/lit/ - Literature

Who are you quoting?

And we just had this thread.

>>14867626
I don't browse /lit/, so I must have missed it. The question has bugged me so much, though, I felt I needed to ask someone somewhere.

The excerpt is taken from
>https://attackthesystem.com/the-nietzschean-prophecies/

Nihilism has to be a Great Filter. Rarely listed as one, but I believe it is the end of civilization for any life form who depends on dopaministic-like rewards. Without a convincing and well defined set of moral values, the neurological reward system does not know how to evaluate life and organize will power, societies start going in random and contradictory directions. We bite our own tail and everything is relative, to the point we will eventually stop fighting for anything. There is no new ideology after postmodernism, we can only go back to religious dogma or tribal nationalism, or let artificial intelligence inherit civilization fixated on whatever goal we coded into it becoming impossible for us to stop.

>>14867595
The earlier epigrammatic writings have more to say on this, and the organization of society. In HAH, reference is made to the worst possible mode of social organization being that of a money philistine world-oligarchy (you may call it 'capitalism', I would name it occulted finance). The contest for dominion over the earth is at hand (the outcome determing whether or not we are, or become space monkeys).

>>14867685

An age of spiritualism guided by Guenon and other forgotten mystics.

>>14867595
Chubby chubby boyyyy!

>>14867595
>Nietzsche predicted that it would be well into the 21st century before Western thought fully confronted the crisis of nihilism
Source?

>>14867805
>https://attackthesystem.com/the-nietzschean-prophecies/

>>14867685
This is an incredibly interesting take, and I fail to see how a return to the roots would in any way become a reality. Just as you can't mend paper that is ripped, you can't go back to what was. Nietzsche seemed to try and address the dilemma of meaning through autopoiesis, but -becoming- seems like a process very far from the understanding of your average guy living their lives.
So in summae, are we collectively doomed?

>>14867685
>I want only go back to religious dogma or tribal nationalism
You will be filtered out Last Man

>>14867830
Only those who take a serious look at how we can make a future of what we’re left with will be able to save the race (the whole race) Pomo is a symptom of capitalism

>>14867830
>This is an incredibly interesting take,
Maybe if you're a newfag teen who just rocked up on /pol/.

>>14867899
I didn't say anything about wanting anything myself.
>>14867910
Ad Hominem does not address the validity of the claim.

Buddhism confronts reality more clearly and head on than Nietzsche. Enlightenment is where humanity will go if we don't fuck it all up.

Nietzsche was just jerking off over his own ego too much.. Too contradictory. Still my boy though

>>14867830
I think we can. Religion was dismissed on spurious grounds. They encode massive amounts of information on what is best for humans, so much so that secular ethical systems are basically like trying to code exclusively in assembler (while religions are higher level languages). But nothing is certain.

>>14867830
>fail to see how a return to the roots would in any way become a reality. Just as you can't mend paper that is ripped, you can't go back to what was.
Look at the Muslim world. It is more dogmatic today than in the late XX century. Mostly as a result of tribalistic reaction to armed conflict. And look at the rise in identity politics in the western world too. We are not immune to regression.

>>14867984
Except for the whole of history denying that we’ve ever gone backwards.
Religion is reintroduced to fresh young minds in conditions of poverty and despotism. They can and should be wiped away, and this is done best by ridding ourselves of capitalism.

>>14868011
>history denying that we’ve ever gone backwards.
I just gave two evident and currently relevant examples. Please tripfriend stop fishing for (You)s with annoying posts. It lowers the quality of the board.

>>14867830
Some new religion will come around and replace Christianity. That's exactly what Christianity did, after all (acted as a source if sincerity in a realm of atheistic irony).

No, it will not be Islam, Islam is just shitty Arab Liberalism. I will explain why if asked.

>>14868060
I just gave my reasoning for your examples. How many Iranians do you know?
I grant that I only know Iranian Americans, but seriously, many of these women will don bikinis again once the men leave

>>14867899
what is the way forward auntie? obviously a ‘return to the past’ isn’t the solution itself, so what is?

>>14868134
I think I agree with this.
So far, scientific progress keeps us entertained in an atheistic trend, because it is amusing to discover first hand how wrong ancient religions got it. But beyond every scientific discovery, new doubts emerge and we always put religion as a placeholder for explanations. As soon as we reach a dead end in science, be either because quantum mechanics really is beyond comprehension or economic limitations at exploring the cosmos or whatever, then religion will start gaining ground again. But as you say it won't be any existing religion, it will be a new one absorbing everything we know about the universe up to that point.

>>14868184
> as soon as we reach a dead end in science

We already have: science is unable to observe consciousness, or account for why it arises.

And yes, there is fertile ground for a new religion, but one that builds on the previous ones, and that does not rely on miracles. Stay in the ought side of the gap, leave is to science.

>>14867830
>and I fail to see how a return to the roots would in any way become a reality.
Read “The Benedict Option”, then.

>>14868225
We are making a lot of progress in Neuroscience. I don't know if it will get to the point of explaining a full model of consciousness some day, but so far it is not a dead end, yet.

>>14868162
I feel we can only effect positive change in society, the way we behave towards each other and the environment, if we stop doing capitalism. A diffused series of methodical direct democracies would replace states as we know them and corruption would dry up.
Treat each other as our wealth, and see work as our art.

>>14867595
>What comes after postmodernism?
Islam

>>14868134
>Islam is just shitty Arab Liberalism
Why?

>>14867595
The Foundation

>>14867685
Artificial intelligence already use dopaministic-like rewards.

>>14867595
>Such an outlook, which combines extreme moralism in the cultural and political realm, complete moral relativism in the philosophical or metaphysical realm, and at times even falls into subjectivism in the epistemological realm, is fundamentally irrational
But it isn't hypocritical to announce that metaphysically, there is no inherent value to life, while simultaneously creating your own value and strongly supporting it, as per modern political correctness. That's exactly what Nietzsche himself recognized.

>>14868241
>capitalism
Oh how did I not think about it. All problems stem from capitalism, if we get rid of it, corruption and human suffering will be a mere ghost of the past. It's a brilliant proposal.

>>14868281
But it gets fixated in the code and can potentially continue ad infinitum.

>>14868287
Don't expect miracles such as critical thinking from butterfag.

>>14868287
Capitalism is a system and it is corruption itself.
Replace money with a non accumulative currency in some community and watch the government come down them as if they were dangerous criminals.

>>14868314
And what thinking have you ever done?

>>14868321
>Capitalism is a system and it is corruption itself.
>Replace money with a non accumulative currency in some community and watch the government come down them as if they were dangerous criminals.
The great economist of our times, how has nobody thought of that one before, let alone tried your specific kind of a power vaccuum that magically will never be filled?

>And what thinking have you ever done?
Is this the best snarky insult you could muster? Try a little harder next time, bitch

>>14867899
I believe so, too. The point, however, is what will it take for us to say enough. I believe many have tried to solve the problem of meaning, but ultimately fail in the manner the author describes. Instead of generating being, they try and replace God with another promise.

>>14867976
I agree, to the extent that mythos reveals foundation, or describes archetypes, but I don't see us returning to dogma by virtue of reason. Like in the allegory of the cave, can the man that has seen the world return to seeing shades of it? I believe not. Only a form of being higher than that will ever satisfy him again.

>>14867984
The muslims haven't had the shock that us westerns have. They find their meaning still in religion, strict or not strict. Their God is not dead.

>>14867952
>Ad Hominem does not address the validity of the claim.
Oh wow anon so intelligent, so percepting! Maybe if hour head wasn't so far up your ass and you'll see I was not rejecting the validity of the claim(which is what you must believe I was attempting to do) but I was indeed addressing it. Because it proves my point that you only find some great value in what the anon said because it is new to you. I did as well at one stage, and it's still a nice idea to see.

But trust me, it's far better to be introduced to these concepts by their traditionally classical authros than with a /pol/-nietzsche-theology infograph.

>>14868234
Neuroscience deals entirely in abstractions, not in fundamental causes. There is no known reason why atoms should generate consciousness.

>>14868321
I should really have known better. The day we invented capitalism Evil entered human life and society. The answer is so simple, yet so effective: it can be summarized as the truthful words "dismantle the evil that is capitalism". If we only did that, if we could get rid of corrosive capitalism, humanity will sing in unison a song of peace and purity. We will finally rediscover our roots in nature and in loving brotherhood. No one will want to be corrupt or do harm. Because there will be no capitalism.

>>14868341
>They find their meaning still in religion, strict or not strict. Their God is not dead
Meaning is only half of the battle. Atheist societies are possible, societies where meaning is constructed by whomsoever wants meaning. The issue is not meaning, but common purpose, fraternity. Some find this in nationalism, some in religion, others in political tribes. This is also why i believe that it is possible for man to return into the cave, but this new cave will have to form around him with time, as anti-intellectualism blossoms.

>>14868341
> Like in the allegory of the cave, can the man that has seen the world return to seeing shades of it?

Ah, but it is the other way around. The material world is the shade, while the perennial truths in religion are the transcendental truths.

The material world is the CPU, religions are operating systems. Since they are information, they are never destroyed.

>>14868346
You have done nothing but attacking people, you have not contributed literally anything to the discussion. Which is what one would expect from a reply or the reply of a reply coming from an anon who knows so much.

>>14868331
There’s economists who I’ve read that came up with this. The ones that don’t have gone through capitalist universities and been taught to protect the status quo.
>Is asking a polite question from a snarky twit the best you can dooooo?
Squidward, please.

>>14868341
That meaning is open to interpretation and a little Epicurean sense is all I need. I think we lack this in our education and maybe that’s all that’s wrong.

>>14868356
>There is no known reason why atoms should generate consciousness
Your physical experience, your sensations are what they are precisely because of the atoms and photons involved. A machine might, for example, perceive the world as we perceive it, but using different atoms and different stimuli. A machine is a consciousness as well, just (usually) a purely rational one, and one that utilizes different sensory organs. What's the hard part is transplanting all the goals, the desires, the irrational emotions and the abstract pattern recognition of humanity that destabilize such rationality into a machine intelligence.

>>14868060

Well the iran was sanctioned to death by the world (mostly due to the usa), basically ever goverment got fucked by foreign agencies + an general instable region, no wonder they went back

>>14868404
>There’s economists who I’ve read that came up with this
I'd love to see some. Richard Wolff and Chomsky do not qualify as actual economists, aka those who deal with economics, in case you were wondering.
>taught to protect the status quo
You mean the kind of people who rebel against the status quo despite the status quo being the most simultaneously succesful, fair and natural economic system to date?
>Squidward, please
I didn't understand, were you trying to be humorous here? Condescending? I really can't tell.

>>14868388
>you have not contributed literally anything to the discussion.
Kek, but wrong.

>Which is what one would expect
Ignoring that I have contributed much and you must just be a retard or said teen, are you really so fragile? I have said what was necessary, you shall come to see it in time, and perhaps PICK UP A FUCKING BOOK instead of rely on /pol/ infographics to tell one about these important things and yet only in a diluted and reductive numbered form like in this one, ignoring also any official meaning of those numbers than the meaning of numbers themselves, numbering civilisations, and especially in the context of the infographic is not only stupid but COMPLETELY DEGENERATE!

>>14868454
I got 2 things to say as reply:
1. I have no idea what "/pol/ infographic" you have been reffering to in your posts. (If it's the Great Filter picture, it comes from a waitbutwhy.com article)
2. Your entire point in all your posts seems to be "I am a very smart person who already knew that, and knew it better than you all". You did not contribute anything substantial except a defense of your own ego, which was never in the discussion table in the first place for you to defend it so vehemently.

>>14868256
The Incidence* of Islam is fulfilling the Destiny* of a unified yet porous Middle Eastern market for the purposes of increased market stability (By freeing markets from political control) and efficiency (obvious). This is the entire goal of Liberalism, and Liberalism just does it better because it doesn't require the theological structures of Islam to support it. There's zero reason to become a Muslim to do Liberalism-Lite when you could just become a Liberal, which is why the leadership of almost every Muslim country (barring a few weirdos, such as Iran, which has had the same ideology since Zoroaster) is not actually an ideological Muslim, but is in fact an ideological Liberal.

The entire project of Islam is to knock down hierarchies, structures, and borders (real and metaphysical) for the purpose of submission to God, and forcing those who do not submit to submit. In doing so, it creates more efficient markets and capital flows. Again, that's the goal of Liberalism, so why do Islam when you could do Liberalism?

*I am using Spengler's terminology, but not necessarily in the Spenglerian sense. Destiny means "a broad system is in place such that a certain end goal is clearly visible and desirable to all parties interacting with the system", Incidence means "one of those parties actually fulfills that system and everyone says 'ah, but of course they would, it was so obvious'". To put it another way, SOMEONE was going to dominate the Mediterranean (Destiny) via a Mediterranean sea-trade based empire of city states, but Rome (Incidence) just happened to be the most capable of pulling that off.

>>14868184
It's not that Science can't have the answers, it's that the dominant ideology (Liberalism) is completely fucking bankrupt of them. The constant drive to efficiency and centralization found in Liberalism makes the discoveries of science meaningless, not the science themselves. Science is a tool, and one that Liberalism happens to use to justify itself, but the two aren't inherently connected.

>>14868225
>We already have: science is unable to observe consciousness, or account for why it arises.
Sure we can, the problem is, again, Liberalism. If you want someone who saw this, read Wholeness and Explicate Order, by Bohm. Hell, read any Process Philosophy, the human brain isn't a black box, we just operate under principles that treat it as one by necessity.

>>14868408
You think machines are aware, that they have qualia? You think all atoms do, are you a panpsychist?

>>14868501
Post the explanation for why consciousness arises in the brain, and not in other systems that have electricity jumping around, like a CPU or power grid.

>>14868486
You seem to think the ego is the cause of intelligence? Perhaps you merely project your own relation to your environment? Or perhaps you project something much more sinister... nevertheless I was helping you (all). Thank me.

>>14868434
>accredited professors of economics don’t qualify as actual economists
Stopped reading there. You may go.

>>14868434
lmao you're beyond cucked.
>>b-b-but my wife's boyfriend tells me that capitalism is "the most simultaneously succesful, fair and natural economic system to date"!!
even the basedboys have the decency to acknowledge their weakness, you're just deluded

>>14868524
>You think all atoms do, are you a panpsychist?
Fuck no.

>You think machines are aware, that they have qualia?
No, but i think that there is no reason why machines couldn't be aware and have qualia, based on how i view human consciousness. I'll expand on that a bit.

What is awareness? Define it.

I believe human consciousness, the ability to override our animal instincts, is functionally no different from our animal instincs. It's just a bit more complex in it's function. A machine's instinct would be experienced differently from our instinct. While we have this strange nagging at the back of our head at the thought of fucking, a machine's value hierarchy might be shuffled by it's internal workings to achieve the same behavior.

The subjective experience of a qualia is born out of interaction between atoms. If you were to separate the atoms of your nervous system from that which holds your consciousness, the brain, you would not be able to experience anything from the section of the nervous system that has been separated. There must be some component of physicality both in the brain and in sensory organs.

You can claim that machines, as opposed to humans, aren't self-aware, but self-awareness is also biochemical process (Exhibit A. un-self-aware animals, amoeba and retards) that can be re-created digitally once the processes by which relevant neurons and atoms interact are understood. The only thing you cannot model digitally is (in my humble theory) the actual sensation of seeing the world through chemicals and photons, but you can copy the actual functionality of the brain pretty much 1:1, should you have a machine powerful enough to model neurons (the lack of such a machine is why mimicking consciousness in a way completely foreign to the framework of matter you're operating under is a bad idea, but it's still theoretically possible.) I don't know if a machine with a different set of sensory organs built on a fundamentally different principle would have sensations as we know them. Perhaps those are unique to neurochemical-based consciousness.

So, there is a component of physicality both in the brain and in sensory organs. Self-awareness is a physical, biochemical process. Animal instincts are biochemical processes, and the experience of being an animal is likely exactly the same as being a 100 IQ human being, just without advanced pattern recognition and memory. It's not strange to imagine that our consciousness is wholly physical. You get dropped on your head, your personality might change. So why should the building blocks, that of which such consciousness is constructed, matter at all?

>>14868382
You raise a fair point, though I do not see how can any new fabricated meaning hold up against the evils Socrates unleashed. Questioning the validity of something is very ingrained in our natures. Perhaps in this ideal society of men that share the same purpose it could happen but, frankly, I don't think I could ever submit myself back to a willful ignorance. If I was given the choice to return to the roots, live simply and ignorant of questioning, I think I would still choose to be wiser, even if it meant more time in pursuit of something (that perhaps isn't even there).

>>14868387
Tying in to the idea discussed above, this thought really grapples me in the sense that I am awed by the possibilities of realms higher than our own. This is of a personal taste, and the reason I couldn't confine myself to be ignorant of my desires to know more.
It really is infuriating how nature gives so little answers, leaving us to guess and hope to live appropriately.

>>14868546
>consciousness
A meme. I mean that literally. Atoms aren't real, energy is. Energy moves in certain patterns, these patterns (processes) are all there is. You want some single atomic thing to point at and call consciousness, and if you can't find it in the brain you'll look in the soul, or the ego, or the spirit, or the lumiferous aether, or wherever. You're never going to find it. That's the problem that is run into, is the focus on the discrete and the shirking of the continuous. After this Western Liberalism collapses, that is where humans will look, and the fact that this isn't being looked into now is why MUH SCIENCE is slowing down: there is literally only so much the atomic worldview can describe, and we near that point.

What you should be asking is
>why intelligence arises in the brain, and not elsewhere?
and the answer is it does arise elsewhere, the brain is just far, far, far more dense and far, far, far more complicated than CPUs, powergrids, so the intelligence is far more powerful than those of systems simpler than the human brain (an electrical grid is indeed intelligent, and is indeed far less sophisticated than a human). Where is the central intelligence of a beehive? Don't just point at MUH BEES, show me THE intelligence of the beehive. You can't, because there is none, the intelligence of the swarm is an emergent phenomenon like the intelligence of the brain.

This is complete non-sensical schizobabble, and it must be by necessity, for we are men of the atomic age, and cannot understand the continuous as our descendants will. Bohm threw his hands up and said his work failed, even Whitehead couldn't really get what he was getting at.

>>14868634
>accredited professors
Nigger, my grandfather's brother was an accredited economist. He studied theology in bumfuck nowhere in a religious sect. Likewise, the actual economic acievements of both Wolff and Chomsky can be summarized down to: "Fucking magnets, how do they work?". Go on, bring out their CV. Show me what wondrous economic discoveries they have made, and how they are the authority on the subject. I'll be waiting.

>>14868658
>succesful
<Whole developed world embraced some form of capitalism, seems to be optimal for large populations and meeting demand
>fair
<Based on freedom of voluntary association, nonviolence and consequence of own actions
>natural
<In line with the competitive nature of people, allows us to express desires we never even knew we had

I agree that systems such as anprim are much more natural, but the balance of fairness and economic success to naturality of such an economic system would get fucked in an instance.

>>14868682
Awareness is perceiving sensory inputs, the thing that doesn't happen in, say, a camera. What is your answer to the hard problem of consciousness? Eliminationism? Non-reductive physicalism?

> The subjective experience of a qualia is born out of interaction between atoms.

An unknown. Interaction between atoms occurs constantly, everywhere, and there isn't some fundamental physical difference between the interaction that occurs in the brain and that which occurs elsewhere.

> There must be some component of physicality both in the brain and in sensory organs.

Yes, in the same sense you can fuck up a program by smashing the CPU it is running on. However, an algorithm still exists even if it isn't running on any hardware.

>>14868720
>Still bringing up Chomsky
Hilarious. Now go.

>>14868686
>Questioning the validity of something is very ingrained in our natures
This is true, but it is not inevitable in all cases. Take, for instance, Christianity in the middle ages. Nobody wanted to question that shit.
>I don't think I could ever submit myself back to a willful ignorance
We're talking about things that would theoretically happen over centuries. You won't have to submit to anything except death, your descendants might submit what they could be indoctrinated to believe is evil and inaccurate, science, and unknowingly, by searching for the truth, choose ignorance.

>>14868750
Hilarious. You're the one who called him an "accredited economist". Now go.

>>14868704
Wow. Somebody smart is on 4chan. I am confused about one part, are you saying once liberalism collapses that things will improve or are you saying the opposite

>>14868746
>Awareness is perceiving sensory inputs
What was that place called, boston robotics? Well, regardless. Robot looks at the enviroment, chooses to run. Perceived a sensory input and acted based on that.

>and there isn't some fundamental physical difference between the interaction that occurs in the brain and that which occurs elsewhere
Exactly. Yet we still have consciousness, so we must conclude that specific kinds of interactions of specifc kinds of atoms lead to the kind of sensations we attribute to human consciousness.

>Yes, in the same sense you can fuck up a program by smashing the CPU it is running on. However, an algorithm still exists even if it isn't running on any hardware.
An algorithm is a physical entity. and interacts with certain physical entities. Now, an algorithm can be also modelled in theory, just how one can draw out an atomic model. But an algorithm has to physically exist in a form that is understandable to the CPU in order for the CPU to act according to the algorithm.

>>14868704
what increases awareness/intelligence. i don’t believe ‘selection pressures’ is the answer, so what is?

>>14868704
>the intelligence of the swarm is an emergent phenomenon like the intelligence of the brain.
Not an emergent phenomenon. A bee swarm has no intelligence, that is an abstraction of the behavior of individual bees when working towards a common goal. Just as the individual parts of the brain feed eachother information that, in it's totality, leads to hearing, feeling, thinking, emotions, rationale, you name it. As you probably know the brain has different parts responsible for different things. You can turn off some parts without turning off the consciousness, but others are essential processes. True, there isn't a "single point" that holds consciousness, but there are different points (quite large points, but defineable nonetheless) that hold different aspects of what humans have taken to calling "consciousness".

>This is complete non-sensical schizobabble
Not yet, but the next part you wrote sure is:
>and it must be by necessity, for we are men of the atomic age, and cannot understand the continuous as our descendants will

I agree that there is a crisis of meaning not exclusively in the West but globally. And I agree the problem is with secularism unable to provide a suffciently juicy alternative to God. Religions are fundamentally misunderstood by many secularists . The common refrain among them is that religions and religiosity has persisted for thousands of years because of ignorance. In actuality religions or rather the ones which are "naturally selected" over the others to persist over centuries do so because they are amenable to sustaining and speaking to human psychology.

Take the useful concept of sin. The idea that there is an internal spiritual economy of credits and debits, and that misbehaviors can blacken your soul is quite a useful ethical concept. It gives greater stakes to morality, portrays it as a a heroic struggle between universal forces. This is uplifting. It makes morality more than just about the status of one's ego. The concept of the devil is similar. It is a construct that embodies all of the vilest human traits. It serves as a warning. The result of all these concepts is a well-packaged and transportable set of morality lessons that can reach any person regardless of their level of education.

That's not to say we should abandon rationality for superstition. Rather the rational elucidation of religion makes its value all the more apparent.

There is an entire different side of this problem of the crisis of meaning which Nietzche could not have anticipated. That is the informational and cultural disarray and social fragmentation caused by the internet. This is a whole other story worthy of another post.

>>14867685
>There is no new ideology after postmodernism, we can only go back to religious dogma or tribal nationalism

Or look to Eastern Religions that overcame nihilism millennia ago...

Everyone ITT is underestimating Christianity's resilience. You all might as well be living during the 5th Century at the height of Arianism. The Church has looked dead to rights before and survived, and then thrived. It will happen again. God will get out of the grave.

>>14868823
>That is the informational and cultural disarray and social fragmentation caused by the internet
Do expand on this. I have noticed some anecdotes popping up of the access to everything one could ever want devaluing art, information, what have you. But i don't know how much weight could be assigned to that.

>>14868778
Depends on the timescale. Liberalism won't "collapse", per se, but just wither and die, like the Classical World did. For many, this will suck. For many, this will be great. A good book on this phenomenon (collapse=good=bad, how can be both???) is Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul, on Libgen, which covers a rough equivalent (the immediate collapse of the Classical World due to Barbarian invasion).

This will, most importantly, free up capital and make things more efficient. That's a very Liberal way of looking at it, just as saying that Christianity taught Virtue and Vitalism to the Germanics is a very Classical way of looking at things. The Medieval period was one of great technological and intellectual advancement, it just was mostly unglamorous. Compare a Trireme to a Carrack. The biggest thing is that Rome, much as our Liberal Society, relied HEAVILY on cheap energy (slaves, oil). The fall of Liberalism will free that up, in the long run for the better. In the short term, no, if "improve" is defined by "increasing the amount of plastic shit I can acquire", then things will definitely not improve in the short term.

>>14868794
I don't know, and in many ways I can't. If I had to spitball a theory or two, I'd wager that density of thinky-bits is important. A power grid is super-decentralized, and moves super slow. Compare that to your brain, which is hyper-dense, and incredibly fast at passing signals along. I'd argue that things like war, governments, states, nations, religions, etc are intelligent in a super-organism sense, and operate on systems that we do not recognize as meaningful (and do not recognize our systems as meaningful), but they can only achieve this intelligence through MASSIVE scale. You have roughly 8.6*10^10 neurons in your brain, WWII could have, at most, had like 2.5*10^8 think bits if it included the entire planet, spread across the entire planet.

>>14867595
This is so bad. Is this published?

>>14868842
"Selection pressures" can thus result in that "increased thinky-bits", of course.

>>14868820
> that is an abstraction of the behavior of individual bees when working towards a common goal.
Right, which is an emergent phenomenon, just like how a human is just a collection of cells working towards a central goal. You can break it into roughly discrete parts that constitute major parts of that emergent phenomenon, but it's still an emergent phenomenon. Saying that a swarm lacks intelligence, despite it fulfilling the seven criteria for life, is silly. If you're just going to be autistic about human intelligence, then yeah, obviously it's unique, there's nothing like it on the planet, but saying that there's absolutely nothing even comparable is laughable.

>>14867685
We should go back to something akin to tribal nationalism because it is an inherent part of life from evolutionary and genetic competition

Who was it who said that after the Modern world we'd have a "renaissance of the Medieval," the same way the first Renaissance was a renaissance of the Classical? As in, we'd enter a kind of interregnum that involved a rebirth of the thought and learning of the Middle Ages. I swear I read about it somewhere.

>>14868828

The only way for Christianity to survive and prosper again is either to change so much it is beyond recognition or Never change and retreat from secular life and become a mystery to the average Joe.

Reformation is death

>>14868873
Sounds gay

>>14868704
>and the answer is it does arise elsewhere, the brain is just far, far, far more dense and far, far, far more complicated than CPUs, powergrids, so the intelligence is far more powerful than those of systems simpler than the human brain (an electrical grid is indeed intelligent, and is indeed far less sophisticated than a human).
Interesting. Whitehead wasn’t just some meme like that French gerbil
>>14868842
>Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul
Will check it out

>>14867595
Read Derrida. The 'old faith' is preceded by the metaphysics of presence that also governs the 'liberal crusades'. It's not nihilistic, rational, or even postmodern. It's not even more of a 'crisis' than any other attempt in metaphysics to find our origin and end in the immediate proximity of truth.

>>14868864
>Saying that a swarm lacks intelligence, despite it fulfilling the seven criteria for life, is silly
If it's not a single organism, it's wrong to consider itto have intelligence in my book. Sure, the emergent behavior exists, but the abstraction of a "swarm" is unspecific, and unhelpful in a conversation about speculations on the structure of consciousness. Being autistic about these things is important imo.

>but saying that there's absolutely nothing even comparable is laughable
Not if we're being autistic about this, but otherwise i agree. Be it comparable in it's effect (human brain vs theoretical advanced AI), or in it's inner workings (human brain vs pig brain).

>>14868880
Well the Traddening could potentially accomplish the latter, so there's that.

>>14868838
The crux of the problem with the internet is the need for cultural and mental cohesion. The internet is the postmodernist concept of hyperreality elevated to its most excessive state. A barrage of decontextualized images, media snippets, and messages. A highly concentrated yet diffuse entity, it is "everything in one." It is an acid that seeps in and corrodes the coherence and identity of any local culture and which in its unrestricted access confuses good and bad. Because it is "everything and one" it dissolves clear boundaries and categories, and replaces them with a lowest common denominator of culture that provides nothing of sustenance.

Beyond the cultural impacts are the individual psychological ones. The false sense of connectedness the internet gives, creates a sick form of loneliness, one that feeds on hollow senses of belonging. It fragments and damages attention. It sucks you in and wastes your time. It is inherently habit forming because of its rich pool of stimuli, there is always something new of every stripe to check out. And it is the central apparatus of the modern economy. Despite its harmful effects, it is inescapable, thereby creating a schizophrenogenic double bind.

In short, the internet makes true meaning more difficult to obtain while posing as a source of meaning.

>>14868241
I find it curious, that you argue in favour of direct democracies. Hans Jonas very successfully demonstrated in DAS PRINZIP VERABTWORTUNG, that as long as the uneducated, uncultured, failed masses hold political power, society regresses to the point of obliteration of those societies, when looking at trump, or Boris Johnson it is clear he was right

> Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul, by Ralph W. Mathisen
>50MB.
Wtf?

>>14868899
These metaphysics of presence sound like complete bullshit. Plausible but unsubstantiated bullshit. Can you elaborate on them?

>>14868923
You solve the problem right there in your post. Don’t you see it?

>>14868904
I see that your point is mostly in terminology, and I agree completely that the existing language to discuss this is incomplete. That's part of what I meant with
>This is complete non-sensical schizobabble, and it must be by necessity, for we are men of the atomic age, and cannot understand the continuous as our descendants will.
It's not that we're physically incapable of it, but rather that there's so much work to be done that we simply do not have. We lack the terms to even begin discussing such ideas of intelligences (as I have been using it here) outside of those resulting from a (namely human) mind. I personally find the idea of a "super-organism" as things such as swarms are often called to be... lacking.

>>14868880
>retreat from secular life and become a mystery to the average Joe.
it's already happened. Not the "retreat from secular life" but the "become a mystery to the average Joe." Your average self-professed American Christian is only nominally such. Go to pews, and the average Christian there is poorly catechized. Go to non-Christians, and (despite atheists claims to the contrary) they don't know what they hate beyond a parody they themselves constructed.

I think the extent of the average person's knowledge of Christianity amounts knows some stories/figures from the Old Testament, and couple truth-claims such as the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, some more famous miracles, the Virgin Birth and Nativity, Heaven and Hell. If you know more about Christian theology than this, you're already in a small group of people who bewilders the rest.

>>14868920
brilliant

>>14868941
Did you just 180 your support of direct democracies?

>>14867595
Just to clear things up a bit, what is really being talked about here is anomie. Nihilism is a philosophical position which proposes that there are no 'cosmic' values (i.e. values that precede valuing agents), but it in no way proscribes the act of valuation which is so basic to our natures (nor does it suggest that values are pragmatically unimportant).

Liberalism is like a force of nature, especially as civilizations become wealthy. People get soft, indulgent and atomized in their little capitalistic bubbles... I suspect most of the intellectual bankruptcy just happens ex post facto to rationalize ever more indulgent/individualistic behaviour. Also consider that this 'softness' feminizes the men of a society, which in turn opens the door to anyone wanting to usurp the hegemony of that society (feminists, minorities, oligarchs, deviants, etc).

No doubt there are some philsophical seeds which have borne rotten fruit (i.e. the 'enlightenment'), but I submit the major trends of liberalism and capitalism are far more fundamental and profound vectors of anomie than any philosophical or secular 'crisis'.

>>14868920
I get what you're saying, but does that not only apply to people unaware of these individual, psychological "consequences" of the internet?
I know that 90% of the internet is fucking stupid bullshit, I don't even approach that shit.
It's like going to the zoo.

>>14868949
>We lack the terms to even begin discussing such ideas of intelligences (as I have been using it here) outside of those resulting from a (namely human) mind
Agreed.

>I personally find the idea of a "super-organism" as things such as swarms are often called to be... lacking
The foundation is solid. An identifiable whole made up of a multitude of physically independent actors acting with a common goal through certain internally reciprocated stimuli. (Queen bee pisses anger chemicals, all of the bees get angry, for example)

I'm not as well-versed in the subject as you are, so i'm afraid i missed the point with your original post (The one you quoted in the post i'm replying to rn). Could you summarize it to me without using those extremely annoying g*rman forms of address, and in fewer words?

>>14868986
>that as long as the uneducated, uncultured...
The uneducated are a byproduct of capitalism as the illiterate were of feudalism.
Democracy, only able to work effectively in small groups, we’re warned, works perfectly for our greater ends.

>>14869012
Can't comprehend the second part of your reply, I find it unreadable but the first one is interesting. Are those your own thoughts? Who do you base them on?
Sounds somewhat anarchist to me, the only anarchists I read are Maхнo and Бaкyнин.

>>14869012
Nvm. Got the second part now

>>14867952
>>14867830
cringe

>>14867595
I can’t see into the future, so any predictions I make will be dubious at best, but is it possible that the nihilism that pervades the post modern era could actually revitalize and temper our spirituality and morals among other things? Perhaps it might even catalyze the events that would lead to the dramatic shift needed to avoid the utter destruction of civilization. Would this be considered accelerationist?

>>14868060
>le cherry picked photo of a minority group of upper class iranians maymay

>>14869098
You don't need to state that you can't see the future, buddy.
No one expected you to be a clairvoyant

>>14869123
I don’t like talking in absolutes and I’m very self-deprecating

>>14869057
I’ve read a little of a bunch of all the older ones, but most recently been reading Bookchin.

>>14869135
I was just saying that the phrasing was weird

>>14868920
I don't think this is the effect on everyone, only with those lacking the most self-control and affected by bad parenting, no discipline, and such. It's a decent analysis, but either i'm not intelligent enough to understand it, or it doesn't hold water for as many people as it would need to in order to significantly influence the cultural cohesion of a people.

>>14869012
>The uneducated are a byproduct of capitalism
How the fuck?

>>14869006
tl;dr of my very first post, >>14868501, is that what made Islam successful in its original spread is already done better by a different ideology, namely as Liberalism is an ideology rather than a religion, and lacks most of the trappings of a religion. Because of this, I don't see Islam AS IT CURRENTLY IS as a possible replacement for Liberalism. If Islam changes, all bets are off.

tl;dr of >>14868704 is just that you can't find a single "point" of consciousness, it comes from various parts working together to result in an emergent phenomenon; it's a process that gets suitably complicated, so a big or dense enough process could be called intelligent/conscious, or some approximately similar term. We tend to look for "atomic things", atomic in the sense of a single basic substance that is whole and not divisible in any meaningful way, like an atom, which are discrete and if they can be broken up are breakable along discrete lines (there are precises two protons in a helium nucleus, for example). There is only so far this discrete thought can take us, however, so scientific discovery naturally slows. I predict that future generations will thus think about the continuous, opening up new avenues for scientific discovery. Whatever it is they discover, I lack the language to even begin to think further about, hence why I said it's schizobabble.

>>14869160
Thanks for taking the time and breaking things down, i understood >>14868704 mostly correctly, it would seem. Can you elucidate what you meant by "the continuous" at all?

>>14869012
funny how the anarchist supports state indoctrination

>>14869218
Remember, it's anarchism as long as she gets to make the rules.

>>14868785
> Robot looks at the enviroment, chooses to run. Perceived a sensory input and acted based on that.

There was no qualia though, no image formed for the robot, any more than an image forms for a shoe when light bounces off it.

> Yet we still have consciousness, so we must conclude that specific kinds of interactions of specifc kinds of atoms lead to the kind of sensations we attribute to human consciousness.

But there isn't any special interaction in the brain! If it's true that atoms give rise to consciousness, it inevitably leads to panpsychism.

> an algorithm is a physical entity.

An orthodox platonist? Code in human readable form is not intelligible to the CPU, yet, it clearly still exists even when it's not running.

Religion and dogma is just the manifestation of subconscious childhood wishes for parental guidance and protection. Most people are not raised by good parents many parents see children as a way of validating themselves and they push their own defense mechanisms and denial on their children. They do this at a great cost to the child they will abuse and mistreat their child in an attempt to make them like themselves so as to become valid beings however this is not real growth and is hollow. This is reflected in our society through religion, political parties, ideologies, etc these are all products of subconscious childhood wishes for love and acceptance from parental figures. Growth comes when you are able to grieve the abuse and trauma that was put on you at such a young age and when you are able to challenge the parental authority figure which may be manifesting as an entity distinct from your parents like religion, the state, etc.

Value exists within spirit and consciousness it is an innate property of spirit there is no requirement to be fulfilled all spirits are valuable and that is where all meaning lies not just figuratively but literally too. Symbols are given meaning through spirit not the other way around. The universal objective truth is that consciousness itself is the source of value and all things derive meaning from it. This doesn't require authority or dogma yet it gives you meaning. Just like an individual will take years to grow and overcome his or her trauma society will as well but as individuals grow on their own they will undoubtedly influence others and more people will grow and get closer to the "overman"

>>14869179
Mathematically, in arithmetic we can view things as discrete, or continuous. If things are discrete, then there is no "in between". 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. There is a gap between 1, and 2. You cannot have 1.5, for example, or if you can there is some gap between 1 and 1.5, and 1.5 and 2. We can describe an object as being discrete if it is entirely self contained. Atoms are discrete in the sense that they have a set number of parts (a set number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, ignoring ions and isotopes because this isn't about chemistry). There are clear bounds to where they begin and end. We can almost think of them as material versions of Platonic Forms, if you will: A chair has clear and distinct boundaries and is not part of the table.

Something can thus be "continuous" if we bring in calculus. While we can divide the space in between 1 and 2 into infinitely many discrete numbers (1.000...001, 1.000...002, etc), we can also take a different view that there is some stretch between 1 and 2, and at some point that stretch reaches 2. Trying to square the circle of reaching the continuous from the discrete resulted in a lot of philosophy in the Classical world, and it took the Medieval world to simply look at the problem a different way. This is the sort of paradigm shift I'm talking about that will happen when Liberalism ends. It's super fucking simple, you experience this when just walking around a room, but we act as if it's not. Xeno's paradox (Achilles chases a tortoise, every step he takes he crosses 1/2 of the remaining distance between he and the tortoise) is an example of the flaws of purely discrete thinking: Achilles will eventually catch the tortoise, we know this from simple human living, eventually he can no longer take a step that small and MUST surpass the tortoise (don't stray too far into Xeno's Paradox, it's not 100% relevant).

We have found the continuous, but not embraced it. We can see that things are continuous, but we must consciously dip out of our "normal" discrete thinking to do so. For example, the boundary between me (the autist) and you (the reader) is murky, because I am influencing you by you reading this. I am no longer discrete, and neither are you; we are continuous, and at some level we overlap.

But that's fucking batty, and "normal" philosophy in the Western tradition views that as aberrant and weird (rightfully so). Other philosophical traditions touch on this, but none really embrace it. The Aztecs most of all, but for obvious reasons (Spanish colonization) we cannot see first hand just HOW much they embraced it. The battiness of this is, what I predict, will be overcome by our descendants, as all of this ties into the "quantum realm" (a shitty term, but perhaps you can see what David Bohm means when he says it from this post, and the possibility of breakthrough it yields).

>>14869436
>>14869451
Brainlet take. Also: didn’t read.

>>14869460
I read your post anon.

>>14869300
>There was no qualia though, no image formed for the robot
There was. The robot got information from a sensory organ, a camera, and interpreted said information in a way that helped it's decisionmaking process. It's completely irrelevant whether or not the information is biochemical or digital. It's idiotic to tie consciousness into a particular, human way of perceiving the world.

>But there isn't any special interaction in the brain
The only thing "special" about the interactions in the brain is the particular interactions that the brain has developed to sustain. Nothing supernatural about it.

>it inevitably leads to panpsychism
How the fuck

>An orthodox platonist?
Not quite. In order for code to exist, it needs to actually exist in the real world. You can have the idea of the code, but in that case the code does not exist, the idea of the code does. Regardless. The code can exist either on a sheet of paper, in which case it exists but is unrecognizable to a machine, or the code can exist in another kind of format which is understandable to a machine. The latter means that the code, in whatever format machines use to encode information, exists as a physical entity, yes, even when it is not actively running.

>>14869503
Consciousness cannot ever be converted to information. Consciousness is not symbols and information processing does not relate to consciousness at all. A simple thought experiment that makes this abundantly clear is the fact that there are no physical laws preventing an exact copy from me existing at the same time sitting in the chair next to me. And it is a property of consciousness that it is not tied to a particular location in space as I am able to move to that chair performing the same processes in my brain and still be me yet it is obvious that this being would not be me at all.

There are also no physical laws that discriminate against particular atoms of the same kind and produce completely different outcomes consequently which would be required for a duplicate configuration of atoms to be different from me.

Beyond all of that though the reason information is so important is because our entire understanding of all natural laws and the physical world exist solely as information. We cannot tap into an atom beyond the information that makes up an atom and the experience of the atom. Consciousness is different you can't understand consciousness completely with just information you have to actually BE conscious to understand it. This is a self-evident property actually it is a fundamental property of consciousness the fact that it is an entity capable of experiencing.

>>14869532
>there are no physical laws preventing an exact copy from me existing at the same

Conservation of Information.

>>14869503
>n order for code to exist, it needs to actually exist in the real world. You can have the idea of the code, but in that case the code does not exist, the idea of the code does.
Yes but in order for the code to be run you must experience the code running. Experience + information = reality. Those are the dual properties of reality that people think of as the "mental" and "physical" but in actuality they are all properties of the spiritual.

>>14869538
No anon if there were laws preventing duplicates of me there would be a law preventing me from existing. The fact that my configuration of atoms is possible means another configuration of atoms is also possible exactly like me. And the atoms that make up me are very abundant.

>>14869545
The problem here comes with the word 'exact' and the fact that there is a limit to the information you can possess about a system.

You can make something very similar to 'you' but considering the delicacy of your nervous system, it will not be you.

>>14869572
Yes but the main point is that there is no real law preventing it. It is just highly unlikely to the point where it would basically never happen. But the fact that there is no reason for it beyond the impracticality of it can tell you something about the understanding of the world as a "physical" world.

>>14869579
Conservation of Information is a real physical principle.

A difficult question. Only a god, or some equivalent force, can save us.
Our situation is paradoxical, we exist outside of the kantian limits capable of comprehending either the Ubermensch or the Last Man, yet this very position prevents us from seeing the force of which we are a part. If a solution were even presented would a man who has severed his own head as a sacrifice to power be capable of a return to being? Modern man devises an impossible defense of the simple, and all of his laws follow the technique of Uranus banishing his sons and Zeus imprisoning the Titans. The means of this cannot be spoken either, out of fear that it will become so much more.
We think that we have banished the gods, but in truth we have committed our own self-exile from being, even as we are overwhelmed by it. The misanthrope sacrifices himself in his mourning of the world; all of the dark forces he had cursed his fellow men with he carries away with him. Man imagines his own incredible power, yet he climbs up the scales of the greatest monster and cowers within them - perhaps in his madness imagining a return to the Bronze Age and the hollows of ash trees.

If all laws are reversed in our era then time is already allied with the low. When the powerful become lost to law they must abdicate or declare war on the brutal mechanisms of time. The clocktower calls a temporary death of the world, and their increased precision should have served as an omen to the monarchies. An increase in morality demands instrumentation, the very installations which will eventually displace it.
Eyes that dissect can only imagine the occasionalism of life, the teleological limit that persists after death - the perpetuum mobile containing the prima materia. Unsuccessful in creating life from material man can only impose laws of reflection; the persistance of gypsum and glass in our great monuments to death. “Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." Incapable of keeping the Giants imprisoned man decides that the world must be shifted ever farther away from himself. Zeus may be dead or in exile, but something has been learned of his craft.

>>14867685
>dopaministic-like
this is your brain on popsci

>>14869648
A greater question is the return to religious thinking, whether or not enough people would even be capable of such a shift, let alone the difficulties in implementing the necessary changes. Generally speaking, we see religion as just another instrument which precludes morality or something greater. The paradox of the triumph over death: everything must be sacrificed before the Wheel of Fate. All of our monuments are a fulcrum of being, symbols of our perfection of the means of escape. Yet symbols always have a dual nature, Janus-faced portals of our entry into a new world, or its intrusion into our territory - just as the Leviathan was a claim to a dominion beyond its strength.

Another difficulty remains in that the number of people interested in such thinking diminishes along with the years. Most would even be repulsed by such attempts - both the technician and neoluddite only wish to view the material effects of ideas, as if through a prism. They would be horrified to realise that it is their being which acts as a means to all that they oppose. Imprisoned giants may only escape or be enslaved.
A catastrophe could be brought forth by a god and we would be incapable of recognising it; there are even those who welcome life amidst ruins. The eschatology of time is closest to the primordial, its weapons handed off to us. Such beings have no need of gods.

Ontology is only a question when the elements of an age are uncertain, for those blind to their being swept up in the tide which defeats the gravity of the earth. Meaning necessitates nihilism, just as the priest needs vice for his morality. What is most horrifying for those who oppose the transitional age is that we will enter another. Odysseus as a beggar rather than a king; the simple peasant folk tale rather than the war of the titans. Our situation dictates this, we have no will to understand political theology, nor the Machiavelli figure to implement it. Even dialogue is lost to us.
What matters most of all, perhaps even more than survival, is to not become paralyzed by the ruins - either through fear or their sensuous power. The persistance of contradictions reduces the paradoxes through moral exhaustion. But then instrumentation is sure to follow. Celebration is in order.

https://youtu.be/9p0w6Hou67s

>>14868486
you are retarded

>>14869634
I don't think so I can't find anything on it. The only thing I find seems like it is arguing about determinism which is really not a law or provable.

>>14869677
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem

>>14869691
I don't think information is being used in the same way there. That is specific to quantum mechanics. Also it doesn't relate to what I am saying there really is no law saying there couldn't be a world with perfect copies of someone even if it is highly improbable.

>>14869150
Seriously? How is it that poor people have inferior educations and how is that wealthier people have educations that serve to prop up the socioeconomic status quo? You’re not sure how that happens?

>>14869218
>I will stuff words into her mouth to assure my jangled nerves
>>14869273
I’m theorizing how a free people might organize themselves. You feel any and all schooling is tyranny, or just the schooling that supports this imagined better world?
Postmodernist fascism must be given a fair reading, must it?

>>14869451
Thanks for your posts.

Going off the aztec example you used. Are you the poster who brought up Aztec philosophy a few months or so ago? If you are what was that book you posted please.

>>14867595
The Second Religiousness comes next. It is already almost on us. Rationalism and empiricism will both die out in favor of mysticism. Truth will become what is believed, rather than what is reasoned or observed. But meaning, authority, morality, and tradition, will be restored. The Second Religiousness comes as a cultural antibody, just as everything is about to collapse.

Man realizes what has actually been lost in his attack on tradition. He fought for equality and liberty. He became intoxicated with his liberation from tradition and authority, but then came to ask "What now?" Intoxication turned to anxiety in the face of the black void he created for himself. Everyone has been made equal by the destruction of authority, but nobody is really free. Man has been made the measure of all things, but in doing so has lost his freedom because he is now burdened with the unanswerable question of his own existence.

"Who am I, for what purpose am I living, and what is the sense in my existence?" This is nihilism. The man that asks this question marks himself as a Transition Man. The Religious Man doesn't ask this because he feels it to be self evident. The fact that the Transition Man asks it at all betrays his belief in himself as the measure of all things, and that is why he is a Transition Man. He knows man cannot provide an answer, but he still refuses to look to a higher authority that can in fact answer it for him.

Today we are all Transition Men.

>>14867663
>that rothbard

>>14867685
Shalom

>>14867595
>Western intellectuals have increasingly retreated into the irrational. This is illustrated by the curious phenomena of the present efforts by Western intellectual elites to embrace postmodernism
That's just continentals philosophers, analytic philosophers never bought into this shit. Also, the reason postmodernism became an intellectual fad had mainly to do with the influence of idealism in European philosophy, which famously denied the existence of a mind independent reality. It had nothing to do with christcuckery getting out of fashion.
>with its accompanying moral and cultural relativism
Objective morality is a superstition, there is no evidence for it whatsoever. Moral realists are the true irrationalists.
>while simultaneously embracing the egalitarian-universalist-humanist moralistic zealotry
Moral antirealism is perfectly compatible with the support of a particular normative ethics, this is mataethics 101. Also, adjective overload is shit writing
2/10, would not reread

>>14869862
>Rationalism and empiricism will both die out in favor of mysticism
That's a good thing and basically the answer. Just face it the answer to life is not so hard and you do not have to be so lost there is meaning in you already. We don't need dogma to find the answers truth is in front of you.

>>14868234
We can approximate desires and qualia with science, but it will never be able to describe the feeling lf it. Its the same as color, or any sense. Science can only describe the relational properties of things. Even a perfect predictive model of the mind wouldnt bring us any closer.

>>14868682
Human beings immediate experience will always be radically different from animals because its filtered through that pattern recognition.

>>14870172
YES GOY JUST LARP

>>14867595
>he was this far correct
This was literally already happening around him you clowns

Your "progress" means
>everyone forced to wageslave their life away including even women
>everyone consumed by the most retarded character vices such as obesity NIGGA JUST DON'T EAT
>everyone engaging in self-destructive behaviour such as chopping off their own dick because of moral insanity
"Progress" lol the absolute state of progressives. How can Iran be a "regress" if regression to savagery and barbarism has been the West's history for the past 250 years

>>14869862
>The Second Religiousness comes next.
That's postmodernism. Are you retarded?
god you're all so far from the truths
4chan is just a playground, NOTHING to see here really

>>14867685
>Commonly-achieved evolutionary leaps
>Commonly
Hahaha. The creation of RNA, the formation of single celled organisms, and the formation of eukaryotes.

>>14867626
Imagine browsing this board for almost a decade just to waste hours daily typing "we just had this thread" on just about every thread.

>>14870907
Postmodernism is the last stage of skepticism before philosophy collapses in on itself.

>>14868828
Its just like any other religion or culture. It may have revivals, but it will, inevitably, die.

>>14869809
Aztec Philosophy, by James Maffie. It's also the best example of what an actual Process Philosophy looks like. Another good one is Mayan Philosophy: Lords of Time. Read Maffie first, then this.

All new world (or rather Paleo-Siberian) cultures appear to have worked off of this sort of loose "ontological monistic process philosophy", the Aztec/Maya were just the ones to write it down.

>>14870963
Christ was and is everything, that will never leave even for passed thousands of years which come after it. It will be known, or nothing at all.

>>14867685
>or let artificial intelligence inherit civilization
If this is the case, then nihilism isn't a plausible Great Filter. The AIs would go on to form a big visible AI civilization, unless nihilism somehow affects them as well.

>>14870907
That's not what "Second Religiousness" means. Read Spengler, or fuck off.

>>14871330
t. LARPer. Not memeing, the fact that you need to reassure yourself that you're right is just proof that you've drank deeply of nihilism. You don't actually believe anything, you're just being ironic.

>>14868828
"Christianity" is a meaningless term. Only idiots think there are fixed axioms of Christianity that can be inferred by reading the Bible or understanding Church doctrine. Christianity is a set of practices, not of beliefs. That's why the Catholic church has stopped talking against usury and is able to live in a financial world.

>>14870045
The principles of Enlightenment ARE extremely nihilistic. Nietzsche's words were aimed at people who subscribed to rationalistic outlooks on life. He wasn't talking about "postmodern" bullshit because that did not exist.

>>14868501
That criticism of Islam also applies to Christianity

>>14871366
You're supposed to greentext the t. retard.

>someone believes something
>corrects someone else on something that contradicts their beliefs
>"WAAH WAAAH YOU'RE JUST A NIHILIST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN GOD OR EVEN ANYTHING WAAH WAAAH YOU MUST ALL BE DOMINATED BY THE HURD LIKE I AM WAAH WAAHH YOU'RE TOO WEAK TO NOT BE DOMINATED Y- YOUR JUST A WEAK NIHILIST WAAAH WAAAH!"
Sounds like you were just reassuring yourself anon, you are a nihilist, to be so unshamingly ironic where I was not at all.

>>14871323
Thankyou

>>14871412
Not necessarily. Christianity spread through enforcing hierarchies in many places. With the Germanics, for example, Christianity's entire appeal is that it ossified existing tribal hierarchies, and even added rungs to them. The broad critique of Abrahamism as a whole still applies, but Christianity is not solely a levelling agent like Islam.

>>14871423
You're just proving his point, though. You're desparately trying to convincr us you're a hardassed edgy neo-crusader, because you know you aren't. That's the entire point of irony, that none of us can actually be anything but drones under Liberalism lest we get Waco'd.

>>14867626
Not everyone can afford to be here as often as you, fag.

>>14869862
A dilettante.

>>14867626
imagine not having a life

>>14871631
Buttslaughtered atheist detected.

>>14871404
I am replying to what the OP said my duderino. And no, the enlightenment was not nihilistic under any reasonable definition of the term.

>>14871765
You need more than a mugger's brain to understand religion.

>>14871787
I used Spengler's terminology but was talking about the ideas of a completely different philosopher.

>>14867595
>AI
But I object to
>egalitarian-universalist-humanist moralistic zealotry popularly labeled “political correctness” and espousing with great piousness such liberal crusades as “human rights,” “anti-racism,” “gay liberation,” feminism, environmentalism and the like.
Since a lot of that shit's been around since before Christianity.
>People should be treated well
>Freedom and supportive constraint are in tension but necessary for human well-being
>Don't shit where you eat
Do we really hold that this is New Age BS? Because they seem like fundamental pillars of reason for how to live temporarily in a universe that generally wants you dead, save for the lump of matter between your ears.

>>14870763
Well of course, but the fundamental sensation of ground beneath our feet and sight with which we see is common between animals with a similar nervous system, both because of the structure of our nervous system, that is, the way the brain interpretes the sensations, and the sensations themselves, that is, the way the matter being sensed is translated into sensations. So animals, retards and fully functioning humans have some continuity between their subjective experiences. The issue is that i believe it's stupid to assign consciousness based on a certain kind of subjective experience, you'll be left with objects which (like us) are conscious, but your retarded definition would not be able to encompass them. Such as a conscious machine with goals, perceptions and rationale, a swarm which acts as a single, more intelligent entity than any member of the swarm, or a non-carbon based lifeform. All of these act and think in a conscious manner, so why should they be denied the label because their structure is nontraditional?

>>14870045
Not OP, but

>Moral antirealism is perfectly compatible with the support of a particular normative ethics, this is mataethics 101
Correct
>Objective morality is a superstition, there is no evidence for it whatsoever. Moral realists are the true irrationalists
Correct
>the reason postmodernism became an intellectual fad had mainly to do with the influence of idealism in European philosophy, which famously denied the existence of a mind independent reality
Correct, but...
>It had nothing to do with christcuckery getting out of fashion
Not entirely correct. The point was that some people, in an increasingly secularized society, will become disillusioned with science and seek to find meaning in irrational thought, such as idealism, which went mainstream after religion was largely ridiculed and discredited, possibly as a substitute of religion.

>>14869763
>You feel any and all schooling is tyranny, or just the schooling that supports this imagined better world?
If the "schooling" consists of indoctrination into violent anti-intellectual ideals with a literally unachievable economic goal and biological denialism, yeah, i'd say your "schooling" is pretty fucking bad

>>14869539
>Yes but in order for the code to be run you must experience the code running
No...? You don't have to experience jack shit in order to know that once you write a piece of code and run it, it will be run. You don't have to stand there and observe the machine to make sure the quantum ghosts don't eat it.

>but in actuality they are all properties of the spiritual
Pathetic.

>>14868920
Can't most of these things be explained by the fact that only now humanity birthed a generation that is growing concomitantly with the internet? Can't it be just a matter of adaptation?

>>14867685
Actually we can and will just carry on indefinitely with our nihilistic materialism. There's nothing indicating that this state of affairs must come to an end, and soon. Normies will continue consooming. Sensitive incels will continue killing themselves in their moms basement. Society functions more or less as always.

>>14872031
>literally unachievable
>We can’t just not use money and deprive the upper class their luxurious lifestyle
>That’s LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLLLLLLE

>>14872023
>Not entirely correct. The point was that some people, in an increasingly secularized society, will become disillusioned with science and seek to find meaning in irrational thought, such as idealism, which went mainstream after religion was largely ridiculed and discredited, possibly as a substitute of religion.
No, I don't think that was how idealism became prominent. The German idealist movement was mainly influenced by Kant, whose quasi-idealist doctrine was an attempt to find a compromised position between the empiricists and the rationalists. Now, it is of course true that religion serves as a psychologically powerful "cope" with particularly distasteful aspects of reality, and if it were to disappear something that functions in a similar manner would probably take its place. But I don't think that idealism or postmodernism have really anything to do with religious substitutes. Remember, the claim in the OP was that the rejection of Christianity was necessarily followed by the rejection of reason and the concept of objective truth. He was making the point that you can't have rationality without religion, which is of course false. Which is way I traced these doctrines to their actual historical origins.

>>14867830
>but -becoming- seems like a process very far from the understanding of your average guy living their lives

As if the small elite that perpetuated those ideas had anything to do with the average person.

The elite may have gone through a route with no-return, but this does not mean that the average person has traversed the same paths.

If the current elite, and the civilization that it supports gets extinct (many such cases), this does not mean that humanity as a whole will end.

As long as a human remains that is root-based, humanity will be sustained. The pruning of certain leaves does not mean total catastrophe.

>>14869862
How does this fit with our current situation? What I am seeing is what can broadly be understood as the Theological Turn. Some of its characteristics
>philosophical turn to myth/theology, either as a search for meaning or as a means of recuperation
>increase of political monotheism/fundamentalism
>alliances of Christian/secular political groups, which tend to work against any religious belief
>cultural theology
>paganism as both a real desire and a political formation, theological darwinism

In simple terms, I am not sure that any of these groups can even be properly understood as religious. Certainly the few with a genuine desire for a return to mythic thinking, but they are greatly outnumbered.
Our technical way of seeing almost prevents any sort of deep consideration of myths, and may even work against us. Stated otherwise, the power of our sight would prevent anything like the law of Meno's Slave, we have developed incredible defense mechanisms against the forms. Of course, the strength of the gods can overwhelm the forms, but such gods may be beyond worship.

Our situation does not seem to conform with Spengler's prediction at all.

>>14873099
That is exactly how it begins. First a playful longing for a return to religion, then a genuine post-rationalism religiousness. This process will take another century, so while we will see it continue to intensify in our lifetimes, we won't see its full effects.

>>14873512
Why would it take so long? And what causes the shift to real religious thinking?

>>14867685
>Great Filter
We aren't even a type 1 civilization yet we've literally got thousands/millions of years to go

>>14872039
You think spirit means myself but it doesn't.

>>14872194
You guys are so predictable with your cynicism. Most creative posts on here are ignored in favor of whatever is the most cynical.

>>14873621
It's a process that takes many centuries.

17th century = Descartes writes "cogito ergo sum" and makes man the measure of truth instead of God

18th century = Enlightenment rationalism builds on Descartes philosophy, making human reason the ground for all truth

19th century = Stone cold materialism as a result of a complete rejection of religious and metaphysical truths, Marx is the representative of this entire century

20th century = Absolute nihilism and confusion as every philosopher lives in a world of his own disconnected from absolute truth, postmodernism is the pure expression of the schizophrenic thought structure of this age, philosophy became rapidly changing and meaningless ideas that established nothing fundamentally new and sank into skepticism

21st century = No truth exists anymore, NOTHING exists. If the rationalism and materialism of previous centuries were immoral for deriving reason from humans instead of God, then the 21st century has become completely amoral for its lack of adherence to any philosophical system at all. Modern thought (SJWs) fights to destroy all truth, structure, hierarchy, and authority. This is the age of the autocracy of the individual. If man is the measure of all things, then every man is essentially equal, and no man rightfully has authority over another.

22nd century = If the above sounds like a spiritual power vacuum to you, then you are correct. Democracy will collapse to theocratic military dictatorship, as it did in Rome under the divine authority of Augustus. Absolute order must be forged from absolute chaos out of necessity, the alternative is complete dissolution. This is why the Second Religiousness will happen, and why it takes so long. In antiquity it is the path from the pre-Socratics to Augustus, in our time it is from Descartes to whoever the American Augustus will be 100 years from now.

>>14874049
Seems pretty silly. Rome began way before Auguatus, and imperial cults are a worship of man. What changes and how is this real religion?

>>14874049
>in our time it is from Descartes to whoever the Chinese Augustus will be 100 years from now.
Fixed

>>14868359
Solving humanity's problems is not so simple as "just get rid of capitalism." The root of the evils found in capitalism isn't the system itself but human greed, the want to dominate others and take for one's self. Greed isn't found in capitalism alone, it's found in all places and in all ages. It is not a problem solved by ideology or a change of economic policy, it's a problem solved in the mind by realizing one's connect to the world as opposed to just one's self interest. The perfect society could be any ideology or have any economic form, the only necessity for it to be perfect is for man to be perfect himself. Mind you human greed isn't the only source of evil in the world, there's other problems with humanity like not accepting our own ignorance or not acting consistantly with our own beliefs, but the only way to solve these problems is to change our own ways of thinking first.

>>14874306
The root of evil is desire. Every evil act ever committed was brought about by someone who believed the act would lead to a better state of mind. The solution is to detach from desire itself.

Bit late to respond to these posts but

>>14869004
Certainly it's not as if we don't have a capacity to regulate our usage and exposure to the internet and its "mental junk food." And the problem is endemic, you have to think in terms of population statistics and not on an individual case by case basis. Furthermore even intelligent usage of the internet is not without some negative consequences. There is research into for example how reading comprehension is lowered when you read online.

And it's not a question of what's on the internet, it's a question of how the internet in any use case distorts cognitive functioning.

>>14869143
I think it is plain to see that the internet has drastically influenced culture in a massive scale by altering the relations of production and by swallowing up and redefining the information economy.

Gen Z is a paradigm example of this; you cannot have cultural cohesion when everyone is "elsewhere" staring a screen, disconnected from their surroundings and immediate context, their attention reseting every minute because some new text or whatever has drawn their attention.

>>14872166
It might be that the internet is new. I tend to think that it's much deeper than that. By radically changing the relations of information exchange and interaction patterns it has upended centuries of well-worn custom. The supernormal stimulus of the internet is unlike other forms of technology because of how it subsumes every system. It draws in all aspects of life in its role as an connective intermediary, finance, social, dating, education, entertainment, news and media, etc etc.

>>14874345
The root of desire is existence therefore everything should be nuked according you.

>>14867595
>What comes after postmodernism?

Coronavirus

>>14874829
No, you change your relationship to desire, instead of letting desire dictate what matters for you.

>>14868060
imagine thinking this is good

>>14867899
So Nietzsche hated religion huh? Are you sure about that?

>>14872212
You dont fully explore the issue. Exactly what curriculum do you plan on giving to your new society that will create better people? Education has been around as long as man has been able to form a memory.

I grant that capitalism may not be the be all end all economic system, but it's simplistic to claim that is the final obstacle.

>>14868321
>Replace money with a non accumulative currency in some community and watch the government come down them as if they were dangerous criminals.
Without a material currency your society would be eschewed from others.
Material is what makes the world go around, not vouchers. You can't export and import resources internationally with vouchers.

>>14868158
I'm an iranian American and can tell you that yes, while they certainly will do just that, Iranians see a downfall of the west being a lack of a belief system to ground them. For them it's culturally rooted (islam being a literal mask on their continuing neo-platonic project).

I'm less certain the next step is to abolish religion if that's what you're proposing.

>>14872194
>unironically using the term "Normies"
juvenile opinion discard

>>14868524
Here's a better question: are numbers real? If you can consider numbers at all, are you somewhere on the same spectrum of conciousness as humans?

>>14874947
I’m not a dictator, anon. I don’t prescribe the curriculum. Locals of wherever do.
Capitalism is a monumental obstacle. If replaced it means replacing a system based on competition with one of cooperation. That in and of itself creates better people
And some etc. here >>14870510

>>14875017
Material is material. Money is spiritual. Law imbued debt tokens is all they are
>not vouchers.
Is certainly can. A shared economy is also possible, but switching to a voucher system makes sense as a transitional currency.

>>14875050
No one can abolish religion but children. All I can do is hope for it as I hope for any kind of future.
>Shoe on head
I remember her.

>>14875495
>some etc. here
They deleted it?
W/e here
>>/lit/thread/S14869856#p14870510

>>14867595
>come into a Nietzsche thread hoping to see some good scholarly debate
>no mention of Deleuze, Kofmann, Danto, Kaufmann, Solomon-Higgins, Leiter, Ansell-Pearson, et. al.
>some nutjob talking about cultists
Never change, /lit/.

>>14868826
eastern religions are inherently nihilistic

>>14875803
Right, and they teach you how to be super comfy with nihilism.

>>14869451
Perhaps the origin of how we view the world in discrete terms comes from the scientific method (and enlightenment) emphasis on cause and effect. I forgot if it was Hume or Locke who criticised the idea of cause and effect, saying that these are mere constructs. Nietzche said something similar too, that science is no different than how the ancients 'mythologised' reality, which in some sense can be seen as imposing a discrete explanation into the continuous reality

>>14867685
People who live to fulfill their ego experience their own burn out of dopamine and reach a nihilistic state in time. Those people have a much better grasp on themselves and those around them because they burned out and reached their own body's end conclusion. Anyone who "goes back to religious dogma" and enforces a state of nihilism via conservatism won't grasp anything and will just remain stubborn retarded faggots like the religious fanatics have always been.

So, in short: have sex. Have a LOT of sex, in fact, and then grow from the inevitable boredom of it.

>>14876634
Those who do fulfill their ego you mean. Most remain just another one of samsara's bewildered beasts of burden, chasing the next high. And it's true religious dogma won't save anyone, if it doesn't change their relationship to their desires.

>>14867595
>Nietzsche
>correct
lol