/lit/ - Literature

>>11352570
>That level of smug condescension and absolute conviction

PoH version:
>"But though we might tolerate the idea that individuals, their desires and the gratification of them, are thus sacrificed, and their happiness given up to the empire of chance, to which it belongs; and that as a general rule, individuals come under the category of means to an ulterior end — there is one aspect of human individuality which we should hesitate to regard in that subordinate light, even in relation to the highest; since it is absolutely no subordinate element, but exists in those individuals as inherently eternal and divine. I mean morality, ethics, religion. Even when speaking of the realization of the great ideal aim by means of individuals, the subjective element in them — their interest and that of their cravings and impulses, their views and judgments, though exhibited as the merely formal side of their existence — was spoken of as having an infinite right to be consulted. The first idea that presents itself in speaking of means is that of something external to the object, and having no share in the object itself. But merely natural things — even he commonest lifeless objects — used as means, must be of such a kind as adapts them to their purpose; they must possess something in common with it. Human beings least of all sustain the bare external relation of mere means to the great ideal aim. Not only do they in the very act of realizing it, make it the occasion of satisfying personal desires, whose purport is diverse from that aim — but they share in that ideal aim itself; and are for that very reason objects of their own existence; not formally merely, as the world of living beings generally is — whose individual life is essentially subordinate to that of man, and is properly used up as an instrument. Men, on the contrary, are objects of existence to themselves, as regards the intrinsic import of the aim in question. To this order belongs that in them which we would exclude from the category of mere means — Morality, Ethics, Religion."
In nature, the relation between the particular aims and the qualities of the meta-structures they form is formal. Organisms do not partake of the forces which give them their qualities, they are external to them, animals are not subject, only the Absolute manifests itself as a subject. Men can benefit from this same principle, which is what the cunning of reason signifies. In order for the greats individuals of world-history to achieve their particular ends they need to pursue them in a way which is in line with what is reasonable, read, universal, read, they must serve the general principle even if they do not mean to. It's a truism, really. However, there is a limit to this. In the realm of the spiritual, people are their own objects, and they can not become the unwitting means to their own ends.

>>11318345
>Let me tell you about my perfect hierarchically organised city which functions via eugenic control, education designed to make people think in the way we have determined to be objectively correct (a tier-based caste system, the rational element at the top decides how to organise them into a cohesive whole and everyone else simply accepts their lot) and throwing all of the artists who aren't willing to make the kind of art our wise leaders consider beneficial out so they don't corrupt the youth

>cultural marxism
You think the kind of rigorously rationalistic, organized city Plato envisions would open its walls to immigrants? How would it make them believe that they are coppers, silvers and golds who have grown out of the earth, i.e., that their purpose in life has been decided for them by the society they are a part of?