/lit/ - Literature

>>22043710
>>22044016
>How fix
Should be obvious. Like many people he was unfamiliar with the discipline of self-control, and probably unfamiliar with the discipline of purging of the lusts.

Imagine a brain wearing mormon underpants.

>>21778425
>You're either baiting or, at most, a fascist 13 year old.
>What a schizo idea of the world you want and how you must feel about our own
do you know what a thought experiment is? :)

also, you know, what i described is the society in more than half of the world today; w/ compulsory military service and arranged marriages. Surely more than half the world aren't "fascist schizo/s", are they?

Look,I'm not saying salesman by day / internet troll by night Chads 'should' be death marched under pretense of military service and removed from society that way, or that catlady Janes should be forced to be have babies and keep busy (since hey're awful at being mothers and ought not be allowed access to their children imo) BUT THESE THINGS would be expedient. It's up to you, if you care about society, to find better solutions.

>>21778459
>If I wasn't actively practicing my rhetorical writing,
ah if only more people got this, see image attached.

>People literally say that since
Sure but my point was that it's a delusional pejorative which we use when we're like.. 10 yrs old.. if that's the FINAL BASTION OF INTELLECTUAL DEBATE by a fucking 50yr old man and the segment of society he represents, then that's laughable for his claims to even 'have' a society in the first place.... and... anyway it ought go without saying that the projection of some pejorative onto someone is not a counter-argument.

Before 'incel', they'd be using 'gay' or something, it's just desperate infantile reactivism by, paradoxically, dorks on the internet who are the least likely to have a healthy sex life themselves. Almost every insult is a projection of the deepest guilt of a person. Bear this mind.

>>21398372
He wasn't "against" technology, that's a canard and obviously you haven't even skimmed anything he's written.

From what I remember it was more the threat of the technocracy that exists today that he was talking about, w/re: disassociation. Then again I thought the "surrogate activities" was the most insightful thing he came up with, as it causes everything we consider in /pol/tardery (left/right) but the motivation of the political type is explained as a mental illness or busy work" to make themselves feel validated and alive by being sociopaths to their fellow-humans.

>>21398381
>if a revolution ever happens humans will just do it again
this is true

>>21399298
well, a "revolution" that doesn't understand the cause of a thing can't revolt against it... change your diet if you have a shitty boypussy, anon, don't just keep buying wetwipes.

namsayin

chrysippus_inspirational_quote.gif

>>21305833
I've never heard a good case for what Jung offers that's actually useful to anything, I'm open to hearing one though.

Seems to me that you've got your wish already, anon, in that Freuds failed student and the "smoke crack and make-up whatever you like (spiritualism)" has been the ethos of the West for ages.

>>21305877
>>21305929
>The unconscious mind, not the conscious mind, has expanded over the last century, and the internet is only accelerating that expansion (at an alarming rate).
If you were aware of history you'd be aware that, despite the false-pretense of technology, that the behaviors people engage in today are identical to any urban environment.

I mean that when we're examining the insane things that people believe in and do, with no evidence to prove the result will be good, is simply Pathos (emotionalism, trigger-based reactivism, miserableness) subsuming the rational senses of an otherwise Logical mind.

>Archetypes don't possess much interest when the most intense aspects of your culture -- whether seen as good or bad -- relate to distributing, assembling, reproducing, iterating, etc., a constant flow of cultural scraps. The activity of communication is too fun/overwhelming/productive to be swept away in favour of 'what lies beneath'. Is how I see it.
This is a valid point but what if the archetypes are shit and a hindrance to resolution of whatever you want to resolve?

Culture; that is: "Ethos (or) Ethnos (racial habits, inherited opinion)" is not Logos either, it ought be said.

> 'what lies beneath' (the archetype)
... is the foundational error which fucks up every calculation based upon it, which is to say in remedy:
Felix Causas.

I might agree with this,
>Archetypes don't possess much interest when the most intense aspects of your culture -- whether seen as good or bad -- relate to distributing, assembling, reproducing, iterating, etc., a constant flow of cultural scraps.
As I observe the same preoccupation with fantasies being considered more important than reality by religions, ideologies, etc. There seems, however, to be a desire for stagnation in the people who go to such things, that is: they do not wish to remedy anything, least of all themselves, but merely to find some other mental construct to excuse their own laziness and disregard of things around them.

Such as this,
>>21308315
>Reminder: psychoanalysis and analytic psychology are objectively pseudosciences and there is no evidence that the subconscious mind exists.

>there is no evidence that the subconscious mind exists.
And yet there obviously is: a person with knowledge of their own workings is conscious and aware of how their workings might fail them sothey are mindful owards it, a person absent of this (for whatever reason) is unconcious; the dream-state or zombie-mode where they lack sel-control.

Hence, being led by Pathos means to be in the unconscious being directed by baseline impulses; not knowing right from wrong, self-defeat, etc.

>>21260422
Kind of drifting off topic here but....
> the society of polymaths
Could be said to actually be the baseline state of humanity when it's attuned to living in the world; I mean here that a modern job-worker does one small task, or a modern academic 'specializes' in one disconnected field, whereas our actual evolutionary path is evidenced to have necessitated 'polymathery'; that is mastery of the total environment without, it must be said, complex language or written record keeping to convey the wide-disparate knowledge of the use of 100+ local plants (for instance) onto another person, yet we know that they did this. Even knowing the"multidisciplinary uses" of one single plant is far superior to forcing ones own self to only ever think and use one single aspect of a single plant. img. quote related.


I would have gone with the Romans vs. Athens myself but I think the neolithic era actually makes the strongest case for this as to prove the point that 'this' is far moreso how our species is already wired by nature, by evolution, etc. vs. the contrary, and vs. the contrary claim that,
> You pretty much have to just accept that like 90% of people only want to be fed, healthy, to have fun, to have friends, to have respect, and to have sex.

>To that end mass education will inevitably bend towards technical education because that’s the only “useful” knowledge in the economic sphere that that 90% of people live their entire lives in
Even so, this is already refuted in the first paragraph, here: >>21260418 then we have a highly costly highly complicated education system which operates singularly and at massive cost of time and resources train people how to nothing with themselves at all, as humans are already in our poverty-ridden society today are considered to be completely superfluous.

>>20724894
>the presuppositions inherent in worldviews. It’s not the inferences we can draw between two points of sense of data, but the logic of inferences themselves.
The inferences or deductions 'are' the logic, it's not more complicated than this. Whereas, worldviews can be removed as not being derived from logic and needing logic to know whether they're valid or not valid - if it's the idea of 'ethos-stuff' that's making it hard (for a person) to grasp the focus on just logic alone.

>but how would you demonstrate the validity of the empirical method, for which there is no empirical evidence, in the first place?
> You have no choice but to go higher and higher into logical arguments,
Disagree.

Proof of prediction is how, this is how any theory is proven. If you've accurately predicted what will happen in XYZ then you're highly likely to possess the true working knowledge of how XYZ occurred, as you've been able to accurately predict what will happen. That's not necessarily 'full' knowledge of the processes occurring, but it's an actionable grasp on the thing and is superior anyway to 'no' actionable grasp on the thing.

>You can use the empirical method to reason logical inferences from experiments but how would you demonstrate the validity of the empirical method, for which there is no empirical evidence, in the first place?
It is itself the process 'of' evidence; the Cause and the Proof (for each Cause), that is: if it the evidence accurately predict a thing (next consequence in a sequence of events) then it would be in error as it would have failed in its predictive test.

>Demonstrable evidence? Not really. It’s circular. Logic to justify logic? If you’re a Christian, you’re going to justify the possibility for logic then in God,
I always think this is like the "reduction to the absurd", except in the other direction; "expansion to the absurd" where the person isn't content to understand how fucking useful it is to have mastered agricultural science, then they start wondering about other things which are progressively less and less actionable (see: image attached). I don't understand where the value is in doing that.

It seems more likely that the (see: image attached) person hasn't actually grasped how actionable their findings were in the first place, as they've brushed it aside and begun to muse upon the distant galaxies instead of using the knowledge they've gained for anything useful.

I think perhaps this is the massive difference in "the material vs. the spiritual" lol