/lit/ - Literature

>>11096099
114% agreed with this also. it really *does* feel like the next step: Go Back And Try Again. gives you the feels thinking about it.

even if it's not *permanent,* anything like this, but maybe to say - okay, so clearly something has gone weird in western civilization. once we begin unironically talking about time travel and how much our sex drives begin to look like the xenomorph and so on some brief interregnum where we go back to the roots and look things over again seems like it would be valuable.

*and fucking FUN,* which i think is the real thing. if i was really going to try and pitch this, it would actually be in a way like the exact *opposite* of critical theory: it would be Uncritical Theory. which is what a kind of comparative religious or humanities studies department might do: look for the *similarities,* look for the *patterns,* and forget about the difference. see the common threads, the overlapping symbols, the commonalities. yes, to be sure, as subjects we are infinitely multiple in that sense. there's no arguing with deleuze (or badiou). and no doubt looking at religion and so on would arouse the ire of both. it might seem like a cop-out.

but guess what. islam is going on to be on everyone's agenda for the next hundred years. so is china. and maybe the current wave of progressivism too. it's a recipe for a lot of unrest. i like spengler a lot but being the doomed man at the last post feels unnecessary.

look at the traditionalist/perennialist threads here on /lit/. or the catholic ones. people really find it cool. it's no accident that that happened. even the US is divided today into rival ideospheres, and maybe heading for a divorce. maybe that's necessary, maybe not.

but this:
>the dehumanizing age we live in
yes. the post/in/non-human &c matters. but so does the human. warts and all. we are *not pretty* on the inside, it's really true. whether we learn that from land or JBP. or whoever. but still.

>hopefully we go back to earlier thinkers and check their work, improve their work
i like this too. just being able to take a *longer view.* the long time preference really matters. philosophy is not always that which gets pushed into policy or revolution immediately.

>and pave over those useless thinkers of the 20th century who produced literally nothing of worth or consequence.
almost everybody has *something* to communicate. but we need some filters or frames for talking about it.

in the end i think people may just wind up demanding institutions that maybe can talk about this. we probably shouldn't get too romantic or optimistic about that happening. but charity is a good scene.

western civ can't really be fixed, and really *shouldn't* be necessarily overly glorified. Deus Vult isn't the answer. but the massive collective hate-on for it isn't either. how we got to this point *anyways* is the craziest story imaginable, and it's going to get even crazier still.

philosophy should be fun...

>>11064421
>According to Christopher I. Beckwith's analysis of the Aristocles Passage, adiaphora, astathmēta, and anepikrita are strikingly similar to the Buddhist Three marks of existence,[11] indicating that Pyrrho's teaching is based on Buddhism. Beckwith disputes Bett's argument about the translators, as the other reports of using translators in India, involving Alexander the Great and Nearchus, say they needed only one interpreter, and Onesicritus was criticized by other writers in antiquity for exaggerating. Beckwith also contends that the 18 months Pyrrho spent in India was long enough to learn a foreign language, and that the key innovative tenets of Pyrrho's skepticism were only found in Indian philosophy at the time and not in Greece.

makes you think.

it's neoplatonists rather than skeptics who are frequently the scissors to my late-late-late-no, later than that-marxist paper, but imho only nondualist mysticism works to unfuck that which marx and hegel and nick land hath fuckingly wrought.

but in general a learned skepticism makes all the sense in the world. that is the thing about postmodernity, the next turn of the screw: to be skeptical about that which is skeptical about everything. it's imho near to the root of the contemporary philosophical project, that doubt/irony/cynicism are themselves the mainstream modes, and their reach is long. so you have to begin to start swimming back the other away against a grand tide of mimesis. but that's just my own shitposting.