/lit/ - Literature

lmap

>>15263642
Ah, another pasta to add to my collection.

>>15263642
imagine coming to /lit/ with this "thesis"

>>15263642
where on reddit did you get this

>>15263642
This is why I never really became right wing despite their ideas making more sense to me than ridiculous memes about 'equality' and 'emancipation' and so on from the left. You don't have to go full Spengler but the larger a view you take of history and society the dumber it seems to draw up some map of how you'd like things to be and expect anything even sort of resembling it to ever occur.

You don't seem to understand how determinism works.

>>15263642
>if your conservative values brought the world to this progressive state, of what use were those values?
>implying conservative values necessarily yield progressive states

>>15263793
I mean that is what the post was about. The conservative values of the past deterministically led the the progressive state of the present.

>>15263642
This argument is wrong in multiple ways:
first, it assumes that science has disproven anything other than an extreme libertarian version of free will;
Second, it assumes that conservatism rests upon libertarian free will;
Third, it doesn't even explain why determinism invalidates conservatism other than the assumption that determinism "brings about leftism";
fourth, it doesn't explain WHY "free will" is needed for conservatism

>>15263642
That exact dialectic necessitates conservatism, you numbnut - if there was no development (whether perceived as progress or decline) there would be no possibility for conservatism to even exist. In return I could ask you how you can not be a conservative, given that while technological and consequently social development happen more or less on their own cultural development is shaped by humans trying to adapt their culture to those new technological and social developments, in order to conserve it in one way or another.

>>15263811
How?

>>15263853
So is it conservative to be PC and woke? Since that is the default attitude now. And does that make the alt-right liberal since they want to CHANGE things back?

>>15263811
You’re kind of missing out the infiltration of academia, civil rights and the media with people diametrically opposed to conservatism.

>>15263849
Yeah, this is idiotic shit.
And when conservatism makes a comeback, does determinism prove "progressivism" is wrong?

>>15263865
Yeah I agree physical determinism has nothing to do with some kind of historical determinism. But OP did give a reason, a wrong reason, for conservative values necessarily yielding progressive states

>>15263906
I don't think progressivism makes any kind of claim to be the terminal state of society like conservatism does so society changing would not invalidate it

>>15263811
In 1938, would your thesis be that the liberal values of the Weimar Republic have given rise to...

>>15263924
>don't think progressivism makes any kind of claim to be the terminal state of society
It does.

>>15263889
Are these forces somehow outside of history? If you believe in historical determnism(I don't) OP's argument follows. History has no pattern or meaning to it and changes due to semi-random social and economic factors

>>15263887
That has nothing to do with my post but it serves as an illustration: there actually is something very archaically European about PC culture, that is the way in which the social development that is caused by globalisation is framed, namely in the language of rationalism, humanism and individualism (and sometimes socialism). However this is not so much an adaptation of traditional values to a new situation in an effort to conserve them as it is a way to make the new situation palatable.

>>15263958
Yes it does have something to do with your post. In the context of OP and a shift away from current societal values

>if there was no development (whether perceived as progress or decline) there would be no possibility for conservatism to even exist

the current social values would be conservative by your definition

>>15263642
True for conservatives, but not necessarily for authoritarian reactionaries. Authoritarian reactionaries tend to be much more wise to the reality of how people are conditioned, and wish to impose a contrary conditioning paradigm. As for the sense in resisting what is entrenched... Revolutions are a part of the causal chain as well. There is no point in second-guessing our efforts to shape the future, since the future is not known to us (but you're right in that we should be more critical of the 'sacred cows' that got us here).

I'll admit, I do think that liberalism is a force of nature, and I wonder if it can meaningfully be reversed/suppressed; perhaps it can only be survived. Again though — we don't know the future, so fatalism is a foolish attitude.

As a side note, pretty much everyone rejects determinism. Even thinkers who appear to know better make pathetically weak compatibilist arguments. It's just not something most people can wrap their heads around, and is by no means a blindspot unique to conservatives and reactionaries.

>>15263992
But I never even defined conservatism.

>>15264014
From your post conservatism is what is developed away from. Or am I misreading that

>>15263811
And the progressive state of the present could deterministically lead to something good or a second Conservatism, but that doesn't mean it was good or "of any use."

>>15263934
>implying OP even knows what a weimar even is

>>15263642
my antithesis is that OP is a raging faggot and i didn't even read his post.

>>15264024
That's not how deductive logic works. I'm just stating the obvious: conservatism would not be possible without development, therefore development is not a refutation of conservatism.

>>15264071
And that's where the first part of OP's post comes in

>The idea is that somewhere along the way things have gone wrong, and a distortion of a more perfect sociopolitical structure has taken place due to some failing on the side of the individuals involved in those historic circumstances.

If the conservative society is the ideal society it would presumably be unchanging and not

>But in reality the very occurence of Leftist ideological political unfolding is proof that these "conservative" and "traditionalist" power structures contained in them the seed of their own demise

>>15263642
>This is due to Determinism being a scientific fact, extensively proven, and thereby ensuring that all that has occured had to have occured in that particular way

>>15264110
If the opposite of conservatism represented the ideal society, then it would change constantly. This change will eventually lead back to conservatism. The ideal society is a pendulum, for there are no utopias set in stone, no heavens on earth

>>15264098
And I was stating the equally obvious that from the way you are using conservatism PC culture would be conservative if faced with a shift back to previous values. Call it reactionary to avoid confusing the way you used conservatism and it referring to a specific set of values. Unless your argument relies on conflating the two different meanings

>>15264149
Read up on that deductive logic, my man.

>>15264147
Like I said above I don't think progressivism claims to be either the the terminal state of society or the ideal state. Progressivism is just willingness to change versus conservatism which is unwilling

>>15264167
What deductive logic? You even claim a dialectic in your original post

>That exact dialectic necessitates conservatism

I'm asking about what you mean by conservatism since you seem to be confusing two different meanings

>>15263642
Relative to our current time T, everything you believe now as a Progressive will be considered reactionary at some future time T'>T in this framework - basically you are a reactionary RIGHT NOW or you just believe that whatever is at the vanguard of left-wing thought is always right.

>>15263642
the only true position is the heraclitean apocalyptic iconoclast accelerationism

>>15263642
Evola believed in some weird devolution version of human origins, and Guenon outright said Darwin was a retard who didn't understand anything. Denying evolution just means you're not a retard, nothing else.

>>15264476
>Evola believed in some weird devolution version of human origins
how does he explain the appearance of these apex hyperborean humanoids that we're all the devolved niggers of? Did they project themselves down from the astral plane?

>>15263642
Not sure that I agree but a guy by the name reactionaryfuture also believes this and I think he has written about it.

>he thinks right wing ideologies are voluntaristic

>>15263642
This is a gross misunderstanding of Prescriptivism.
Read Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind

>>15263642
>Thus voluntarism is implicit in the conservative's cry for a "return", thinking that a rehabilitation can occur and the abandoned norms can be retained through a more perfect force of will. But in reality the very occurence of Leftist ideological political unfolding is proof that these "conservative" and "traditionalist" power structures contained in them the seed of their own demise. This is due to Determinism being a scientific fact, extensively proven, and thereby ensuring that all that has occured had to have occured in that particular way, and not some other way. It is not a matter of "choice" but instead the mechanical development according to physical laws and constants.

Leftist and Liberals exists because they reinvent themselves every X years, that never happens with the old guard, cthuly swims left because if he didn´t swim he would die, capisci?

OP is retarded, Determinism renders all political position irrelevant.
There's nothing to do, nowhere to go, no one to be, nothing to know.

>>15263642
>imagine thinking empiricism proves anything
lmao

>>15263642
>considering conservatism to be a system/ideology and not simply an general outlook within a specific system
conservatism and progressivism are generalised social forces they do not have specific core beliefs outside of a narrow view of a single society. You have a room temperature iq and should return to wherever you cam from (probably Reddit)

>>15266414
>using leftist and liberal as synonyms
>linking the two terms in any way
you're nearly as dumb as OP, though not quite that bad

>>15267136
Materialists are all the same.