/lit/ - Literature

>>10968637

Yeah, they are really having a dark era there on the Nordic countries

Liberalism BEGAN with mass murder.

>>10968637
>>>/pol/

>>10968637
All things end in mass murder, it's just entropy at work

>>10968646
>soc dems aren't liberal

>>10968669
actually liberalism began at Calvary, nerd. the terror wasn't a political theory, it was a crazed peasant anarchy.

>>10968669
liberalism existed before this... britain has always been the prime example of liberalism.

>>10968637
Nice >book you've got there.

what is the value of a life? not meaning to be edgy, but the unconditional sanctification of the individual life is a liberal idea, so you're judging the alternatives to liberalism through liberal ethics. I don't think there can be significant change in a political system without violence to destroy and remove entrenched interests.

>>10968704
>the unconditional sanctification of the individual life is a liberal idea
no

>tfw liberalism inevitably leads to suffering of the masses who then turn to ideologies of mass murder

if liberalism is so good people wouldn't always be willing to give mass murder another try

>>10968704
>unconditional sanctification of the individual life is a liberal idea
That's a Judeo-Christian idea moron

>>10968704
>>10968711
agreed, no. it's a primitive idea that existed before political parties.

burke was right

>>10968704
>what is the value of a life?
*unsheates katana*

>>10968728
Of centre, yes. Correct, no.

>>10968711
>>10968719
>>10968720
Liberalism is secularized Christianity.

>>10968734
secularised and corrupted Christianity*

the notion of progress makes no sense outside of a salvivic context

>>10968646
lol

>>10968646
this is prime comedy

>>10968737
liberalism and modernity aint the same shit, fascists believe in progress they werent liberal

>>10968734
*communism

People need to define liberalism ITT.
Some people have called Cicero the father of liberalism (I’m pretty sure the Founding Fathers loved him).
I don’t think he would side with liberals of the modern day.

Then there’s the whole shifting of the goalposts....a liberal from 30 years ago would be conservative today.

>>10968753
>Then there’s the whole shifting of the goalposts....a liberal from 30 years ago would be conservative today.
You should start defining it yourself, because that relationship doesn't apply to everyone.

>>10968684
>Boer concentration camps
>Irish famine
>Abandonment of White Rhodesians and South Africans
Genocide and massacre of enemies is ordinary poltics no matter the mask it wears.

>>10968753
Liberalism means believing in individualism to the extent that you deny all forms of relational meaning; hence the only rational way to live under a liberal regime is rational self-interest, which kills the soul

>>10968637
We could have an integralist Catholic state and force everyone else to either convert or live in ghettos. It worked for Italy for a while.

>>10968777
can we even go back to believing in say, virtues as a collective instead of just self-interest? i feel like every past relation has been thoroughly deconstructed and discredited by liberalism even if i don't like it

Religious liberalism is the pretty good I suppose

>>10968776
>Genocide and massacre of enemies is ordinary British politics*
Ftfy

>>10968777
>Liberalism means believing in individualism to the extent that you deny all forms of relational meaning
no you fucking retard

>>10968812
im not wrong

>>10968747
Liberalism is secularized communism?
That can't be right.

>>10968777
you should stop using the word 'rational'

>>10968753
This is Hegelian Dialectics at work. The thesis is the status quo. Then the antithesis challenges this state of affairs. The conflict between the two perspectives leads to a synthesis. The synthesis becomes the new thesis and the cycle continues.

“For a long time, technology appeared in the imagination as a pyramid standing on its head and undergoing unlimited growth, a pyramid whose free surface grew immeasurably larger. On the contrary, we must strive to see it as a pyramid whose free surface is progressively shrinking and which within the foreseeable future will have reached an end point.“

>>10968762
Fine...in my mind it is a political movement or organization that seeks to give voice and political capital to common people to act as a check against despotism and corrupt monarchy. The emphasis is on written law instead of the king’s absolutism.

>>10968753
You keep switching the definition of liberalism within your own post.

>>10968637
why was i born

>>10968637
What book best describes being too chickenshit to post your political opinion on the political board that you have to knock a perfectly good shitpost thread off the last page of an unrelated board?

>>10968835
Firstly, dialectics are Fichte, secondly, you have no idea about dialectics

>>10968849
to die

>>10968863
Back up your statement and I will hear you out.

>>10968637

I'm not a fan of it but monarchy was fine for thousands of years.

>>10968863
Didn’t Fitche expand upon Hegel’s original model?

>>10968646
prime bait

>>10968850
i trust lit to know more about politics than the average poltard

>>10968835
>“For a long time, technology appeared in the imagination as a pyramid standing on its head and undergoing unlimited growth, a pyramid whose free surface grew immeasurably larger. On the contrary, we must strive to see it as a pyramid whose free surface is progressively shrinking and which within the foreseeable future will have reached an end point.“
Hoo rote dis?

>>10968906
Ernst Jünger - The Worker

>>10968682
jews and their masonic lackeys deceive the superstitious peasantry of france yet again

>>10968835
Read Fichte, not Fallout.

>>10968918
Reading Eumeswil right now. This omega point take on technology is more transhumanist than i would've guessed from a guy that corresponded with Heidegger, unless it's more of an eschatological position, in which case ... based Jünger

You have to do a lot more work before you can have opinions like that OP.

Don't be lazy and don't be sloppy. If you're not up to doing the heavy lifting, fine, but stop sharing your half-assed opinions on the internet.

What does pure liberalism lead to? Nihilism?

>>10968940
I’m still waiting for an adequate explanation. I’m genuinely interested in your response.

>>10968637
liberalism is what leads to these alternatives though

perhaps the issue was where they started, rather than where they ended

>>10968988
Doesn’t Heidegger also take the eschatological route in his essay on technology? Isn’t the act of un-concealment or “revealing” the inevitable result of technicity? Wouldn’t reaching this “omega point” be technology’s telos?

Could it be that we can only rediscover being once we have emerged from the fires of this process?

>we know that destruction of this kind runs too deep and is too well founded to call any halt to it, and we cannot reach new harmonies without passing through this destruction.

>Apropos, technology does not contradict the great change. It will lead to the wall of time and it will be intrinsically transformed. Rockets are not destined for alien worlds, their purpose is to shake the old faith, it's hereafter shown wanting.

What faith have they, the rockets, destroyed? Perhaps science has provided the final nail in monotheism's coffin? Maybe the fact that said rockets careen into nothingness will ultimately prove that our titanic aspirations have proven to be presumptuous, that this philosophy does not contain the essence of meaning?

>>10969004
I don’t disagree with you. However, to be fair, if the Liberal order were to disintegrate I suspect there would be a mass loss of human life. Can you imagine a scenario where Liberalism would die peacefully?

>>10969007
I don't know what you think I promised you. I said read Fichte, not Fallout.

>>10969104
Tell me why my assertion is incorrect.

>>10969046
>Isn’t the act of un-concealment or “revealing” the inevitable result of technicity?
It's been a while since i read it, but I read it to mean technicity stopped revealing itself when it started in the mode of enframing. My interpretation is that we only can properly reveal once we get back to a more natural state of living. You'll recall in that essay Heidegger credits physis or nature as un-concealment in the highest sense, and if you impose a deterministic framework over this idea, technology can viewed as irreducible from physis and thus not enframing but also revealing in the highest sense.

>>10969137
You are misusing the term "Hegelian Dialectics." The process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis was not Hegel's, it was Fichte's. Stop learning philosophy from video games.

>>10968637
Liberal Society: Where No One Ever Dies:
(((EVER)))

>>10969046
>Could it be that we can only rediscover being once we have emerged from the fires of this process?
I'm really interested in this aspect of Heidegger. Heidegger acknowledged in the Der Speigel interview that there's no going back, and only a god can save us. I think Heidegger can be understood to posit two forms of thinking, one pure and one technical. He basically charges all of western metaphysics to be a from of the latter given that they failed to ask the truth of Being. I'm working on an undergrad thesis currently which suggests that these two modes of thinking, and the ascendancy of technical thinking have a neurochemical basis and an evolutionary story (though Heidegger would've rejected these lines of inquiry). You've basically anticipated my conclusion, that to return to Being and pure thinking, we need to accelerate technicity and genetically engineer back the atrophied neurological structures supportive of pure thinking. I call it ekstaic eugenics.

>>10969046
>>we know that destruction of this kind runs too deep and is too well founded to call any halt to it, and we cannot reach new harmonies without passing through this destruction.
>>Apropos, technology does not contradict the great change. It will lead to the wall of time and it will be intrinsically transformed. Rockets are not destined for alien worlds, their purpose is to shake the old faith, it's hereafter shown wanting.
Is this still Junger?

>>10969080

Can you imagine a scenario in which persons were less willing to talk about liberalism and more willing to read about it?


To be less of a smart-ass, do you realize how difficult the questions you're asking are? Do you have any idea how hard the question of "comparative violence" is? It takes 500 pages of reading at least to even get a vague sense of what "Communism" is, or "Liberalism." It would take 5,000 more pages to figure out "whether Communism or Liberalism causes more violence."

You're taking a picture of the mountain with your phone, to post it online and have people comment.

I'm trying to climb it. Come with me and be quiet, and let's get back to reading.

>>10969046
>What faith have they, the rockets, destroyed? Perhaps science has provided the final nail in monotheism's coffin? Maybe the fact that said rockets careen into nothingness will ultimately prove that our titanic aspirations have proven to be presumptuous, that this philosophy does not contain the essence of meaning?
I would read into these quotes, a post apocalyptic return to simpler and pre-rational times, which would naturally be closer to Being. I'd say that insofar as monotheism possess a certain logic of progress, of which science rides shotgun, science will join eschatological monotheism in the coffin.

quality post anon

>>10969080
>Can you imagine a scenario where Liberalism would die peacefully?

Can you imagine the october revolution, a worldwide maoist third worldist uprising, a messianic hacker insurrection, mai 68, the second coming of Christ, the finale of neon genesis evangelion, the coming insurrection and the final judgement happening all together at once? Cause that's what it would take. It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Maybe it's about realising the world already ended.

Heh, one of the more enjoyable threads on this board. Well done /lit/.

>>10968717
>if liberalism is so good
that's what OP seems to be sad about you fool, there is no alternative

>>10968637
nah, democracy does, mob rule does

>>10968637
>he says as pinochet kills another dissident

>>10969273
WHAT YEAR IS IT

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/167182673