Moderator: Only_Humean
" but fascism is guaranteed to produce the most fertile soil out of which the best of these grow. "
so he isn't a fascist. well ain't that some shit. what a disappointment.
look man you need to get in there and edit that shit.
OG (original guide) wrote:you are an inhuman idiot deserving of utter contempt.
"OG (original guide) wrote:
you are an inhuman idiot deserving of utter contempt.
bro. that is so weird. i actually am an idiot (in the original greek root meaning of 'i make my own'). but i'm no ordinary idiot. not yet anyway. i'm aspiring to be but i have to pass through several stages first before i get there. at the moment i'm just a swaggering idiot. here, check it out.
that's so weird you knew, though. we're connected, dude. i'm telling you.
btw, that most recent thread you created is a duplicate of the 'entartung' thread."
OG (original guide) wrote:It is degeneration is the fullest sense of Max Stirner.
let me give you an example of a system which stopping short of that final marxist limit stands in a state of ethical irresolvability. capitalism.by virtue of its principles, it cannot be ethical in the sense that it purports to be. that is to say, it cannot stand by its own tenants and still be able to function; it requires that a number of people fail at realizing its greatest privilege so that a number of others can realize it (at the expense of those others). in this way, the classes it creates cannot share any ethical solidarity and will forever have conflicting interests. here is the collapse of principle and the direct, unavoidable line to stirner; if this particular abstraction of the 'state' cannot sustain itself through the ethical cooperation of individuals who share the same interests, it is for all intent and purposes nullified.if the social contract is nullified, there is no longer a collectivity, but a war between two classes; the bourgeois and proletariat. and if this is the case (and it is), one cannot avoid the conclusion of stirner. one either remains a confused fool somewhere in the middle, or one becomes a stirnerite or a marxist. other 'political' philosophers are irrelevant filler materials that sit somewhere on this line between stirner and marx. any possible political philosophy approaches one of the other, inevitably.
“it requires that a number of people fail at realizing its greatest privilege so that a number of others can realize it”
“by virtue of its principles, it cannot be ethical in the sense that it purports to be”
“if the social contract is nullified, there is no longer a collectivity”
OG (original guide) wrote:This position is unclear
OG (original guide) wrote:This doesn't exclude general improvement. When the country is electrified, or when plumbing becomes generally available, in the end, even the poorest benefit.
OG (original guide) wrote:Capitalism never promised “freedom for” all things for all people. Rather, its principle was “freedom from” paternalist or royal interference. For instance, there was a law forbidding the rich from selling their estates (disposition, or right to use, but not to “alienate” property) in England before laissez-faire.
That those with talent in commerce will be free to benefit from those favoured qualities.
"'fraid that's the nature of all philosophical text."
OG (original guide) wrote:Goodbye idiot scientism religious freak rhetoric fatuous websight of dreck waste of time!
or so it appeared. certainly the transition from feudalism to mercantile capitalism marked a break from that paternalism characterized as the authority of the aristocratic class, but it took an alternative form of that same tyranny shortly thereafter. instead of the common man being a slave to the demands of his lord, he became a slave to the demands of his necessity to labor for a wage, or be ostracized, penalized, or even exiled from the land on which he dwelled. so then while capitalism certainly 'made no promises', it still transformed a previous system of tyranny into another, new form, and therefore did not avoid the essential problem it's origins were thought to be a solution for; the problem of property relations.
rosa lichtenstein wrote:Super-Scientific Truths, which Ancient Greek Philosophers had 'derived' solely from the meaning of a set of specially-selected and surgically-doctored words, began to mirror the abstract view of reality adopted by this new layer of Theorists, just as these theories also reflected their daily experience of class society. In this way, their mode of being mirrored their view of 'Being'. The life of these theoretical drones was largely one of leisure bought (directly or indirectly) at the expense of the necessary labour-time of those whose language and experience they denigrated. In order to give expression to this form of estrangement, they concocted obscure, Idealist 'jargon' deliberately set in opposition to the 'debased' and 'unreliable' language of those who had to work to stay alive.
In earlier myths and Theogonies, conflict in this world was viewed as a reflection of the rivalries that existed between warring 'gods', struggles that took place in a hidden world beyond the reach of the senses. Their verbal wrangles and machinations became the model upon which later Idealist and Hermetic thinkers based their Super-Scientific Theories, theories that attempted to explain 'Being' -- which they then happily imposed on nature and society.
These concepts, inherited from Traditional Thought, were aimed at 'justifying' and rationalising the consolidation and reproduction of ruling-class power. Hence, if the state 'reflects' the underlying 'rational', or 'objective', order of reality (as Traditional Theorists have almost invariably maintained -- albeit modified in line with each subsequent Mode of Production, to suit the ideological priorities of contemporaneous ruling elites), then any opposition to it could be waved aside as "irrational", against "the natural order", or even contrary to "the divine order", and hence ultimately futile. The moral order of the state was thus inter-linked with the "rational order" of reality. Indeed, the ethical condition of the soul and the structure of the State weren't just accidentally linked (for example, in Plato's thought, or in Ancient India and China); they were constitutive of the entire cosmos and rightful governance on earth. The same was true of the other 'rational principles', derived from thought alone by countless generations of ruling-class hacks, albeit expressed in a different idiom as local conditions required.
OG (original guide) wrote:I am a student of the German tradition
ecmandusattva wrote:Your post is appreciated. It however assumes that there is a zero percent chance of a spirit world.
ecmandusattva wrote:I'll tell you this for certain: it is really hard sometimes to judge those who appear to be parasitic.
They are in some cases, doing the entire work of the species.
A person could be outside smoking a cigarette and be doing exponentially more work than a coal miner.
Some people know a lot more than others ....
ecmandusattva wrote:What you are judging is work. For example: someone with a panic disorder is doing 100 times the work of people who don't - simply by putting one foot in front of the other ...
ecmandusattva wrote:It's an interesting trick you tried to pull here...
If a person is not visibly producing to YOU, there is no way they can be doing more work than you.
ecmandusattva wrote:I, for example, can prove married people aren't doing work. I have proofs through contradiction for this.
ecmandusattva wrote:I am absolutely certain of we run this thread for another 10 pages, that I can prove as "aristocracy" (from your perspective) as a philosopher, even to you, that you do no work whatsoever, and that I do work.
"no, the skill this aristocratic class had to convince the citizens they had,"
promethean75 wrote:I love it when you talk dirty to me, guide.
Anyway you two lads just hold tight and I'll get back to ya. Long day at work and I'm beat. I got soft sitting on the couch for two weeks and today really kicked my ass because of that. It's 7:00 here and I'm ready to crash.
As a New Heglelian, he dissolved the failing idealistic formula, for Hegel's appearant short sightedness, caused by his lack of predicting vast changes.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]