/lit/ - Literature

>>4816080


>You defend the status quo, not I.

as expected, you continually demonstrate an inability to comprehend nuance outside of banal dichotomies. you probably dont even realize what the status quo really is (hint, its currently dominated by people who think like you: http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/orwell-vs-huxley/))

No

>>4499294


yeah what about the world? you think its a bad thing that jack has more stuff than jake? and that if jacks will always come out over jakes, this means its *being* that is inherently flawed, and not your preconceptions?

if we presuppose 'enlightenment' values and ideals as the whole of value and idealism, then certainly nihilism is the only way out of that system, from within the system.

No, but reading this one will.

>>4313183


on the contrary, it would seem the pernicious (and ultimately futile) attempt to separate facts from value has largely been the demense of autistic nominalists/atomists/positivists throughout the history of philosophic thought.

you care because youre a solipsist that relies on validation and feedback to form its values and ideals.

your only option it seems is to use what powers of more transcendent judgement you have to find a good preexisting tradition to induct yourself into, and then use those standards to value your works.

4273689


youtube is a democratized media platform, shit is inevitable.

>>4252730


mah nigga

>>4068414
But /pol/ isn't well read enough to discuss things like Evola, Guenon, Heidegger, Nietzsche (whom they think is a post modernist and have never read), Ezra Pound, Codraneau, Spengler or some of the more 'non-liberal' kinds of philosophy. Let alone literature. They're just a bunch of dumb Americans who haven't read a book since high school and hate everything non-American, wishing it was the 1950's still. They don't realise that the 1950's led directly here, and going back there wouldn't fix anything.

>>4059792
You people talk about logic as if its absolute. It's just a tool, that you use to determine conclusions from premises.

If you start with scientific materialism, as your premises, then you can only end up with agnosticism or atheism. Most thinking people in our culture accept those premises, so that's why they end up agnostic/atheist.

If you start with other premises you get other conclusions. Logic isn't some absolute standard of measurement. It can't determine the true or the real.

And the premises of science are wrong by the way.

>>4036049
Because I hate feminism. I've had enough of it at uni, and it's all just bullshit like
>muh feelings
>logic is patriarchal and oppressive

If I never read anything about feminism again, that would be great.

>>4034436

ITT: Discuss and recommend right-wing, reactionary, aristocratic, and/or authoritarian lit.

Just got off an Evola kick, and I am currently reading Donoso Cortes' essays on liberalism for his ideas of state sovereignty, recommended by Schmitt. I really like his conception of the classical liberal state, though.

Thinking of reading Mosley's fascist stuff next, but it's hard to find a hard copy.

We are somewhere at the lowest point of our civilization now, things will revert to Tradition eventually and so the cycle will continue.

Your thoughts on this gentleman, /lit/?

>Also, Italian fascism can be discussed in here

Evola thread? Evola thread.

Ride the Tiger > Revolt > Men Among the Ruins, discuss.

>>2334405
>>2334407

Either that or Julius Evola?

[spoiler]>>2334399
>>2334405

Watts died when he was 58. How about Julius Evola?</spoiler>

>>1939427

By "The Royal Art" I assume you mean "The Hermetic Tradition", which I do have on my computer and plan on reading before attempting "The Doctrine of Awakening", and later on his "political trilogy". I'm familiar with de Benoist and hope to later in life have time to seriously delve more deeply into him and the rest of the European New Right.

>Years since I was into this stuff.

Would you mind to tell what made you lose interest in "this stuff"?

What would you to read My Struggle (OK, people, stop using its German title)? It's a bunch of populist Leftist nonsense. If you want some quality Right Wing theory from the period, you can hardly do better than Julius Evola.

Evola had a monocle, and "Ride the Tiger" is a pretty good book.

Just read Evola. Hitler was an idiot. Also, this person
>>1683668
>>1683639
>>1683587
>>1683555
is batshit insane, and obviously used to trolling /int/.

Recommend Evola.

>>1608078
When people say conservative anymore, it always seems to mean neoconservative. It's an important distinction to make.