creates not a homogenous copy of 2 parents, but a HETEROgenous copy of 2 parents, i.e. a genotype that is entirely new and completely unique

And it is on these grounds that the Child should be able to acquire an Ubermenschian Dasein from the age of 3-4 already. The rejection of the mother-father dualism, which itself really stems from the gender binary, and gender doesn't exist (if we assume monism to be true, which I think it is, and it is a falsifiable concept)

[Anonymous No.20679281]

>>20679268
So abortion should be legal into the 19th trimester

[Anonymous No.20679288]

>>20679277
Cont.:
1. What follows from all this, is that when looking at dualism vs monism as the single most important problem underlying all perennial philosophy from both a modern psychological & (and thus) Popperian way, we could consider the problem of monism vs dualism to be falsifiable, if we could ascribe a sense to History that is correct (falsifiable and empirically-proven to be correct) based on either monism or dualism

My underlying dogmatic assumption is that a Theory of History based on monism is the only theory of history that can (and will) be proven correct. Ergo, monism is True, dualism is False, QED: the Ubermenschian Dasein is inherently a monist concept, it cannot be dualistic
>>20679266
prehistoric humans weren't animals at all, why are you attempting philosophy if you don't have fundamental anthropological knowledge? google behavioral modernity. Dasein is inherent to abstract thought, and abstract thought is what distinguishes us from all other millions upon millions of species

[Anonymous No.20679296]

>>20679288
3. So we neatly progress into the fundamental problem of objective Truth. The concept of truth-falsity is itself a duality and needs to be approached with a monistic framework if we were to create a monistic Theory of History. Otherwise, we could approach it with a dualistic framework and try to arrive somewhere with it, but that's not what I'm going to try to do because I disagree with dualism for reasons mentioned in 1. The eternal conflict between monism and dualism, ultimately, needs to be opened up further in the following axiom:
>If only monism is right, then dualism is always wrong. If dualism is right, then monism is always wrong.
An axiom does not mean a statement is unfalsifiable and therefore gibberish and therefore pseudoscience, because mathematics is based on axioms too. And proof of axioms can be scientifically attempted, as tried Bertrand Russell in his Principiae Mathematica

And so, if we are to create a monistic Theory of History, we need to completely reject dualism, based on the axiom. If we are to completely reject dualism, we have to completely reject every single Jungian opposing binary:
>masculine-feminine
>strong-weak
>good-bad
>true-false

What I'm saying is that: no, there is no "objective" Truth, but there IS a kind of Truth that every single Human being can agree on, inside every each one of us. And so, while there is no "objective" Truth (that is, independent from Human abstract thought), the sheer fact of there being no objective Truth outside of human abstract thought kind of creates objective Truth: the Truth that all Homo sapiens sapiens share, in opposition to animals/entities who/which do not possess abstract thought, and therefore cannot create a sense of truth "themselves" to begin with.

So while there is no "objective" Truth, there is universal human Truth, which is basically objective Truth. See the kind of dualism-rejecting that I'm attempting here?

[Anonymous No.20679303]

>>20679296
3. Again, applying the monist Pneumatic doctrine to this, final, fundamental problem of perennial philosophy: the mere conception of free will-determinacy is just a reactionist expression of dualism. Let's attempt a monist way of looking at this. There is neither free will, nor determinacy. There is, however, a Dasein. An Ubermenschian Dasein. So while we ARE beholden to a certain sense of "determinacy" (genetic recombination), genetic recombination is itself based on true randomness, and therefore, even the "determinacy" (genes) by which we're guided is not truly determinate. And also, as long as we are not Nietzschean Ubermenschen with a fully developed Dasein, we do not have free will.

So the answer to the third and final problem of perennial philosophy is: humans do not have free will, but Humans... can.

You can now ask:
>Isn't the concept of a human-the Human (Dasein) inherently dualistic and hence wrong according to your own doctrine?
The answer is no. The way I define "a human" and "the Human" is the same as the way physicists define potential and kinetic energy. You dig?

[Anonymous No.20679310]

>>20679288
You missed my point since there's no wikipedia article about me. You are claiming "dasein" started going away because of civilization but civilization is the only reason you even have these "abstract" ramblings and the belief that you're a special individual and not one fungible member of an endless herd. You are the one who lacks fundamental knowledge and is just projecting his pseudo-architectonic philosophy backwards to lend it the authority of time, an authority you are severely deficient in as an undergrad blogging on 4channel during the summer.

[Anonymous No.20679341]

>>20679310
>civilization is the only reason you even have these "abstract" ramblings
Exactly. But Dasein is not a product of civilization, Dasein is the abstract thought associated with behavioral modernity in humans. Actually I believe in deep ecology and that ontologically all living beings are more or less equal and have their own Dasein. It's also why animals are happier. They have only 1 possible Dasein, and they fulfill it, they cannot NOT be self-actualized

Did you read my example with the Native Americans? They had Daseins, pathways. But there was a limited and knowable set of pathways possible for each individual to fulfill.

So what the unstoppable progress of civilization teaches us is that History is basically the coping of the Dasein of each individual human with the evolving world, and the coping is required because the progress of civilization necessarily involves an ever-accumulating pile of information, which also spreads across the globe as the forces of civilization conquer the less civilized ones, through force or through trade

so these are the fundamental problems for the Dasein in the 21st century. but I believe in Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration. I don't treat the modern almost completely disintegrated Dasein fatalistically. i believe this chaotic clump of ideas can be put together anew in such a way that satisfies everyone in the world. but I'm a Nietzschean/Hegelian too, I don't believe in there being 1 way for everybody, that's absurd and horrible. I believe in setting up a quasi-Hegelian system where each individual can realize his own free will & Dasein to his utmost, without hurting the free wills & Daseins of others in the world

and so we're back to the practical vision that I propose:
>>20674204
>>20675251
>>20675256
>>20675263
>>20675329
>>20675598
>>20675602
>>20676290
>>20676294

[Anonymous No.20679359]

Here's how the Monist (neophysicalist, neomaterialist, neo-Hegelian, neo-critical theory) framework could approach the topic of consciousness:
Four axioms:
>1. Physics is EVERYTHING.
>2. Energy is EVERYTHING.
>3. Consciousness is philosophically defined as abstract thought.
>4. Physically, consciousness is defined as a manifestation of energy in the physical sense. More precisely, consciousness is an entirely unique physical force that has the power to stop or at least slow down the universal entropy of the Universe through the eventual creation of artificial stars, and then through the harvesting of energy from black holes by harvesting the particles of high-energy plasma ejected by black holes. A civilization that would survive the universal death of stars, and survive well into the age of black holes, would survive almost until the end of Universe, at a halfway point between the inception of the age of black holes and the heat death of the universe. At that point, the conscious Thought of human beings would create a systematic order so robust that it would, by itself, slow down the spread of entropy (which IS unstoppable, because humans objectively CANNOT stop the heat death of the universe).
To criticize Monism, try to find a theoretical (critical theory) way to criticize these axioms, that is, in an analytic way, that is, free from personal biases, prejudices and delusions

[Anonymous No.20679367]

>>20679359
I think you first have to formulate a theory of History to propose authentically ethical Unifying Solutions for the Future.

I think you have to begin by defining the 7 underlying existential (and thus necessarily political/economic, in a kind of Marxian way) crises of the metamodern moment (from most important to the less important):
>1. the disintegration of the Self under continuous historical waves of accumulation of information about possible pathways, and the spread of this civilizational zone to the whole world under the leadership of the USA
>2. the problem of the IR theory of engaging Ur-fascism in the Liberal world order. the problem of engaging fascistic behaviors in individuals in general. hint: isolate the bullying factors. disarm pacifistically
>3. gender identity collapse crisis. the problem of identity (Dasein) in metamodernity. the topic of my treatise. why women don't want to have babies. how women define femininity in the modern world. the life-giving nature of women being their true power in society. how men fear women. how toxic masculinity exists and how toxic femininity also exists, how both form the master-slave dialectic and are thus wrong. the answer is that the concept of gender is just an expression of dualism which must be fought. abolish dualism. without using fascism. use liberal democracy. which continues into:
>4. the demographic crisis. absolutely most important crisis following the gender identity collapse crisis
>5. the climate crisis, ecology (i propose deep ecology and energy production based in renewables and nuclear energy as self-sustaining zero-emission energy generation, developing nuclear energy research is one of the fundamental ways people can find Meaning (Dasein) in their lives
>6. the problem of motivating people (women, especially) to form families, for women to commit the physical sacrifice of the physical toll that pregnancy necessarily brings, the problem of telling women a story they could believe in that is not just a reactionist regurgitation of the old master-slave dialectic. the problem of Love, and of Respect, and Personal Meaning, and of the scope of Respect. I propose attempting to love everybody, from humans to other animals. try to create a sort of animal psychology and by caring about your pet try to imagine yourself as the pet, and not as you using your pet as merely a comfortable attribute

[Anonymous No.20679376]

>>20679341
>Dasein is the abstract thought associated with behavioral modernity in humans
You only have "modernity" because of civilization, because of thousands of years of breeding and the haphazardly in pace but unrelenting in the long-run accumulation of knowledge, technology, and so forth. It's not some anomaly you'll overcome by babbling about noble savages having "self-actualized" themselves by using every part of the buffalo. The Scots-Irish bandits who murdered them so their great great great grandchildren could live trailers and shoot heroin were self-actualizing themselves against those other self-actualizers with musket, hatchet, and bible. Those opioid abusers are self-actualizing themselves too like the soma imbibing Aryans of old. You see, anyone can play at retarded sweeping historical analogy to advance his vague adhocological philosophy

[Anonymous No.20679381]

>>20679367
>authentically ethical Unifying Solutions for the Future

[Anonymous No.20679388]

>>20679376
>You only have "modernity" because of civilization,
absolute 0 knowledge of anthropology. these are the guys who are schooling me, an intellectual 20 year old, pretending they know better. embarrassing

go read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

the general consensus is that behavioral modernity began at least 20-50 thousand years ago, so before the advent of agriculture or widespread long-term/permanent settlements. there are also heterodox, pseudoscientific theories like that of the bicameral mind which postulate that true behavioral modernity began less than 3,000 years ago, but it's bullshit (though worth checking out, it's one hell of a PKD-tier mindfuck)

[Anonymous No.20679397]

>>20679388
not reading your extensive backlog of Wikipedia articles for you. I'll be doing something else instead, something you'll never imagine doing for yourself

[Anonymous No.20679404]

>>20679397
I have a girlfriend. Imagine that.

Now imagine, and this might be hard, that it's actually her and her fear of birth that pushed me on this intellectual carousel across knowledge, history, the human nature, sociology. Ultimately these are primitive instincts—procreation. But that got me thinking. Why do *I* really want to procreate and force my girlfriend to bear the pain of birthing children?

You never asked questions in your life. You never tried finding answers. You are the bugman

[Anonymous No.20679421]

>Metamodern
It's called hypermodernity you fucking retard. Just look at facebook, this "meta" bullshit is never gonna stick.

[Anonymous No.20679429]

>>20679404
>I have a girlfriend. Imagine that.
I was gonna say reading a book. Damn, you're a pseud AND you're insecure about your sexuality, too. Sad.

[Anonymous No.20679432]

>>20679388
You are still just slurring around wikipedia and linking "dasein" to prehistorical people, who you can conveniently assert whatever you want about, and contrasting them to "modern" people, by which you mean anyone we've ever known of in their own words—historical people—rather than "modern" in the sense of philosophy (a necessary confusion for your DALLE blending to take place). So your complaint is that the only people who ever had the good life were savages living in the woods fucking their sisters and mothers because they knew neither taboo nor law, but writing it in the worst possible style so it looks impressive to... well not /lit/ apparently

[Anonymous No.20679522]

>>20679429
i'm not insecure about my sexuality, just very disappointed with the intellectual state of /lit/, so there you go
>>20679432
I read Heidegger, Ellul, Adorno, Marcuse and Nietzsche's most important works in full. I read secondary writing on Freud, Jung and Lacan, and I read Plato and Aristotle in fragments (sizable). I'm not sure why you carry this wikipedia insecurity about yourself. I only wikipedia'd D&G and Derrida because I have only gotten there in my philosophical progress later in life and these are very difficult reads especially D&G (partially on purpose). If anyone here is a pseud, it's you. I'm as earnest as can be, in fact authenticity is what I preach

[Anonymous No.20679527]

>>20679522
>just very disappointed with the intellectual state of /lit/,
me too, people read Wikipedia articles and pretend to be experts on them
>I read Heidegger, Ellul, Adorno, Marcuse and Nietzsche's most important works in full.
maybe you're honest and you have an extremely superficial understanding of them. in that case, go do a reread. rereads of all these thinkers are worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.20679554]

>130 / 20

[Anonymous No.20679594]

[Anonymous No.20679601]

>>20679554
yeah, goddamn people who have discussions on /lit/ instead of posting just 1 reply and leaving
>>20679527
not a single worthwhile point of theoretical critique has been uttered throughout this or past threads. the most intellectually curious was one guy citing Gödel's incompleteness theorem but even that was completely misguided critique. you don't even know basic anthropology, why should I take advice from you, on people who write textual matter so dense, it would take your intellectually bankrupt ass weeks to finish and understand the first chapter? fuck off

[Anonymous No.20679616]

[Anonymous No.20679624]

>>20679594
>>20679616
mayhaps you frequent /x/? i reformatted and laid out my points there in 1 nice progression:
>>>/x/32370850

[Anonymous No.20679628]

>>20679601
I wasn't the guy debating anthropology with you kek, you can't even keep track of your critics, let alone understand them

anyway anon, this stuff is hopeless for you. you'd unironically be better off rubbing your gf's butt and playing video games

[Anonymous No.20679633]

>>20679522
>read Heidegger, Ellul, Adorno, Marcuse and Nietzsche's most important works in full. I read secondary writing on Freud, Jung and Lacan, and I read Plato and Aristotle in fragments (sizable)
undergrad/10 and I will not let you forget it. As said earlier, you'd be better off focusing on a single author, or on how a handful approach a single idea, and not writing a manifesto that cites 80 philosophers to lend yourself authority. It just sounds like you crawled through wikipedia because there is zero depth of engagement. With anything. It's a sentence of Nietzsche a sentence of Heidegger a sentence of Ellul a sentence of Spengler. It's asking DALLE for Mickey Mouse painted in the style of Rembrandt

[Anonymous No.20679650]

>>20679601
>you don't even know basic anthropology,
And this is the best part! Your Introduction to X class makes you an authority on Y. You've only trolling as a motive to be so smug. If you're being serious you should accept that your whole M.O. of "i haven't read philosopher p yet so I've yet to incorporate him" is juvenile and stop trying to inflate it into a hot air balloon when it's just a clown's prop. Unless you were trying to pop the balloon on purpose to amuse us.

[Anonymous No.20679651]

>>20679633
>and not writing a manifesto that cites 80 philosophers to lend yourself authority.
when i'm attempting to do a synthesis of all of philosophy, science, history, sociology, how can I not cite dozens of philosophers? would it be better if I cited no one? no, that would be preposterous. I defined my aim in the Pneumatic doctrine. one of the tenets is to be humble. in essence, I found that synthesized good human ethics pretty much completely align with the original doctrinal Christian ethic, of Jesus Christ and his followers

[Anonymous No.20679659]

>>20679650
I'm 20 and I already have a general idea about the world and I strive to remove inadequacies from interpretations of philosophical thought, I strive to be as objective as possible. With such a broad framework (mostly rooted in Critical Theory, heuristically; seriously, it's nothing revolutionary or adolescent or smug) I can continue my life's education. Better than you. What's the purpose of reading if you just let it in one ear and out the other?

[Anonymous No.20679661]

Also I'm not a Philosophy undergrad. I study information systems & econometrics.

[Anonymous No.20679664]

Also I'm trans. I hope that doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.20679672]

>>20679624

Do you have bipolar?

Im serious. I do. And I have come to many of the same conclusions and methods as you.

[Anonymous No.20679673]

>>20679651
Christianity isn't about synthesizing philosophy. Paul himself, without whom your wizard would have had no greater noteriety than Apollonius of Tyana, insisted philosophy was prideful and therefore it follows that philosophers were sinning against Yajweh-Yeshua. So your volcano demon will be casting you into hell for this attempt to divine divine knowledge. You were asked to obey, that is your covenant with the thing from Sinai.

[Anonymous No.20679681]

>>20679659
What's the purpose of writing if you're going to be DALLE? Uhhhm, what if Spengler but written like Adorno and with references to Heidegger. In fact, you'd be better off narrowed down to those three instead of this 913 geometrical proofs that humans have 4 motives for doing history stuff after agriculture.

[Anonymous No.20679689]

>>20679661
Yeah a guy in Mumbai can do that for $12/hr. And he doesn't babble like you do.

[Anonymous No.20679699]

>>20679673
>Christianity isn't about synthesizing philosophy
what about St Augustine?

[Anonymous No.20679702]

>>20679689
a guy in Mumbai can do data analysis & ML? my life is literally over!

[Anonymous No.20679707]

>>20679681
>all attempts at historical materialism is either Marx or Spengler
you're a dum dum, anon

look at the tags. there's a better fit. the Annales school. ever heard of that? ever read Braudel? I have.

[Anonymous No.20679713]

>>20679707
dilate, NOW

[Anonymous No.20679737]

>>20679699
Embarassed neoplatonistic/gnostic bullyed by pagans and heretics into writing apologia for Jesus, same as any other Christian philosopher prior to the 7th century or so.

[Anonymous No.20679772]

>>20679737
good thing you aren't as embarrassed as Saint Augustine, imagine your legacy if only!

[Anonymous No.20679774]

>>20679707
>historical materialism
retroactively refuted by my Hydraulic theory of byzantopunic terranullificity. Anyway, if you are a serious person, and maybe you are but you happen to be 20 and did well in a sociology course (which you cannot be failed in, not sure if anyone told you this), figure out what thinker you really like or enjoy (or even struggle with) and read as much of him as is available. Then read what he was reading. He was probably citing them or mentioning them. And do the same for those writers as is humanly possible. And you'll be much smarter for it in a few years instead of sounding like an algorithm. Because you name drop several someones every other sentence its obvious you don't have your own voice yet, so your writing is the equivalent of the world's free encyclopedia. Maybe your sources have their own voices but you won't engage with them long enough for us to even determine that. We would just have to have read what you've read to begin to decide if you've even glossed them accurately or not, because there's almost nothing else. Schopenhauer could drone on about Kant or Plato or Spinoza (not sure you've even mentioned him in the posts I've bothered skimming, even though you're a self-annointed master of monism!) but he had his own substance and voice and was not totally dependent on them to say what he wanted to say.

[Anonymous No.20679780]

>>20679772
I have work I am sitting on but that's neither here nor there. There would be no Christian apologists without Roman critics. A slave revolt cannot be only slaves. Someone has to do the needful.

[Anonymous No.20679787]

>>20679774
>instead of sounding like an algorithm
presenting a barely complex, logical philosophical model is too algorithmic for you? what are you even looking for in philosophy? who's immature here? have you ever had at least a glimpse at Wittgenstein (an example from the analytic side) or D&G (an example from the Continental side)?

lemme guess. your favorite thinker is Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.20679795]

>>20679787
the guy doing "ted k but not going to mention him" and "look I aligned my ethical system with Jesus Christ" is the Peterson fan, not me. I wash my own penis.

[Anonymous No.20679955]

>>20679795
>ted k but not going to mention him
i literally explicitly criticized Ted Kaczynski here:
>>20679240
Ted was a misreading of Ellul. Mine is a refinement of Ellul

the problem with philosophy is that people who want to tackle the fundamental problems of human existence lack fundamental historical, economic and scientific expertise

[Anonymous No.20680066]

>>20679955
>Mine is a refinement
I doubt that, and judging from your call to "collectivize the ubermensch" you didn't understand the even most surface level things Nietzsche is saying. It doesn't seem like you disagree with Ted either if your point is that "Dasein" was taken away from man by the agricultural revolution. There are few places you can go from there that aren't seethe and you've not gone to them, and have instead gone some to some teenage-anime-character-saves-the-world route with your pontificating about how to arrest and reverse the decline of civilization, a task so absurdly monumental it warrants a shrug from anyone not high on his own farts. Reading your frankenstein pamphlet of the top 50 philosophers is not a solution to world-historical problems

[Anonymous No.20680115]

>>20680066
>you didn't understand the even most surface level things Nietzsche is saying
because Nietzsche himself was a product of his era. you don't understand the aim of metamodernism/posthumanism
>It doesn't seem like you disagree with Ted either
I dont disagree with his criticisms, but I criticize him for putting no coherent vision in reply to surrounding reality. what did he do? fucking mail bombs. the dude's a frustrated autist at best, and a frustrated ASPD/schizo at worst. he offers no solution. there is no return to monke that's possible, entropy is unavoidable, the disintegration of the Self is ultimately a result of entropy. the goal isn't Kaczynskian accelerationism (speed up "the collapse" so that a primitive society re-emerges) but more a Landian kind of accelerationism, but even that is misguided because... it's misguided. I think we can achieve ideal post-humanism without a collapse at all.

well, there will be a collapse. the biggest immediate factor being the demographic crisis (of the 6 major crises that I laid out earlier). people aren't making babies and we haven't reached post-scarcity yet, and all our social and economic systems are founded on the assumption of generational replacement. this will be the collapse that awaits us but it isnt something Land can "accelerate" in any meaningful way except being an incel or killing himself, so Land too is a philosophical dead-end

my philosophy isnt. if you taught it to a large enough number of women (and men), the demographic collapse could be avoided. but alas that's utopian. people never learn they're wrong until it hits them straight in the face. here's the predictive power of pneumatics, you will see i'm right: the demographic collapse will be global (not just in the white Western nations, in India too, in Africa too). and what will follow? total collapse of moral values, societal chaos and degeneration for a little while BUT. religion will re-emerge. that's the prediction posed by the Pneumatic doctrine on human nature. atheism will completely lose popularity as people will tie atheism to the demographic collapse, and a new baby boom will begin

but fundamental problems aren't solved: education, technological development, how to achieve post-scarcity in a world post-demographic collapse? it would be very hard. the world before the collapse will be a world of climate wars and the West will become an elder care center. how to achieve technological progress in such a fucked up situation?

that's why I came up with this philosophy. anti-philosophy. because we need to stop theorizing, and we need to start acting. NOW!

[Anonymous No.20680138]

>>20680115
>NOW!
and if you doubt how immediate this situation is: look at South Korea. record low birth rate of 1.2 in 2014 dropped to 0.8 in 2021. that's 7 years. what will SK's birth rate be 7 years from now? i'm not saying we will go extinct. that's an evolutionary impossibility (breeders will always remain, functionally infertile people will not spread their genes, and culturally, infertility will stop being seen as cool and instead as a foolish egoistic leisure). but we might get "close" enough to going extinct for people to lose their minds and the economy and society to go so bust that it will delay civilizational progress for at least a few decades if not longer

in short: do you want a new Dark Ages, or not?

[Anonymous No.20680153]

>>20680115
so your main concern is that society is developing along a trajectory you believe isn't going to benefit you or other people you care about, and your action plan is to bloviate about "Dasein"? I see you have a bunch of policy prescriptions thrown in at regular intervals, which is what you actually care about, and the "philosophy" component is a pseudo-intellectual wrapper to make your delivery appear more intelligent than it actually is by endlessly name-dropping people and relying on an idiosyncratic vocabulary. Your message is ultimately what—people in the Western world need to have more children? I think you can make the case for that without larping as an oracle. Even the pope has complained about furbabies. You're in a crowded field, and if you think writing a turgid and uncannily wikipedian work of "philosophy" is going to revolutionize attitudes on reproduction you ought to have sex.

[Anonymous No.20680179]

>>20680153
>so your main concern is that society is developing along a trajectory you believe isn't going to benefit you or other people you care about
i care about Humanity. the trajectory that not just our Western, but our GLOBAL society is going will not benefit ANYONE, neither the elites nor the poor. I'm a post-humanist. post-humanism is still humanism, just beyond. it's not a difficult concept. ultimately it's about love and utmost respect for the other. i extend it to all living beings and in fact the Universe. that is pneumatism, that is Monism, that is my pantheism

[Anonymous No.20680187]

>>20680153
>you ought to have sex.
i have sex. having sex or not isn't the problem. the problem is that the sexual revolution exposed the most intimate of societal institutions, sex (and procreation) to the rot of atheism, nihilism, absolute egoism and hedonism. that is a recipe for societal disaster no matter how you put it

and i believe that politics and philosophy are intricately locked in with each other. this goes back to Plato's Republic. we need to think outside the box to move forward

[Anonymous No.20680237]

>>20680138
>culturally, infertility will stop being seen as cool and instead as a foolish egoistic leisure)
This is where you are especially wrong and fail to see that (1) the infertile, consumption-maximizing, high-prestige lifestyle is actually dependent upon having a massive surplus population exceeding the demand for any 'real' work or production; dependent on empire and it was what ended the Roman Republic and depleted the stocks of the ancient families, who were in turn replaced by new social climbers seeking to attain that infertile high consumption lifestyle; and (2) the demands of this lifestyle are so expensive that in order to pursue it if one does not already have it, children are a sacrifice. And this is what is important to grasp in the fertility question, you are asking people—and by people I mean Calhoun's rats, or Nietzsche's herd animals—to destroy their surplus, to put the kinderland before the vaterland, and that is not something you will get people to do en masse because it makes no sense to them in terms of their goals and values, or lack thereof (the will to nothing is still a will, however). There is no group that comes back from the brink in such a way; even a baby boom assumes there is a population which values children but was merely deferring them for various reasons. Ultimately the situation with low ferility's like anti-bacterial soap, the 99% are gone and now you've got 1%, and they will be lost to history, distributed among their geographic successors. The present decadents die out, and new decadents come. Until there is a fundamental change in what allows that process to happen it will happen. And the western countries have avoided becoming Korea through immigration... something we shall have to see if Korea is willing to stomach as a solution. I imagine SK would sooner reunify with NK for the labor pool than transition to being a metropolis. It's up to you, if you are that 99% or that 1%. You will not be setting policies for sovereign states. You will not compel geldings to breed. And even if they did, if the system still operates which rewards all desires and punishes all sacrifices—you will just have more geldings. And it—still!—won't be philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20680240]

>>20679672
>Do you have bipolar?
>Im serious. I do. And I have come to many of the same conclusions and methods as you.
No, I think I'm all right in the head. The worst aspect of my mentality, from the point of view of social convention, is probably my (non-exclusive)... I'm not gonna continue that. Anyway, no, I'm healthy. Just inquisitive since a young age

I spent especially my adolescence thinking a lot, like all adolescents, and I always had this gut feeling that there is a pattern to all of this. A sort of theory of everything that just waits to be discovered. Because I just thought that everything is way too repetitive not to be possible to be encapsulated in some formalized form

[Anonymous No.20680246]

>>20680240
>Because I just thought that everything is way too repetitive not to be possible to be encapsulated in some formalized form
So you're autistic...

[Anonymous No.20680275]

>>20680179
>post-humanism is still humanism,
I found your problem. Go back and actually read Nietzsche (or hell, even Plato, who you seem to have also read about). The general population has never attained to whatever you are evaluating as good. Never. Never ever. Ever. Not once. Not even for five minutes. You'd have to start denying the world to promise them anything bette, and turn them all into... nihilists. You'd have to reinvent Christianity. Although... doesn't that lead us right back to... ah forget it here I go again assuming you've read Nietzsche. Humanism is the worst thing you can do for humans. It assumes you're doing animal husbandry with people; in the long run you won't be able to avoid it—the awful truth of being a shepherd—a stupid docile herd is the easiest to manage, and having made them so, you can appraise yourself as having done good. The very idea of good becomes corrupt simply by uttering it. Did we do wolves any good by turning them into pugs? The poor animal can barely breathe and might drown in his water dish. What is compassionate—to allow the wolf to be a wolf, or to make a being into a thing and call yourself an advocate of wolves?

[Anonymous No.20680276]

>>20680237
>This is where you are especially wrong and fail to see that (1) the infertile, consumption-maximizing, high-prestige lifestyle is actually dependent upon having a massive surplus population exceeding the demand for any 'real' work or production; dependent on empire and it was what ended the Roman Republ
actually I know all of this very well in my theory, I just haven't explicated it yet because that would just be too damn long to read for anyone on /lit/ as a manifesto of any kind.

Although your economic worldview is also limited. Outsourcing is one thing, but there's also the arising phenomenon of "on-shoring" or "reshoring." Geopolitical and other difficulties cause extremely extended supply chains to be vulnerable in a way that was predictable but I guess no one cares too much. Thus, reshoring. But it won't be reshoring to America in most cases, just Mexico, SEA, India. But honestly, why couldn't it be America? I dont see a reason why America should be a service-oriented economy. In the existential sense. By this I mean, when push comes to shove, people will abandon their cushy bullshit jobs and will be forced to do real work

As for the phenomenon of outsourcing, of course, that has similarities to the way the Roman economic system worked, but in a different way. Rome had to expand because it was a pre-industrial economy. It was agricultural, based on land. So expansion of land = expansion of the economy, it was a very crude clay-grabbing system which, when stopped, eventually caused the crisis of the third century, which eventually caused the downfall of the Western Roman Empire (key distinction, the other part went on for another 1000 years).

Right now a similar pattern has emerged but it's not as limited as it was for Rome. We live in an industrial economy, not agricultural. Land by itself doesn't matter as much as people do. Cheap labor. But. Tech is also cheap. When the West stops using China as it not only becomes politically/geopolitically untenable, SEA, Mexico and India will benefit, but then what? They will industrialize too, their birth rates will drop, costs will rise, and then what? Africa. But then eventually Africa will industrialize too, and THEN what? On the other hand, if we don't take care of other fundamental crises sufficiently quickly, we might not even have an Africa to outsource to. the West will be entirely geriatric and Africa will be engulfed in brutal and dirty climate wars over most basic resources amid the trouble of keeping up their least developed, agricultural economies that require in a non-Roman non-clay-grabby world overproduction of children, which leads to overpopulation. overpopulation coupled with an agricultural economy and a lack of basic resources caused by climate change = humanitarian catastrophe of epic scale

and that is my point. what do we do now?

[Anonymous No.20680291]

>>20680246
if i'm autistic, then so is Zizek, Jordan Peterson, Mark Fisher, Braudel (the Annales school in general), Marx, Hegel and so on

there's autism and then there's productive analysis. analysis = working downward to the base constituents

[Anonymous No.20680299]

>>20680275
>What is compassionate—to allow the wolf to be a wolf
the wolf-sheep dialectic is just the master-slave dialectic. i propose non-dialectic. the Nietzschean Ubermensch is non-dialectic. it's both a wolf and a sheep, but not really. funnily enough, the "sigma" archetype fits. are sigmas wolves, or sheep?

in counter to you, i think our civilization eventually, generally, leads to more orderliness and systematization. sheer processes of industrialization and globalization are the best empirical proof of that. now, the world, it keeps a changing. we need to stop living in the present constantly looking back at the past, and truly worry about the future and our own human place in it (...Dasein)

[Anonymous No.20680309]

>>20680276
>what do we do now?
The "we" is gone. There are very vocal people who actually refuse to have children because they think that will make the future WORSE! This is the will to nothing, that one would rather will nothing than have no will at all. People, at least say they are, vowing not to reproduce because it will either hurt the environment or because children should not be born anymore if the air conditioning stops working and everyone gets 800 less calories a day for a while. What kind of values are these? Sickly, and that's it. It's the end of the line for them, they don't "convert" to something else radically unlike what they've developed a lifelong psychical attraction to. "We" is already a lot less people—and no catastrophe has even happened yet. While you would benefit from reading more of the authors you cite than you have, you would also benefit from rethinking some of these ideas about what "civilization" really is. Because it isn't a bunch of flags and maps drawn up in the late 1800s, and it also isn't unreasonable to expect those delineations on rotten foundations at this point. Do termites ever un-eat a building?

[Anonymous No.20680356]

>>20680299
>the wolf-sheep dialectic is just the master-slave dialectic. i propose non-dialectic. the Nietzschean Ubermensch is non-dialectic
You're oversimplifying. I simply went with the sheep as the herd animal par excellence. This idea of stewarding the good into people, it's not something the ubermensch actually does and in that sense he is beyond the dialectic. This effort to make people "good" by commanding them with policies—that's what you do with livestock, like sheep. You make them good—for you. As for the wolf, the human demands a creeping neoteny in the wolves he lets hang around the camp, and once dogs become collectible child surrogates instead of hunting companions or guards they must be made even less lupine, they become pugs. All the dogs we still have that "do jobs" like K9 units, or seeing-eye dogs, dogs on farms—these are all the most like wolves and the least like infants. So what is good then? Undoing the other good that has been done! But valuation is for humans, not for animals. And so for Nietzsche it is then very reasonable, what is good is to have exercise of power, and what is bad is to be curtailed. So how would you make people good? Demand they breed? Why should we breed more pugs?

[Anonymous No.20680379]

>>20680309
but I know all that very well. I said it myself, individual ordinary people will unfortunately never learn theyre wrong until it hits them straight in the face. ever read about how naive the Jews were while they were being sent off to gas chambers?
and I'm not saying that atheism will stop being cool and religion will become cool again because I'm some desperate religious tard. no. that's the point. i'm atheist. but i'm also idealistic. i believe that there is this idealized world that is the true world that we're all striving to make reality, and that our material reality is different from this ideal world just because of the misconceptions of the weak Self about itself and the world between the ages of 3 and 8.

anyway. the collapse will most likely happen. it will be followed by very, very tough times. and it is in those dark times when people will turn to religion. that's when atheism will stop being cool. people will simply have nothing else left to turn to. it's always been this way in fact. at the end of the rope, you turn to God. "oh god dear god if there is any save me." these are fundamental human feelings, kaczynski can go on about how machines have dehumanized people but i don't buy it, psyche and biology is the same thing and evolutionary timescales don't work on such a small order of magnitude. from the evolutionary perspective, we're still savannah-trekking hunter-gatherer endurance runners forced into a cubicle. a kind of dehumanized, abstractioned hell of our own making, we domesticated ourselves, turned ourselves into livestock with a price tag. but at heart we're still the savannah-cherishing endurance runners
https://youtu.be/qTJvpfkRRdA

(but there's no way back and we gotta figure some way out)

[Anonymous No.20680404]

>>20680356
>This effort to make people "good" by commanding them with policies
there's no commanding. that's the point. we live in an pragmatic, political world. the question is not what you can dream of but what realistic solutions, policies you have. otherwise your philosophy is useless IMO. i know it's a very Marxian look at things, but it's good, we all need a lil specter of marxism to haunt us.

i believe in Hegel's ideal republic with the key caveats being vehement anti-fascism and pacifism, uniting the world through soft rather than hard power
the only "good" thing people (women more precisely) need to realize is that the society, if it wants to remain, if it wants to exist, must reproduce. otherwise, what will remain of it? nothing

confucianism has some good ideas. i'm not a collectivist but i'm not a radical individualist a'la Thatcher ("there is no society") either. when you're stuck in traffic and angry at traffic, it's good to remember that YOU ARE traffic. so measure your responses adequately. the Pneumatic praxtice is explained earlier in the thread

[Anonymous No.20680470]

>>20680379
>this idealized world that is the true world that we're all striving to make reality
If it were reality, it wouldn't need to be made so! If the so-called "material" world differs from the former because of "misconceptions" then these are both idealist, both (1) the idea of a material world considered not real due to misconception and (2) the idea of a world that must be made real is cannot be real either because it has to be produced and isn't 'there' so to speak. So... if your answer to nihilism is nihilism I think you need to go back to the drawing board. I think the world of experience is very much real and you will not get far in denying it, such denials have gotten us... here... and here is a problem, yes? That is out then, we must start from experience and that is what we must affirm. Next order of business—what do we value in this experience? If it's funko pops (metaphorically speaking) then you're ngmi, thanks for playing. You can ask these people to change their outlook but you will not be using them to save civilization. They don't even know what you're talking about. Sounds like it involves sacrifice without gratification, it can't be quantified through consumption, replicated, collected, enjoyed. It's a kind of obesity—an endless pregnancy—read Baudrillard's Fatal Strategies. It should not be lost on us that if we value 'eating' in and of itself there's nothing we'll be accomplishing, no kinderland, no overcoming, no transvaluations. Just a kind of bovine delight. That's the sort of thing the older iterations of nihilism promised. Before the endless Marvel Cinematic Universe (now a multiverse) there was Marxist utopia, before that Christian heaven. At least the Greek heroes had to return from the underworld eventually. It's not a place you go forever, to the unreal.

[Anonymous No.20680490]

>>20680404
>there's no commanding. that's the point. we live in an pragmatic, political world. the question is not what you can dream of but what realistic solutions, policies you have. otherwise your philosophy is useless
Read that over again and tell me it's not animal husbandry applied to people. Tell me it's not Christianity reloaded. Tell me it's not the bene gesserit breeding program that can only be broken by becoming a psychadelic worm-god. If you're going to reduce philosophy to being a policy think tank, you'd be more effective at being honest. Politicians aren't reading you, they listen to pollsters and donors. Lets see some high net worth before you decide your calling in life is the promotion of esoterical elitist policymaking

[Anonymous No.20680516]

>>20680470
>If it were reality, it wouldn't need to be made so!
you don't understand. we need to make it so because humanity carries basically a form of the cardinal sin which I consider dualism to be. I think dualism is a mental illness, like schizophrenia (which is basically a certain duality of the mind in itself). It's created by the young lone abstract mind to cope with the complexity of the world. That's why we need to strive. To eliminate this mistake

[Anonymous No.20680551]

>>20680490
>Tell me it's not Christianity reloaded.
It is. When it comes to matters of specific, pragmatic policy, I think Christianity should make a comeback, politically speaking. Not in the sense of a theocracy but a clearly Christian-influenced government, like the Founding Fathers. Modern Catholicism isn't reactionary at all, the intellectual thought is there, it's quite productive, but people just don't want to listen... why? because politicians themselves don't care

we need a political visionary. a builder. to build you need foundations. the judeo-christian civilization is one. but unlike JBP preaches it is not the "only" way. But, I believe that all world religions are at heart about the same thing and they're all monist in their doctrine. So the West should be reunited under the banner of Christianity, Arabs under the banner of Islam, China under the banner of Confucianism, and so on. 2 caveats:
>no Adornoan authoritative personalities, i.e., no fascism, no holy wars, no imperialism, just pacificism and respect for each other enforced through a reorienting of NATO, something Zizek also proposed
>no political degeneration of the ideals
we're actually getting there. i know this may sound naive but I believe politicians nowadays are way more noble, gentle, "nice" and "dull" than aristocracies of the past. way better in fact. term limits help. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. term limits self-impose a degree of humanity on politicians, who also want to maintain a reputation after their tenure

so, China can orient itself around confucianism, arabs around islam. but it should all be pacifistic. the West should consist of Christian democracies. maybe it's animal husbandry, but here's the deal:
i don't want people to all become ubermensch tomorrow. only once post-scarcity is achieved. the policies i propose are just a means to an end, a'la what Gramsci proposed

[Anonymous No.20680613]

>>20680551
>term limits self-impose a degree of humanity on politicians, who also want to maintain a reputation after their tenure
It's as if you don't read the news. But it's quite clear anyway that your interest is political grand strategy gaming and the philosophers mentioned are decorative. Winding back the clock a hundred years means you get here again. Learning from history isn't about playing dress up as the last thing that appeared to work. That's savage and degenerate at the same time. And the idea that every bloc should just double down on their historically state-wedded ideologies as a means of achieving peace makes little sense. China was geopolitically traumatized over the last 200 years and will never be isolationist or anti-expansion again unless they get Japanified (though Japan is breaking their conditioning since the 90s.) Islam is nomad war machinery and slowly poisons a society that becomes to sedentary or stops expanding. Christianity is also a busybodying expansionist religion—wouldn't your Christian unionist Europe eventually have eyes on Russia, perhaps Latin America, to integrate those Christians? Or what about the ex-Christian lands the Middle East and North Africa? How does one rewind history and pause it without being schizophrenic?

[Anonymous No.20680636]

>>20680516
>eliminate this mistake
If the mistake is a function of being human then we are outside of humanity at this point, and it is a necessarily non-human or perhaps anti-human project, which means its political application is nil, especially if policies cannot be done by fiat and must be either mostly approved or mostly unopposed. And what policy would it even be, mandatory Tibetan thangka painting classes? Many eons before enlightenment for the average bear.

[Anonymous No.20681966]

>>20680613
>It's as if you don't read the news
you think the political class now is more degenerate than European aristocracy 500 years ago? modern papacy is more degenerate than 500 years ago?

what I'm seeing is a popularization of office. cruder and cruder (more populist and "from the people") people get into office every year around the world. look at AOC. and in my view proles always used to be less degenerate than the aristocracy

[Anonymous No.20682071]

You're welcome

[Anonymous No.20682159]

>>20681966
Certainly popes that fathered children and governed actual land instead of stewarding an LGBTQ-themed international NGO were "less degenerate." And when aristocrats had to run states—or at least delegate to competent people—lest their house fall into ruin, that would have been a more beneficial pressure than the psychopath-rewarding buck-passing bureaucratic system we've seamlessly replicated across the public and private sectors wherein nobody is responsible for anything and has no skin in the game. But those things are gone now and cannot be put back. They only exist to teach us a lesson. Every aristocrat is ultimately descended from a non-aristocrat, such as a barbarian or a savage raider. It was the pleb that allowed him to become an aristocrat by agreeing to submit to him. And the aristocrat degenerated by relaxing from what might be called "the strenuous life," because without tension there is slack. The classic prole can appear noble by comparison if he has his own beneficial struggles to contend with and it is at precisely that moment the given aristocracy becomes superfluous and if he is not toppled by the foreign marauder, then it is a matter of time before internal ones decide they are going to contest his diabetic authority

[Anonymous No.20682452]

>>20682159
>Certainly popes that fathered children and governed actual land instead of stewarding an LGBTQ-themed international NGO were "less degenerate."
you turned out to be a /pol/tard reactionary. so sad. i come from a libertarian background but i found out i am marxian at heart. economically a capitalist though. marxist economics don't work and never did

you're narrow minded, part of a political binary, you're one of the last men

[Anonymous No.20682571]

>>20682452
Uh, you were the one bitching about fertility and saving 'civilization'? If anyone is from /pol/ it's the nearly-underage manifesto writer. I've consistently denied your project and told you that asking the sickly to breed in order to preserve sickliness is a war upon anything good. Having children and owning real property are considered good and proper things by anyone who HAS them, and such persons are the sort who would be most inclined to 'plan ahead,' which you see as vital in the looming crisis period. Because... they have something to lose? People who don't do those things are not in play here. The Catholic church's promotion of elite infertility and homosociality are not conducive to your project, and if you think they are you've not being paying attention. The renaissance popes were the least 'degenerate' because they embraced their power and sought to extend it. The "everyone should get a hug, especially young men" popes, being infertile theologians, are the most 'dengenerate.' If all you're going to appropriate from Nietzsche is his vocabulary, and then you're chastising people for rejecting Christianity and also for thinking in terms of what promotes healthy life-affirming values, you're not even capable of understanding what you've read. You are DALLE. You are the chinese room. And you are worse than a last man yourself, being a simulacrum of a last man.

[Anonymous No.20682584]

>>20682571
>you were the one bitching about fertility and saving 'civilization'?
that doesn't make me a /pol/tard. i dont see a civilizational decline in the world being colorful, obese, multiracial and unlike fake 1950s ads. i see a civilizational decline in people not having babies. that's not a /pol/tard statement in and of itself, it's just a sociological statement

[Anonymous No.20682634]

>>20682584
That's a cute attempt at deflection but if you're an enemy of the infertile, sexually liberated, gender parity pursuing society that relies on imported helotry to maintain its pensioner ratio you're some stripe of hatespeaker. Doesn't matter if you want a Rockwell painting in every living room instead of a RokuTV or not—that's all besides the point. Who makes children? Women. Why are they making fewer children? Because it's their body, their choice. If women have some biological purpose they should be rolled back to prior to the latest patches made to civilization you are reactionary plain and simple. And that was obvious from the Ellul/Spengler/Ted vibe and no one is so stupid as to not notice it.

[Anonymous No.20682692]

>>20682634
i already explained everything, but you don't want to listen. in your last attempt at critique you watered it down to "priests can't have kids this BTFOs you." what even is this argument? the whole point of the priestly class is to represent the other extreme to the popular materialist extreme. These extremes meet at the point of infertility but for wildly different reasons. Priests are not meant to be "human" theyre meant to represent the sacrum not the profanum. They're meant to be representatives of God not of humans

[Anonymous No.20682707]

>>20682634
>>20682692
also i'm not an enemy of gender parity. i'm advocating for abolishing gender altogether, sticking to biological sex, and just knowing where you stand without getting your identity coopted by psychologically malicious idpol groups.

and I oppose sexual liberation because it ultimately stems from Freud who was all about sex, and who simply got proven wrong. you know who got proven right? Lacan. and he was all about true Love, not sex

[Anonymous No.20682745]

>>20682692
>Priests are not meant to be "human" theyre meant to represent the sacrum not the profanum. They're meant to be representatives of God not of humans
This is nihilism, it's funko popery.
>>20682707
This is another botched sleight of hand where no one was fooled. No one could read your manifesto and conclude you weren't an opponent of infertility assisted progress-seeking. You're just... a dumb of opponent of it... since you're defending some of what they defend and using some of their language to argue with them. Does't fool anyone. You'd have to be 20 to think an adult can't see what you're playing at.

[Anonymous No.20682780]

>>20682707
>abolishing gender altogether, sticking to biological sex, and just knowing where you stand without getting your identity coopted
I mean just think about what you're saying here DALLE-anon. You're essentially doing political stand-up.
>yeah i think we should abolish gender
>but only because there's just penis and vagina and they make babies and anything else is bad actors
ba dum tsh! that's the most reactionary take on gender short of the Tleilaxu tanks from Dune that the space Muslim eugenicists use instead of having wives. This is a /pol/ position, it's reactionary, it's conservative. No one is fooled.

[Anonymous No.20682810]

>>20682745
>This is nihilism, it's funko popery.
it's THEOLOGY and church doctrine you absolute fucking retard. the Church is the embassy of God on this wretched Earth, it's not an embassy of sinful Humanity, although it's staffed by necessarily sinful humans
>You're just... a dumb of opponent of it... since you're defending some of what they defend and using some of their language to argue with them.
then it's not dumb at all. use their underlying logic to defeat their argument—that's a mastery of rhetorics
>>20682780
>I mean just think about what you're saying here
read Judith Butler, but she may be too intellectual for you, so go read bell hooks' "feminism is for everybody." it's not DALL-E. if we need people to unite in the future, we ultimately need the culture wars to stop, we need men and women to come to terms with each other and stop fighting
>ba dum tsh! that's the most reactionary take on gender
it's not, it's Butlerian. ultimately it's just Nietzsche applied to gender

as I laid out earlier, only 3 core motives underlie the Human desire, from most important (to the conscious ego, not to the unconscious superego) to least:
>1a. transcendence
>1b. love/respect
>2a. freedom
>2b. power
>3. truth

[Anonymous No.20682899]

>>20682810
>the Church is the embassy of God on this wretched Earth
you are a nihilist, please stop larping as a philosopher and just stick to being a purely political polemicist, and stop citing Nietzsche since you've never read him apparently

[Anonymous No.20683184]

>>20682899
>you are a nihilist
just like Nietzsche was, eh? what I am is post-Nietzschean. i.e. Nietzsche turned down a notch, less idealistic and utopian, and more pragmatic. with the Nietzschean goal at heart but with a more brainy solution for the here-and-now

[Anonymous No.20683287]

>>20683184
>more brainy solution for the here-and-now
>just become a christian, god isn't dead if we spray enough perfume
again it's patently obvious you have a chinese room level grasp of philosophers and their ideas, or simply don't care to do more than tag the keywords together to produce output. There is nothing "pragmatic" in ignoring wholesale the thinker you are considering yourself to be "post" in relation to.

[Anonymous No.20683337]

>>20683287
>>just become a christian, god isn't dead if we spray enough perfume
why do you keep strawmanning?

have you read Nietzsche at all?

he concludes that there are last men but that not all of humanity has to be last men, some brilliant individuals are there who are ubermenschen

my conclusions on the other hand are 2:
>(1) in a technocratic post-scarce world, anyone can be the Nietzschean ubermensch
>(2) but first we have to get there, and we're dealing with the problem of the Ubermensch, the Last Men, and how to get us to (1) when we live in a liberal democracy and most of the society is composed of last men
and thus my solution: christian democracy

christianity isn't some personal cope of mine, I treat it in a very Machiavellian way. Marx was right in that religion is an opium for the masses. but he (and Nietzsche) foolishly treated it as a bad opium. I think it can be used very effectively for political purposes, as a means of turning the Last Men into quasi-/proto-Ubermenschen until post-scarcity (through capitalism, not the economic failure that is marxism) is achieved

[Anonymous No.20683385]

>>20683337
so you skipped Gay Science, Genealogy of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil, Anti-Christ, Twilight of the Idols.... and thus our true Nietzsche scholar becomes a "Christian democrat." I'll bet you're so ill-informed you don't know literal Christian Democrats are one of the major political parties in Germany and willing participants in the world order you insist is imminently going to collapse. Christianity is being used for what is it being used for. It's not something you'll get a different result out of. It's a subversion manual. Anything you plan to do with it won't be up to code. Just ask the Romans.

[Anonymous No.20684101]

>>20683385
>literal Christian Democrats are one of the major political parties in Germany
they're a joke, not Christian Democrats. there's nothing Christian about them, maybe about the CSU (Bavarian Christian Democrats), but certainly not about the CDU
>willing participants of the world order
I know it will sound weird, but unironically the globohomo/Davos is better than many people think. ultimately it's a force for good (global unification and peace) but it lacks a "spiritual" drive, it's nihilistic

and i don't mean "spiritual" in the Christian or some New Age woo sense, but in the Nietzschean Ubermensch sense. Davos lacks a Dasein

[Anonymous No.20684272]

>>20675220
What about every other student of Socrates kek, or is this just arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.20684347]

There are only two possibilities: either OP is a AI text gen bot or he's a naive undergrad with delusions of grandeur.

[Anonymous No.20684459]

>>20674184
Sorry, but why do you write like this, are you schizophrenic or what?

>>20674190
>Disprove one Axiom, and the theory falls. Can you?
Most of these are not axioms, as in necessary assumptions, but alright.

>1.
No, it does not. Existence depends on some possibility of interaction. It's a mental form, which are generalisations or abstractions.

>2. If you call the existence of reality itself into question, congratulations, you're a solipsist.
No.

>The problem is, this is a philosophical dead-end, it offers no Praxis nor guidance to politicians, the people who rule this world.
So?

>3.
Only insofar as they depend on the world.

>4.
Why do you accept "reality" but not opposites, which just depend on a scale?

>5.
Sure?

>6.
Why?

>7.
Alright

>8.
I don't know what's harmonious to you but of course, material analysis is needed if it's material.

>9.
And you think Hegel is scientific?

>10.
How would history accomplish testability without modeling past conditions?

>11.
It's not possible to be fully predictive- although you can estimate for some general change, like there will be more or less hunger, the principal part of history is not just conditions, but the working of many minds which you cannot fully enquire into.

>12.
How can bias be minimised when the subject and the object are the same in some sense- historians are part of history?

[Anonymous No.20684590]

>Nothing is ... LE REAL?
>Touch a book
>It's real and I can really feel it being real with my real senses apprehending real qualia
Lmao fucking retarded post modern faggots

[Anonymous No.20684611]

>>20679240
>Jungian opposing binaries
What do you think of his type problem? What's the monist answer to that?

[Anonymous No.20684690]

>>20684611
Jung was a monist unironically (dual-aspect monism)

[Anonymous No.20684750]

>>20674190
>1. Reality exists.
Wow so deep!
>2. If you call the existence of reality itself into question, congratulations, you're a solipsist.
Reality also exists for the solipsist. Albeit a much narrower reality. I agree that it is an unfruitful line of thought nevertheless.
>3. The ultimate goal of the zoon politikon is for the world around them (the matrix upon which to imprint a Dasein) be a better, more authentic place.
This does not seem to be the goal of the many political animals I've come across. Maybe qualify your statement with "ought"
>Dualism doesn't exist.
I can get behind this.
>5. Reality is One.
Woah.
>6. The future will either be harmonious or there will be no future at all (by "the future" I don't mean any particular civilization, just the Human species as a whole)
Goodbye to the future then.
>7. A harmonious future is possible to envision.
I'm having a hard time visualizing it. What exactly do you mean by "harmonious"? Lacking in social conflicts?
>8. To accomplish this, we need a historical materialism.
This took a sudden turn.
>9 through 13
If by a science of history you mean an experimental science, it's indeed impossible. We can't run experiments on history. Even a purely descriptive science of history is suspect, because history does not constitute a natural kind which can be plainly revealed and observed. It's messy, ridden with incomplete, biased, or missing records , regurgitated and filtered through various sources of variable reliability. There can be no clean science of history. Integrating the scientific method into historiographic practice is notoriously difficult for these reasons.
>14. If monism is true, then all binaries are always wrong. If dualism is true, then no unifying theory is possible and philosophy is useless
Your own reasoning presupposes a logical binary via conditionals. Binaries are not a metaphysical principle or ideological commitment. They are a form of thought built into human cognition.

I'd keep going but i'm getting bored.

[Anonymous No.20684796]

>>20684750
>political animals
that's not what zoon politikon means. you're a pseud. go back to the books (start with the greeks, preferably)
>Goodbye to the future then
You see the glass half empty, I see it half full
>I'm having a hard time visualizing it. What exactly do you mean by "harmonious"? Lacking in social conflicts?
Yes, a continuously self-enhancing global society of post-scarcity achieved through full automation with guaranteed UBI and drugs not being legalized fully and some other provisions that don't really restrict anybody, and also it's a society that is a liberal democratic and a pacifistic one that is constantly self-regulating without wars or human catastrophes. Justice is fairness.
>We can't run experiments on history.
When you experience the present, you're experimenting on history. Think about it
>Your own reasoning presupposes a logical binary via conditionals
Only rhetorically. There is only one Truth, which is the golden mean of the 3 fundamental Human desires, which unite the human experience across the globe
>>20684459
>No, it does not. Existence depends on some possibility of interaction. It's a mental form, which are generalisations or abstractions.
that does not disprove what I said
>So?
so long as the solutions you propose are dead-ends, so long will the questions remain alive and philosophy not dead and settled
>Only insofar as they depend on the world.
No, this is a universal thing for all human beings
>Why do you accept "reality" but not opposites, which just depend on a scale?
later explained. reality is only either monist or dualist. problems with dualism are later explained. you barely went past the first post
>Why?
Because if it remains inharmonious as it is, Humanity will go extinct a'la Children of Men due to unresolved existential crises which impact human psychology and choices
>And you think Hegel is scientific?
I think he provided a valid framework of referenced later updated (unconsciously by the authors) with the framework of Critical Theory and the Annales school (consciously by the authors, who were basically neo-Hegelians)
>How would history accomplish testability without modeling past conditions?
By establishing that Human history is simply a history of one of many ecosystems in this world. Ecosystems of more intelligent multicellular life isn't chaotic but guided by a very specific set of rules
>It's not possible to be fully predictive-
It is possible to be very generally predictive.
>How can bias be minimised when the subject and the object are the same in some sense- historians are part of history?
explained later in the thread

[Anonymous No.20684892]

>>20684101
>Nietzschean
You haven't read him and should stop pretending, you've just read a wikipedia article on the overman concept, which I assume was poor quality.

[Anonymous No.20684938]

>>20684892
nope, I read him. you just have trouble thinking post-Nietzsche which is logical since you're the last man and i'm the Ubermensch (Zizek also is)

[Anonymous No.20684994]

>>20684796
>that does not disprove what I said
If you mean- things exist- that's undeniable.

>so long as the solutions you propose are dead-ends
Well, if you assume philosophy ought to be practical.

>No, this is a universal thing for all human beings
Yes, but this doesn't preclude it from being exclusionary.

>problems with dualism are later explained.
You only say that a unifying historical theory with it is impossible. You mention how people use it in a self-other dichotomy, but this doesn't disprove opposites. In 43 you contrast good and evil, senses of self.

>Because if it remains inharmonious as it is, Humanity will go extinct
Why? Existential crises didn't make humanity go extinct before.

>Critical Theory and the Annales school
How are they scientific in a Popperian sense?

>By establishing that Human history is simply a history of one of many ecosystems in this world.
How can you reduce human history to ecosystems?

>It is possible to be very generally predictive.
How? Which past events are predictable from some preceding point of time?

[Anonymous No.20685128]

>>20684994
>In 43 you contrast good and evil, senses of self.
Later explained. Good and evil was unironically well explained by Plato and then refined by Plotinus and St Augustine. Different selves are also explained-a (hylic, psychic) human is potential energy, the (pneumatic) Human is kinetic energy
>Why? Existential crises didn't make humanity go extinct before.
industrialization is reaching India, even Africa, fertility rates are crashing across the board
>How are they scientific in a Popperian sense?
Because CT is a form of criticizing and scrutinizing theories, concepts, institutions etc. from a Nietzschean view, kind of assuming objective Truth exists (like science does) and not proposing, but criticizing pre-existent biases, prejudices and delusions
>How can you reduce human history to ecosystems?
to history of the particular ecosystem. you can do that for any species, it's just that the human ecosystem is necessarily a very complex one, but not a chaotic one
>How? Which past events are predictable from some preceding point of time?
technological progress, the increasing robustness of capitalism

[Anonymous No.20685264]

This is a bit like reading Exodus and deciding the message was that we should build a golden calf, worship Baal, and eat pork.

[Anonymous No.20685624]

>>20685264
meaningless input

[Anonymous No.20685749]

>>20685624
meant to reply to your post that Christian democracy is "nietzschean" which is pants-on-head

[Anonymous No.20685892]

>>20685749
a liberal democracy based in Christian ethics would bring the modern Last Men closer to the Ubermensch than any other system until post-scarcity is achieved