Let Dugin Live

[Meno_]

Premature synthesis prior to judgement opens the door to fallibility of belief in the possibility of truth value in either the one or the other, before judgement.

Multiple ideas, is what characterizes insecurity in the development of the ego, its like the philosophical notion of the psychological concept of multiple personality.

Just a general comment, regarding the.task of Hegel and his followers, who had to contend with the exact nature of Kant's unresolved duplicity, of getting out of it while mired in it.Hegel solves this by relating the infinite to an undefined absolute.

[promethean75]

this is the order of exchanges that got us to this present dispute.

first you mistakenly assume that the transition into capitalism was an escape from paternalism in general, in the way that it existed in feudalism and the monarchy:

Capitalism never promised “freedom for” all things for all people. Rather, its principle was “freedom from” paternalist or royal interference.

then i claim that a qualitatively similar kind of paternalism evolves in the new capitalism:

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.

next we start quibbling over the definition of 'aristocracy', and this takes you away from the direction i was heading to show how aristocracy is just another form of paternalism:

What is an "aristocratic class"? You don't distinguish adequately aristocracy, rule of the most educated, or, as we would call it today, rule of the most qualified, from hereditary aristocracy.

Aristocracy is the name of the regime type where people are chosen for offices for competence rather than on the basis of property qualifications (oligarchy) or by lot (democratically).

these distinctions are well and good, but what i'm saying (and explained in that last post) is that regardless of how these aristocrats are put into power, the end result is the same. the role the aristocrat plays in relation to the ordinary citizen, in all cases, becomes another form of paternalism based either on some authority granted to them by citizens who were deceived into believing they are necessary (in government), or on the power gained by owning the means of production (in capitalism).

i then went off on a tangent explaining the farcical history of traditional philosophy and how it was intimately related to establishing governments. you, being a philosopher, would obviously object to that. but part of that objection is my fault, since such a radical new interpretation of what traditional philosophy is would require much more than what i provided. you might say i just threw that out there to see if anything would 'click' in your head, and save myself some time. alas, it did not.

[promethean75]

i should probably also give a little clarification about my position or point of view, here. i'm coming from a unique position, 'philosophically', which gives me a vantage point many others don't have. from the analytical perspective i share the view that a large percent of philosophy involves linguistic confusions rather than conceptual confusions; this means that most philosophical activity is innocuous and benign, a practice consisting of occupying oneself with asking questions that can't be asked about problems that don't really exist in the world (but only in the head of the philosopher). next is my stirnerism; not only do i agree that man is not something that can be fully comprehended... i'm also not alarmed by this. i don't need to understand, care, or justify why i want, and do, what i do. i share the view with stirner that the only thing 'certain' is just this, and i need not bother with trying to figure out 'why'. i leave that to the 'philosophers'. as an anarchist, i do not involve myself with worrying about the future of man. and finally, as a spinozist, i cannot believe that at any moment the universe is anything but perfect. when you roll all this into one, you get a free spirited fellow who can only ever approach 'philosophy' with a light heart and an eye for the comical. really, it is the only attitude one can have when in the company of people who are so confused it's impossible to remove even a single misunderstanding. a philosophy forum then becomes more of a study in psychology than anything else; 'why is this one making this particular error in reasoning? what is it about him/her that ties them so tightly to this kind of nonsense?' and out of this approach one can gain some great insight into human nature. what i personally find much more interesting than philosophy is the kinds of philosophical trends i find repeated over and over again, and the type of people these trends are practiced by, or styled by, rather. i've got this down to such a science i could almost devise a personality-type system that would rival even myers-briggs.

[Ecmandu]

Promethean,

A little insight here:

Until you actually answer one of our posts, this is kinda a thread killer.

You replied to guide a bit.

I ask you, what's the difference between a shaman and a psychologist ?

Who does more work? Someone who pushes through with chronic fatigue syndrome or someone without it?

[promethean75]

HE..... IS..... THE THREADKILLER!

THIS.... IS.... THE THREADKILLER!

AAAAAHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

[Guide]

this is the order of exchanges that got us to this present dispute.

first you mistakenly assume that the transition into capitalism was an escape from paternalism in general, in the way that it existed in feudalism and the monarchy:

guide wrote:Capitalism never promised “freedom for” all things for all people. Rather, its principle was “freedom from” paternalist or royal interference.

I didn’t asume, I gave a specific example of what I meant. You’re inracinating your brain with verbal trash.

What you write is a waste of time since you’re begging the question. I don’t accept the fundamental buried claim that your interpretation is not aristocratic.

You’re just talking around that emptily while the tangles grow in the black earth.

There is a blind world, and there is a enlightening revolt against the intellectual powers of civil life. Socrates is the most clear, shining and absolute, example, but he is not its origin, rather he is its most dominating representative and articulator. All such revolt is an attempt to educate. You present an interpretation meant to be the best education. Ergo, an aristocratic statement meant to educate. Tacitly you unearth the roots of the regime types because you want a total aristocracy, one where everyone, so far as innate ability allows, is the best educated. I.e., that they accept your account and act on it. The democracy then is identical to the aristocracy, because all are the best educated and any one, chosen at random, will suffice to occupy a position of administration just as well as might any other.


I think relatively short answers in the Socratic style of dialectic is the only way to approach this issue. I don't find any sense to what you write, since it is manifestly an aristocratic, or in your own vague sense (you give no exact example) paternalistic manipulation.

[Guide]

Just a general comment, regarding the.task of Hegel and his followers, who had to contend with the exact nature of Kant's unresolved duplicity, of getting out of it while mired in it.Hegel solves this by relating the infinite to an undefined absolute.

No, it is defined. It is the forgetting of morality as the: each one is equal to each other under the law. This has, indeed, occurred. The notion of rights has become like the humming of a bee. One takes it as simply human.

[promethean75]

i'm not an 'aristocrat', dude. i'm a noble savage. big frickin' difference.

[Ecmandu]

i'm not an 'aristocrat', dude. i'm a noble savage. big frickin' difference.

Ahh ... yes.

The "noble" savage who avoids debates because it is ignoble ...

Magic tricks are harder to figure out than this

[Meno_]

Promethean,

A little insight here:

Until you actually answer one of our posts, this is kinda a thread killer.

You replied to guide a bit.

I ask you, what's the difference between a shaman and a psychologist ?

Who does more work? Someone who pushes through with chronic fatigue syndrome or someone without it?

Someone who pushes through , its probably harder: but I suppose psychologists may have been shamans as well, but the vast majority avoid it like the plague, nevertheless they work equitably, in the Marxian description : each according to his need and ability.

This not strictly to entail dogmatic concepts as the economy of the ID, and other hypersuppositions, meaning they are merely topical Lewin type inscriptions, yet to near closer to actuality and functionality if they ever come and overcome the obstacles in their way, as they are marginalized as well.


Guide,




The idea of Hegel revisionists pairs with Your objection , since they limit Hegel's limitation up to the Absolute , however , they are near but so far as not seeing the ego, as yet another 'spook'. Hegel himself subordinated human will and freedom thereof under this Absolute. I have not read Hegel for a long time, but I can reference something.


"The state is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state."

From:
A: Constitutional Law B: International Law C: World History

[Meno_]

Promethean,

A little insight here:

Until you actually answer one of our posts, this is kinda a thread killer.

You replied to guide a bit.

I ask you, what's the difference between a shaman and a psychologist ?

Who does more work? Someone who pushes through with chronic fatigue syndrome or someone without it?

Someone who pushes through , its probably harder: but I suppose psychologists may have been shamans as well, but the vast majority avoid it like the plague, nevertheless they work equitably, in the Marxian description : each according to his need and ability.

This not strictly to entail dogmatic concepts as the economy of the ID, and other hypersuppositions, meaning they are merely topical Lewin type inscriptions, yet to near closer to actuality and functionality if they ever come and overcome the obstacles in their way, as they are marginalized as well.


Guide,




The idea of Hegel revisionists parts with Your objection , since they limit Hegel's limitation up to the Absolute , however , they are near but so far as not seeing the ego, as yet another 'spook'. Hegel himself subordinated human will and freedom thereof under this Absolute. I have not read Hegel for a long time, but I can reference something.


"The state is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state."

From:
A: Constitutional Law B: International Law C: World History

But pro and con these dualistic issues, I don't see the merit in supposing how either way, the solution, if there is one, can flush out how Dougin can save us, there need to be more connectivity between the premise and conclusion or /and goal. The middle sub stance can thin out so as to reduce the forum to meaninglessness. And such, as to mirror the entropic collapse of factual information it'self.

That has to be needed up, otherwise we will have to ride Biggy back.

[Guide]

But pro and con these dualistic issues, I don't see the merit in supposing how either way, the solution, if there is one, can flush out how Dougin can save us, there need to be more connectivity between the premise and conclusion or /and goal. The middle sub stance can thin out so as to reduce the forum to meaninglessness. And such, as to mirror the entropic collapse of factual information it'self.

That has to be needed up, otherwise we will have to ride Biggy back.

Because, in the planetary existential attitude purposed or discovered by Duign, Da-sein as what overcomes universal European technology (= fact/value as fundamental world interpretation), form the planetary position of the heights of what fighting for one's own gives as a sustaining born of the exploit of grabbing the ring, there is a world state (i.e., what is parallel to the Hegel statement you adduce). Within the world state (established, de facto, by the substantive morality) Nations are chosen according to the universal substantive morality's freedom to vest each one in its own bent.

[Guide]

As, one of the few living persons with a sense of thought, Dugin must be restored to the top of the estimable Guide forum.