/lit/ - Literature

I was an Authoritarian Communist and then I got clownpilled hard by Cioran. Now with Junger's Anarch, that's the final strike. I am done with politics.

Can we discuss the emerging post left and right wing landscape? What are some post-left author except Jean Baudrillard?

>Still young, we launch ourselves into philosophy, searching not so much for a vision as for a stimulant; we track down ideas, diagnose the delirium which has produced them, dreaming of imitating and exaggerating it. Adolescence delights in the juggling act of altitudes; what it loves in a thinker is the acrobat; in Nietzsche, we loved Zarathustra, his poses, his mystical clown-show, a real farmer’s market of the peaks…
>His idolatry of power derives not so much from an evolutionist snobbery as from an inner tension he has projected outward, from an intoxication which interprets becoming and accepts it. A false image of life and of history was the result. But we had to pass through such things, through the philosophical orgy, the cult of vitality. Those who refused to do so will never know the relapse, the antipodes and the grimaces of this cult; they will remain closed off from the sources of disappointment.
>We had believed with Nietzsche in the perpetuity of trances; thanks to the maturity of our cynicism, we have ventured further than he. The notion of the superman now strikes us as no more than a lucubration; it used to seem as precise as a given of experience. Thus the enchanter of our youth fades. But which one of him — if he was several — still remains? It is the expert in failures, the psychologist, an aggressive psychologist, not merely an observer like the moralists. He scans with the eye of an enemy and makes enemies for himself. But he draws such enemies out of himself, like the vices he denounces. Does he attack the weak? He is merely being introspective; and when he attacks decadence, he is describing his condition. All his hatreds bear indirectly on himself. His weaknesses he proclaims and erects into an ideal; if he execrates himself, Christianity or socialism suffers for it. His diagnosis of nihilism is irrefutable: because he himself is a nihilist, and because he avows it. A pamphleteer in love with his adversaries, he could not have endured himself had he not done battle with himself, against himself — had he not placed his miseries elsewhere, in the others: on them he took revenge for what he was. Having practiced psychology as a hero, he proposed to the enthusiasts of the Inextricable a diversity of stalemates.
>We measure his fecundity by the possibilities he affords us of continually repudiating him without exhausting him. A nomad mind, he is good at varying his disequilibriums. In all matters, he has championed the pro and the con: this is the procedure of those who give themselves up to speculation for lack of being able to write tragedies — to disperse themselves in many destinies. Nonetheless, by exhibiting his hysterias, Nietzsche has spared us the shame of ours; his miseries were salutary for us. He has opened the age of “complexes.”

>>21412625
Kek, why I should care about "big" meta narratives rather than having my own? There is going to be a conflict in society? Boohoo who cares, there always be a conflict in the society and nobody can change this fact. Civilization like any other organism rise and fall. If it is dying then who are we to change this fate? The condition of man is in fall. There are nonhuman forces acting against him because he is out of paradise. Many messiahs with their big systems came who thought they could solve the conflict, now they're dead and forgotten. Their systems ended up creating more conflict than good. I owe my alliance to no State except my own State of the Internal. Taking a pseudo-ascetic path is the only way out of sociopolitical shitshow for any individual. Collective triumph is a meme.

>Physical scourges and the calamities of human nature rendered society necessary.
>Society has added to natural misfortunes. The drawbacks of society have made government necessary, and government adds to society's misfortunes. There is the history of human nature in a nutshell.

Chamfort, The Cynic's Breviary

>How vague it is to say: I tend toward one system rather than another. It would be more exact to acknowledge: I prefer this police state to that one. History, indeed, comes down to a classification of police; for what does the historian deal with if not men’s conception of the gendarme through the ages?

Cioran, All Gall is Divided

>Physical scourges and the calamities of human nature rendered society necessary.
Society has added to natural misfortunes. The drawbacks of society have made government necessary, and government adds to society's misfortunes. There is the history of human nature in a nutshell.

Chamfort, The Cynic's Breviary

>>19606407
BASED

>Were you reading Nietzsche then?

CIORAN: When I was studying philosophy I wasn’t reading Nietzsche. I read “serious” philosophers. It’s when I finished studying it, at the point when I stopped believing in philosophy, that I began to read Nietzsche. Well, I realized that he wasn’t a philosopher, he was more: a temperament. So, I read him but never systematically. Now and then I’d read things by him, but really I don’t read him anymore. What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.

>You write in The Trouble with Being Born that you stopped reading him because you found him “too naïve.”

CIORAN:That’s a bit excessive, yes. It’s because that whole vision, of the will to power and all that, he imposed that grandiose vision on himself because he was a pitiful invalid. Its whole basis was false, nonexistent. His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he’s pathetic, it’s very touching, like a character out of Chekhov. I was attached to him in my youth, but not after. He’s a great writer, though, a great stylist.

>>19528853
He was just a petty basement dwelling coomer who took himself way too seriously and cooked up all sort of grandiose nonsenses because in his personal life he was a total failure.

>Were you reading Nietzsche then?

>CIORAN: When I was studying philosophy I wasn’t reading Nietzsche. I read “serious” philosophers. It’s when I finished studying it, at the point when I stopped believing in philosophy, that I began to read Nietzsche. Well, I realized that he wasn’t a philosopher, he was more: a temperament. So, I read him but never systematically. Now and then I’d read things by him, but really I don’t read him anymore. What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.

>You write in The Trouble with Being Born that you stopped reading him because you found him “too naïve.”

>CIORAN:That’s a bit excessive, yes. It’s because that whole vision, of the will to power and all that, he imposed that grandiose vision on himself because he was a pitiful invalid. Its whole basis was false, nonexistent. His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he’s pathetic, it’s very touching, like a character out of Chekhov. I was attached to him in my youth, but not after. He’s a great writer, though, a great stylist.

>>19275967
>>19276061
>>19276106
He blqckpilled Jünger

Cioran while blackpill'ing Jünger with his nuclear blackpills. Just look at soldier's face