/lit/ - Literature

>>15766871
>The idea that civilization is in decline
That's impossible unless you think extreme degeneration of culture and corporate control of every facet of society in not a decline.

>least amount of poverty ever
>least amount of crime
>least amount of war
>countless scientific breakthroughs
>big titty anime for everyone

he's right everything is bad

>>15766871
Robert Musil wrote an interesting essay on Spengler.

reminder that are multiple civilizations and none of them are perfect.

>>15766906
>>least amount of crime
lel no

Adorno wrote a good essay on him.

>>15766871
You'd have to decide what is its critique then find literature on it. Materially we are not, in terms of mental health (with some obj factor like suicide) we are worse

>>15766932
Crime is near 50's levels

Pitirim Sorokin criticizes his theory and proposes another (a cyclical shift) to explain the crisis which he agrees we are living in

>>15766906
Very halfwitted post.

I don't know why reactionaries clamour for surface level critiques of popular culture instead of the continued, if not increased, exploitative of the masses despite the promise that automation would lower working hours and our reliance on employment

>>15766906
99% of users here live in completely denial of reality, your post will not find an audience.

>>15767278
Lowering of crime and war doesn't mean the civilization isn't in decline.

>>15766871
I've heard Pitrim Sorokin had critiques of Spengler, but I haven't read his works myself, so take it with a pinch of salt.

>>15767363
What's his criteria for civilizational decline then

>>15767402
Cultural and economic.

>>15766959
Lol you don't pay attention to the news much, do you?

>>15767408
Can you be more specific

>>15766871
It is declining, but not for the reasons he thinks. The resource base for industrial civilization is collapsing.

>>15767423
No, and fuck you.

>>15767423
Artistically - 99% of art is bad now. Basically no one consumes or produces good art.
Culturally speaks for it self
Economic - People used to work part time at Mcdonalds for $3 an hour and afford an apartment, college, and luxuries.

>>15767517
So this is the power of Spengler...

>>15767544
>Artistically - 99% of art is bad now
Do you actually seek out new art or are you just basing this on popular media.
>Culturally speaks for it self
It really doesn't
>Economic - People used to work part time at Mcdonalds for $3 an hour and afford an apartment, college, and luxuries.
I didn't realize Spengler was talking about McDonald's in the 20s

>>15766906
read
pitirim sorokin
romano guardini
rene guenon
spengler
johan huizinga
hillaire belloc
daniel-rops
jean danielou
cs lewis
konrad lorenz


all of them are 100% right on the crisis. my personal favorite is romano guardini's the end of the modern world. better than guenon's trilogy even

Not exactly refuting the case. The stats of Hans Rosling proves the world is, indeed, getting much more comfortable. The main problems of the West today are the consequences of the ease of survival and the difficulties putting our attention on the real problems as they are becoming increasingly more incomprehensibly complex for the average person. Futile misdirection is inevitable as the human mind needs problem solving and most of those are for dealing with much more concrete issues than what is needed today. Democracy is perhaps not here to stay...

>>15767602
Popular media certainly has lost lots of artistic sensibilities in the last 100 years. Just compare highest grossing films from the 40s to today. This isn't saying that the "fine" arts has disappeared. It has simply disappeared from the mainstream. Contemporary blockbusters isn't making audiences think which possibly can have catastrophic consequences.

>>15767773
>Just compare highest grossing films from the 40s to today.
Yeah but that's really a reflection of what executives have realized is an easy market and have manufactured the tastes of the people. The argument here presumes that there's an actual back and forth between people and popular culture, which any amount of research will tell you is a false assumption.

This is also arguing, more embarrassingly, that pop culture, fundamentally a market product, is somehow a meter stick for the well being of a civilization as a whole.

>>15766906
This. OWNED

>>15767773
>It has simply disappeared from the mainstream.
It has never been mainstream in the first place. Classical music, literature, architecture, sculpture - all art used to be a domain of higher classes and few educated people, who have never been numerous, and not all of whom could really appreciate it. It's only when mass literacy came around that more people started to care about art at all, and using an arguable decline of pop culture to illustrate that art in general is getting stale is quite silly in my opinion.

>>15767773
>>15767800
>>15767823
Architecture

>>15767841
Are you implying it's a bad building? Also it's not from a Western country apparently

>>15767841
The popularity of a certain style doesn't seem sufficient to prove that civilization is somehow in decline. Also that's not even in the west.

>>15766871
technological progress, innovation, demand and economy hit the wall. the dick of reality denial in your stupid asses goes deeper every day.

>>15767800
>>15767823
You are missing the point here. The role of art is there to progress thought and ideas and when that isn't provided to the masses we're creating people who cannot deal uncertainty, nuance and the abstract. Alongside democracy more power has been handed out to the people instead of the educated elite so on top with the state of pop culture we're actually handing it to people who cannot see things from more than one perspective.

>>15767906
also the allegory of MCU films are really poor. Medieval folk tales has more depth and nuanced allegory than today's standard.

>>15766871
>>15766906
Steven Pinker's books, perhaps?

>>15767906
>when that isn't provided to the masses
Once again, it has never been provided to the masses. I don't think that at any point in history there has ever been as many people capable of appreciating art at least to some degree as there are today. Moreover, it's generally okay for art to remain obscurantist, in my opinion, because artist should always strive for the clearest expression of his feelings and ideas, regardless of how accessible it's going to be for the majority, which possibly only a small fraction of people will be able to comprehend. So, naturally, there are always going to be some works that many people won't get, and that's perfectly okay, because they aren't meant to anyway.

>>15767906
>we're creating people who cannot deal uncertainty, nuance and the abstract.
Who is we? Again you're confusing what has been shown to be a conscious and fairly open effort by corporate executives for... civilizational decline?

You're also dramatically overestimating the popularity and influence of what are, at best, passing fancies and entertainment for the majority of people. The majority of people did not come out of Citizen Kane or whatever radically changed or somehow more socially conscious. Pop media, for most people, takes up very little of their time and headspace. You, again, cannot seem to show how your particular distaste for popular media is somehow reflective of the downfall of civilization. It instead seems pretty hysterical.

>Alongside democracy more power has been handed out to the people instead of the educated elite
"Democracy" has existed for over 200 years. It's been largely shown to not be very democratic at all. Policy and economic decisions very clearly do not reflect the will or interests of the demos. The system is constricted in such a way that the people, by and large, actually do not have to think about or have much say in the political order. Even Rousseau and DeTocqueville recognized this at the beginning of western democracy.

>>15766932
Where tf do you live?

>>15767985
>>15767906
I'm also unsure how you could think that the average citizen today is somehow any dumber than the original near-peasants that made up the majority of the population when the western democratic experiment started.

>>15767602
>Do you actually seek out new art or are you just basing this on popular media.
I have an autistic obsession with art so I know what I'm talking about

>It really doesn't
I’m not religious so I don’t get my values from there but you can see our current society is hyper consumerist and lost any concept of family/community and there is nothing but mindless hedonism.

>I didn't realize Spengler was talking about McDonald's in the 20s
I'm not Spengler

>>15767800
>which any amount of research will tell you is a false assumption.
Post

>>15767823
It was at least an option that someone who wasn't higher class could go to a concert or a museum and see new art. That can't happen at all today.

>>15767982
Point missed again... the difference is that the power structures are different in today's democracy hence possibility lack of art can contribute to a decline. Imo, the power should be in the hands of competent and perceptive, which mainstream film did a better job of nurturing let's say 80 years ago. Rest what you go on about is besides the point.

>>15766871
He was right but at the same time he was too pessimistic.

>>15767985
>Who is we?
everyone included in the western civilization, excuse the vague language.
>The majority of people did not come out of Citizen Kane or whatever radically changed or somehow more socially conscious.
I completely disagree. I do believe that evocative allegory create unconscious imprints that builds character. I'd assume most anons on this board wouldn't read their classics if it wasn't for that searching.
>Pop media, for most people, takes up very little of their time and headspace.
Problem is that it takes all other types of space. Budget, talented actors which all has a limit, and most of all the viewers time and setting a new type of standard (pleasing people's attention spans). Quality films like Mad Max: Fury Road pleases that standard and still has great allegory, but is a rare one.

>It's been largely shown to not be very democratic at all.
But it's progressing to be more so everyday. People have more power or at least influence today than ever before. Mobs rules - consumers rules.

>>15767544
>art = objects
Read a fucking book, nigger.

>>15768067
They are arguably dumber today, as its easier to survive today. Wisdom however has nothing to do with intelligence and is earned through difficult experiences, which more people seemed to engage with in the past. Art is also expressions of these experiences.

>>15768075
I mean any number of Hollywood history books can tell you about the downfall of auteurism in the studios, but here's even a recent article:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-producers-death-254263

It's also a notorious issue in the music industry today, particularly the rap music industry. Prince made a big stink about it awhile back:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/prince-warns-young-artists-record-contracts-are-slavery-32645/

But these of course are small last second headlines I grabbed. What I'm talking about more broadly is the financialization of media that's intensified over the last half century or so. Media has become the zone of major profit making since the decline of traditional industry.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/69w0v6n3

They're profit maximizers, no longer the product of a competent team attempting to tell a story (and also make profit). Popular media has always made profit and always been aimed at making profit, obviously, but the massive financial stakes involved now have needed control entirely over to corporate executives and teams of what are essentially marker think tankers. Just look at the phenomenon of "test screening" in major films like Star Wars. Execs force these kinds of practices because they want maximum returns, they want the film to be as appealing as possible, which in turn limits the array of styles and artistic decisions that a director can make. That directors are now instead chosen to make films in major movies, rather than the other way around, goes to show how far reaching executive control is today.

This is all just to say that pop media in no sense an actual reflection of people's interests and tastes. It's manufactured consent on a cultural level. As such it's hard to make the argument that civilization is somehow in decline as a whole due to the financial decisions of a handful (let alone show how the health of a civilization is somehow tied to superficial cultural tastes).

>>15768089
I don't think proles 150 years ago would even consider such a possibility, plus nobody stops them from going to some pseud modern art exhibition now too
>>15768183
Yeah, that's my opinion as well, but I fail to see how it's connected to art. People don't suddenly become thoughtful and observant juts because they saw a quality film once, and they don't suddenly get involved in the government either. And pop art just happens to have its ups and downs, so even if it's in a poor state right now it doesn't mean that people won't get bored with capeshit eventually like they got with shitty westerns .

>>15767421
He's right though

>>15767363
Can you please define decline then

>>15768274
>plus nobody stops them from going to some pseud modern art exhibition now too
It doesn't exist now.
>I don't think proles 150 years ago would even consider such a possibility,
I'm just saying it's was an option not that everyone was clamoring to go classical concerts. Again though the point was no that everyone was going to see good art but that it was being made. There is no market today.

>>15768069
>I'm not Spengler
Well I'm asking for Spengler's argument

>>15768208
>everyone included in the western civilization, excuse the vague language.
But we're not the ones producing pop culture, are we? If you're honestly trying to make the argument that civilization is in decline due to the cultural production of today, then the problem would lay with the production itself, not the consumer. But the production of popular media is controlled by an incredibly small number of people, and therefore can't ever fully represent the actual tastes, desires, or abilities of the people at large. It's popular not because it's somehow universally praiseworthy, but instead because it has the massive outreach and platform to make itself popular: I mean this is what advertising basically is.

>I do believe that evocative allegory create unconscious imprints that builds character.
I'm not saying art isn't important or can't be life changing, but you're completely misguided if you think that's how people approach popular media. They're interested in being entertained.

>But it's progressing to be more so everyday.
In certain ways sure. But it seems to me that part of the whole crisis of today is precisely that people feel that their actual desires are not being listened to by the political apparatus that supposedly represents them.

>>15768264
>as its easier to survive today
You'd have to somehow show that the difficulty of life is in any way correlated to wisdom. The people you and I look to as the smartest and wisest had incredibly comfortable and easy lives compared with the majority of people. Voltaire and Nietzsche and Socrates and so on hardly ever needed to "survive" as if they were some peasant.

>>15768265
It doesn't have the be made by execs. Directors were making low budget small crew movies in the 1960s on an expensive medium. There is no reason you couldn't make a movie like that today even cheaper with digital but no one is doing it.

>>15768331
>Well I'm asking for Spengler's argument
You know you can't win the argument against me so your gonna act like you were arguing against Spenglers opinion on the decline lol

>>15768333
>There is no reason you couldn't make a movie like that today even cheaper with digital but no one is doing it.
But people are doing it. It's just called independent film. And they're still pretty great

Big studios don't do it anymore because they figure it's in their better financial interest to churn out several blockbusters a year than waste their time on lower budget, "risky" flicks.

>>15768348
>You know you can't win the argument against me
You called yourself autistically interested in art. I don't really want to "argue" with you.

>>15768331
>But the production of popular media is controlled by an incredibly small number of people, and therefore can't ever fully represent the actual tastes, desires, or abilities of the people at large.
If people didn't like something they wouldn't engage with it. Personally I live almost completely disconnected from pop culture.

>>15768284
Ok, now do one that shows the 50's crime rate. You'll find that it's still a lot higher.

>>15768400
>But people are doing it. It's just called independent film. And they're still pretty great
Yeah name some. Even if you could name some that are enjoyable there is nothing like what was being doing back then.

>You called yourself autistically interested in art. I don't really want to "argue" with you.
What's wrong with that? I'm just saying I spend at least 10 hours of everyday trying to find new art so I'm not some pleb who thinks Zeppelin is god and has never looked into any modern art

>>15768195
Who is this?

>>15766871
Adorn, I believe. Also, look at R.G. Collingwood's 'Idea of History,' in which he critiques Spengler. However, everyone knows that civilization, Western-American civilization, is in decline. Everything else is cope.

>>15767853
>Is the building bad?
Well first:
>Is it useful?
Probably
>Is it durable?
The 90 degree extension is bad for structural load, so in the long-term: NO
>Is it beautiful
No, there's no natural forms. At least there was an attempt with a lattice pattern latched on but no ornamentation could ever help a lacking body.

All three need to be true for it to be a good building. Therefore it is bad.

>>15767853
There are similar or worse cases in the west as this is a global phenomenon. It's all about magnitude with regards to efficacy and nothing but efficacy, which is guaranteed to exclude beauty. Industrialism and bureaucracy make for a system that only cares about efficacy as opposed to the grand monarchies who could have whole cities built at their command (e.g. Peter the Great) and face no objections from bureaucrats or opposing parties as they were sovereign. This shift towards non-monarchic tastes were noticeable early in England with the Whigs who were opposed to the aesthetics of the Baroque (because of its absolutist and catholic connotations). But at least their alternative was still inspired the likes such as Palladio i.e. the same sources, and in comparison, with today's liberals they (the Whigs) were far to the right (the political spectrum has been shifting left for at least 500 years).

When Christopher Wren made St. Paul's cathedral his original model was rejected by the church commission for being too Vatican, yet he deviated greatly from the approved design and built closer to his original by approval of the KING.

You see? Would such a thing be possible today? Of course not: a board of bureaucrats would fire and replace the architect with no second thought. When the final word falls upon the mediocrity of the masses you get mediocracy, and if it falls upon the sovereign and nobles, they can at least assess and commission greatness with little intervention, because they don’t need to act the miser through efficacy as they’re already rich by designation and therefore free to commission fine buildings, and be patrons of arts.

>>15768419
The Perfection of the West by John J Reilly

>>15767438
He realizes this in Man and Technics, which takes a much different approach than DotW.

>>15768410
>If people didn't like something they wouldn't engage with it.
There's a big difference between liking something and liking *only* a specific style. Nobody's being forced to like anything of course, but that's not really the point of how this works.
>Personally I live almost completely disconnected from pop culture.
Well the vast vast majority of people don't. Not sure what your point here is.

>>15768418
>Even if you could name some that are enjoyable there is nothing like what was being doing back then.
I dunno, I think Apichatpong Weerasethakul is a gift to filmmaking. But what it seems like you're asking for is the replication of older styles of art that artists are no longer interested in pursuing, perhaps precisely because they've already been done (well, Cold War was really fucking good and old school).

>>15768484
>I dunno, I think Apichatpong Weerasethakul is a gift to filmmaking.
Like I said you could get a few examples but not much.

>But what it seems like you're asking for is the replication of older styles of art that artists are no longer interested in pursuing, perhaps precisely because they've already been done (well, Cold War was really fucking good and old school).
No I'm just asking for an attempt at making something of substance.

>>15768502
>Like I said you could get a few examples but not much.
I'm not sure where you're getting this impression from. There are plenty of incredibly talented filmmakers today.
The real argument for any perceived decline in artistic merit, in my opinion, is the one that Mark Fisher makes (and it's not even the capitalist realism argument): there are no longer the economic structures in place that allowed artists the resources, freedom, and free time to pursue their work as there were in the 20th century, which, y'know, I totally buy and can look into evidence for.

Opting for the "civilization must be in decline" explanation rather than looking at the material underpinnings of how art is made just comes off as boomerism and this kind of unverifiable intellectual dishonesty.

>>15768540
>I'm not sure where you're getting this impression from. There are plenty of incredibly talented filmmakers today.
If you discount the grandpas who were making films for a long time there is basically none. You could count on both hands the amount of quality filmmakers.

>>15768540
>The real argument for any perceived decline in artistic merit, in my opinion, is the one that Mark Fisher makes (and it's not even the capitalist realism argument): there are no longer the economic structures in place that allowed artists the resources, freedom, and free time to pursue their work as there were in the 20th century, which, y'know, I totally buy and can look into evidence for.
But it costs basically nothing to make art now.

>>15767812
Imagine measuring human civilisation by these metrics. I'm sure when we're living in the year 2400 and the whole population is wired into an endless cycle of electronic stimulation but our life expectancy is 100+ years due to the micro-managed nutrient balance which is tubed down our oesophagus you'll be hailing our progress and your little chart will be at its zenith.
When will you understand that the true substance for individual human life, and therefore for such on a large scale, is not in the quantifiable exteriors but in the consciousness of man - we all know of it, even if subconsciously, this is the 'decline' which is referred to.

Imagine looking at indicators like population, population loss, GDP per capita and how long people live for as the most important indicators for successful human life.
Absolute bugman hours

>>15768557
>But it costs basically nothing to make art now.
It costs a lot more than you think.
In any case, Fisher's argument is actually more geared towards the actual free time people had, and the safetynets in place to be able to take time off from regular work to pursue it.

His other big focus is also the financialization of the entertainment industry that I talked about earlier. But you don't have to even like Fisher to see that that's also a factor in what art gets made today. The 80s in particular were an incredibly strange period where these incredibly wealthy music labels were signing these, by our standards, commercially inviable artists.

>>15768540
Mark Fisher was a literal Marxist. They don't see the world in terms of human beings, only causal laws. If people aren't happy, producing worthy art or whatever, then there is an external cause affecting the individual, that when removed, will fix everything. The external cause is Capitalism for the far left, the Jews for the far right. This is part of a larger crisis of perception where people cannot actually see what is going on. The problem is existential and has everything to do with the individual.

>>15768604
>It costs a lot more than you think.
Not really they were making art films for less than 20k and this was back then. With digital and video editing now it would cost basically nothing.

>Fisher's argument is actually more geared towards the actual free time people had, and the safetynets in place to be able to take time off from regular work to pursue it.
If you wanted to make art you would find a way to do it.

>>15768594
Decent post but your image is retarded. I could make the same thing but with the sign reversed and ghostwritten celebrity memoirs on the right
Also those measurements have their purposes but are (obviously) not the end all be all

>>15766871
Step outside]
Unless you live in a shithole like India or the US, this is the first time in human history streets haven't been flooded with shit, and you have been able to piss yourself online every day about how bad things are with all your failure /pol/ buddies

>>15768636
Yes clearly there are varying levels of value in non-fiction and it's not as simple as fiction bad escapism and non-fiction based on reality and good.
I agree that they do, but they aren't anywhere near the criteria by which we should look to judge the 'success' of anything regarding human consciousness, it's all fairly meaningless - just preferential indifferents

>>15768622
Again I said you don't even need to agree with Fisher's philosophical outlook to engage with his media history. Fisher didn't even believe in Dialectical Materialism so I'm not even sure this applies. But okay dude go off about whatever.

>>15768627
>Not really they were making art films for less than 20k and this was back then
But, again as an anon pointed out earlier in the thread, the economic conditions were such that you could actually afford in the larger sense (i.e. keep yourself housed, fed, etc) semi comfortably that you could pursue your art without risk of total poverty. The New York 70s scene is a perfect example of it.

>If you wanted to make art you would find a way to do it.
This is simply not the case.

>>15766871
We are living in the most peaceful times.
We are living in the time where the average person has the greatest amount of wealth than ever before.
We are living in the time with the greatest historical access to healthcare.
We are living in the time with the greatest access to education and have technology to match it.
There is more art, literature, and expression out there than there ever has been before.

Things aren't perfect and I myself have some fears for the future with the constant enhancement of AI and automation, but we are not living in a state of decline.

>>15767544
When has art ever been good? There is more of it out there than ever before.
Saying something speaks for itself does not mean that it actually does. Frankly I am happy that those old cultural mainstays like the KKK are dead or dying.
People also used to work their hands raw in sweatshops everyday even in developed nations at the same time that Spengler was writing. So we have improved from his time (that civilization was apparently degrading from) greatly.

>>15768714
>But, again as an anon pointed out earlier in the thread, the economic conditions were such that you could actually afford in the larger sense (i.e. keep yourself housed, fed, etc) semi comfortably that you could pursue your art without risk of total poverty. The New York 70s scene is a perfect example of it.
It's not hard now. Live with roommates, live with parents. Get a part time job and live in the hood. Go on welfare. If you are an artist you will get by to make your art.

>This is simply not the case.
Are you suggesting there are bunch of would be directors but since they can't afford to live they are just working desk jobs and not doing anything?

>>15768735
Losers will always seek some outside cause for their personal failure

>>15768767
>When has art ever been good? There is more of it out there than ever before.
Throughout most periods? I'll skip the obvious classical music and jump straight to modern day. Look at the Billboard Top 100 in the 1960's and then look at the one now and tell me there isn't a decline.

>>15768735
>>15768767
None of that has anything to do with what Spengler was talking about. He was simply saying the West will never produce figures like Descartes, Mozart, Rembrandt, Kant, etc, ever again.

>>15768768
>Live with roommates, live with parents. Get a part time job and live in the hood. Go on welfare.
Now you're really sounding like a boomer.
In any case, yeah obviously people still can and still are making art, but there are higher economic hurdles to jump today than there were in the 20th century. The cost of living has increased while wages have stagnated for almost half a century.

>Are you suggesting there are bunch of would be directors but since they can't afford to live they are just working desk jobs and not doing anything?
I don't think they're even working desk jobs. Try gig economy and retail. But yeah. Art tends to require leisure time, and a lot of people don't have that much leisure time anymore.
http://apps.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/7722/105/Americans_today_have_less_free_time_study_says

>>15768783
The ones that were looked down upon at the time? And the ones that were mostly made of really shitty throw away songs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1960

Look through the 60s then. Most of what you are going to see is going to be very disappointing.
I love the music that came out of the 60s, The Velvet Underground and King Crimson are some of my favorite bands among others from that time, but most of the music from then was just as shit and unremarkable as it is now.

>>15768852
Not to mention that even boomers look back at what was popular in the 60s and 70s and cringe.
My personal favorite top 40 cringe gem from the 70s:
https://youtu.be/6OW1JJwqVRQ

>things can remain the same for ever
>yes, everyone before me who tried this failed
>but it'll work THIS time!
I genuinely don't get how you could "refute" Spengler without denying basic laws of reality. Everything dies. Change is.

>>15768851
>Now you're really sounding like a boomer.
>In any case, yeah obviously people still can and still are making art, but there are higher economic hurdles to jump today than there were in the 20th century. The cost of living has increased while wages have stagnated for almost half a century.
It cost nothing to make a movie you are suggesting literally all the young people are spending 90 hours a week working a job to sustain themselves and literally cannot pick up a camera once. Everyone I know who is young just spends all their time playing Modern Warfare or fucking off at random spots with their friends. Where do you see all these young people who are doing nothing but working?

>>15768735
>we are living in the most peaceful times.
Less mortality salience, less religiosity; people of high intelligence have less children forebodes e.g. the collapse of infrastructure maintenance
>We are living in the time where the average person has the greatest amount of wealth than ever before.
Housings of the recent past were more spacious, the working class homes of then are among the luxurious now, while more are confined to small apartment blocks. Just one example that forebodes overpopulation. But sure we have more access to commodities and products thanks to industrialism which is in itself unsustainable.
>We are living in the time with the greatest historical access to healthcare.
Those who wouldn't have lived under "normal" (pre-industrial) conditions gets to have children which lessens gene quality, and stupid people who would've died from certain stupid decisions are healed in situations modern medicine wouldn't be able to heal them, etc etc. This disrupts social order (a given with mental disorders which manifest in many physical disorders) which in turn creates a domino effect that damage healthy minds through e.g. trauma.
>We are living in the time with the greatest access to education and have technology to match it.
And yet academia and tech platforms has turned to ideological hellholes, and technology brings many distractions and obstacles that still filters autodidacts. Though it is indeed a good time for autodidacts.
>There is more art, literature, and expression out there than there ever has been before.
That is because we have access to a lot of resources of the past and all the things derived from them which most of the public can partake in. One of the most positive aspects of technology. This is where the autodidact can thrive.

>>15768851
>http://apps.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/7722/105/Americans_today_have_less_free_time_study_says
Holy shit we lost 4 hours a week. It's like these young people are working in the mines again. 4 hours a week we lost. You can't even breath with that time lost. We truly are slaves.

>>15768928
*tech brings tech that filters everyone, not merely autodidacts
It has huge addiction potential that could be detrimental to anyone

>>15768852
Nice tactics by posting 1960. I said 1960s not 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1968

The Beatles, Cream, The Doors, Otis Redding, Simon & Garfunkel, Clarence Carter, Rolling Stones, Aretha Franklin, The Supremes, Marvin Gaye, Donovan, James Brown.

Are you really gonna say this is comparable to the 2019 Billboard Top 100? One of these artists mogs the entire list.

>>15766871
>>15766906
>>15767721
>>15767812
>>15768284
Not the best due to being a little outdated, but here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200618174909/https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/

SSC recently closed the site, so, it's a backup.

>>15768916
>90 hours a week working a job to sustain themselves and literally cannot pick up a camera once.
About 40 hours a week, which of course is the maximum number of hours you can work before overtime. It doesn't leave much room for deep pursuit of art, which tends to require you to quit your day job for awhile.

I'm not sure how you're not understanding this very basic point about needing some degree of economic stability, free time, and freedom in order to seriously pursue and create a great work of art, things that a lot of people today don't have as much of as they did in the 20th century. I'm not saying anything outrageous here.

>Where do you see all these young people who are doing nothing but working?
I dunno who your friends are, but that's basically what all my friends did before COVID. Then they spent their free time, well, eating and sleeping and seeing their friends.

>>15768929
4 hours a week adds up.
>We truly are slaves.
Don't be hysterical.

>>15768948
What does this have to do with civilizational decline again

>>15768953
Where in this list does he address Spengler's thesis >>15768795 ?

>>15768969
>I'm not sure how you're not understanding this very basic point about needing some degree of economic stability, free time, and freedom in order to seriously pursue and create a great work of art, things that a lot of people today don't have as much of as they did in the 20th century. I'm not saying anything outrageous here.
What do you think they did back then? Do you think they had UBI or something? Was everything just free? You think they didn't have to work or try alternative ways of supporting themselves or spent every waking second they had free working the art?

I'm curious what you think about in the countries where they have a good welfare state and you have the ability to get support for arts/housing things like that? Why isn't there a renaissance in these places?

>Don't be hysterical.
I'm saying it's not like if we had those extras 4 hours we have a world filled with beautiful art like in the past.

>>15768953
this has literally nothing to do with Spengler, why is this thread full of people who have no idea who he is

>>15768928
Less religiosity is not necessarily a bad thing. In many ways its a good thing. As for the intelligent having less kids, this has been true for thousands of years. Monks were the intellectual backbone of medieval Europe and Eunuchs were the heart of Chinese political science and yet neither of these groups had any kids. That the intelligent are only having less kids is a step up.

Suburbs are spacious, but not everyone lived in one.
Many lived in housing projects in the cities and were more deprived than any nowadays.

You can talk about how dumber and dumber people are able to be carried around for the ride, but that is balanced off by the general growth in average IQ that the world has seen over the past century.
Look up the Flynn Effect for reference.

I see no reason to believe that the modern politicization of science and tech is at all novel. Its more down to how visible everything is that we think this way.
Historically the disputes and squabbles would be hidden due to the lack of information diffusion, but that is not the case anymore.

>>15769066
>As for the intelligent having less kids, this has been true for thousands of years
>You can talk about how dumber and dumber people are able to be carried around for the ride, but that is balanced off by the general growth in average IQ that the world has seen over the past century.
none of that is true btw

>>15768795
So the West will never produce influential persons again?
Is that his thesis?

>>15769019
I'm saying the cost of living was lower. That's basically all I'm saying. Are you okay?

13 million Americans work more than one job
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/06/about-thirteen-million-united-states-workers-have-more-than-one-job.html

"The dollar's buying power is less than what it was 20 years ago, meaning what you earn doesn't stretch as far as it once did."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-does-current-cost-living-compare-20-years-ago.asp

Cost of living increase highest rate in 10 years
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-of-living-2018-increasing-at-fastest-rate-in-10-years/

Wages stagnant for decades
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Of course I'm not saying it's impossible to make art today, but if you really think this isn't affecting the ability and flexibility to create art, then you're just fuckin stupid, plain and simple.

>Why isn't there a renaissance in these places?
I only really follow American and British art. I can't say anything about the state of art today in the European and South American welfare states.

>>15769027
>>15769018
No, but if many fragment of his thesis are shown my science to be false it show the inconsistency of his thesis, it's up to you analyze both.

>>15769081
Basically yes. Culture creates the grand artistic and philosophical forms that define a Civilization, while Civilization simply remembers what Culture has created without making anything new itself. His thesis is that the West is transitioning from Culture to a full Civilization between the years 1800 and 2100, like the Graeco-Roman world did between 300 BC and 0 AD. Kant and Hegel are analogous to Plato and Aristotle in that these are the last significant philosophers of their respective Cultures.

>>15767959
Steven Pinker is a neoliberal and status quo apologist who has puerile and commonplace insights. How can anyone think he's profound? Why even bother publishing such work?

>>15769079
How many kids did Aquinas have? How many kids did Cai Lun have?
You never looked up the Flynn effect either did you?

>>15769087
Instead of spending the time arguing about that because it's boring and you act like all these young people are not just playing fortnite all day. How come the people who do have the free time aren't creating good art?

>>15769116
the welfare state is the cause of dysgenic breeding patterns, the children of dumb, poor used to starve; secondarily female emancipation. The flynn effect is more than offset by dysgenics within populations, let alone the massive >10 point drop worldwide due to rates between populations.

>>15769066
>>15769116
Intelligent people have more kids if they're genuinely religious. Yes, celibacy is a filter of intelligence, though the efforts through sublimation (i.e. putting all energy into your passion rather than domestics) have benefited society (e.g. Newton, Descartes sort of, and many more), and it being a virtue made it a safe position for homosexuals to benefit society and social cohesion (rumored examples: Pope Leo X and Sandro Botticelli).

The Flynn effect refutes the claim that there is a growth in average IQ, it is only an environmental effect, that mostly comes from memory thanks to the teaching of analytical thinking and access to technology. It is has little bearing on problem solving in novel situations only inherent intelligence (g) does. There has even recently been observed in some countries an anti-Flynn effect

>>15769133
>all these young people are not just playing fortnite all day
You mean like 14 year olds? Dude how old are you, like 80?

>>15769136
Do you have evidence of this belief that the Flynn effect is overpowered?
IQ can drop in a nation when you have mass immigration from underdeveloped areas, but after education and nutrition and everything else comes in you end up with rough parity between the groups as the effect kicks into gear.

>>15767602
My God, you're such a pedantic shithead. How about you read the fucking book and so that you have something of substance to say? You think materialistic measures like GDP, living standards, modern science and employment are the only criteria to judge a civilization when you ignore the parts that give it its soul, namely art, music, and philosophy. You think we live in the best of times when it is plain clear cities are literally burning down all around you.

>>15769192
>you end up with rough parity between the groups as the effect kicks into gear.
The iq scores between different groups never equalize no matter how many environmental variables are controlled for.

>>15769081
>>15769113
Does it mean that when things have declined enough there will emerge a consensus to go back to despotism i.e caesarism >>15768428
but then this will be purely ad-hoc in its religiousness, eclecticism and right to rule so that it will weaken and collapse totally?

>>15769199
>How about you read the fucking book and so that you have something of substance to say?
I asked for somebody to explain his argument and all I got were people talking about how they don't make movies like they used 'ta. If you, a supposed follower of this guy's theory, can't even explain it yourself why the fuck should I bother?

>You think materialistic measures like GDP, living standards, modern science and employment are the only criteria to judge a civilization
You couldn't even show how there's any relationship between cultural production and a society's well-being! You couldn't even argue how it makes sense to judge a society for the popular commerical products dictated by a small executive elite!
Holy fuck. Now this is prime time coping. I'm here making arguments, trying to provide evidence, showing my rationale throughout, and somehow you can't manage anything other than autistic rambling about "the soul of a people" when you're talking about top 40 hits! Good god dude. Seek help.

>>15766959
>>>15766932
>Crime is near 50's levels

Only if you don't count niggers committing crimes. Which libtards try to do. dindu nuffin.

>>15769322
You have to go back /pol/

>>15769244
Caesarism is a really complex topic. If you imagine Culture as something moving but Civilization as something inert you might get an idea. Culture fights over ideas but Civilization is the living fossil of Culture and doesn't really care about ideas. Most people simply stop caring about democracy, or caring about anything really, except wealth, which allows obscenely rich men like Julius Caesar and even Trump to just come in and do what they want.

>>15769260
top 40 hits is a bad example, how about the second response of >>15768428
Also there the issue of the power process (less freedom more bureaucracy) which naturally would affect men more.

>>15769164
More than half of the people I know play Xbox for most of their leisure time.

>>15769087
There you have your decline of the west

>>15769164
Also nice job not answering the second important question.

>>15768767
>People also used to work their hands raw in sweatshops everyday even in developed nations at the same time that Spengler was writing
some of us still do

>>15766871
Pinker thinks life is getting better, but I think Spengler was right.

>>15769350
>>15768428
Architecture is an interesting case for sure. It's something I'll have to think about given the power dynamics involved that the other anon pointed out. Again, w/r/t architecture, a lot of it comes down to taste, and how exactly you measure civilizational health with artistic trends is, uh, mystifying to me. But, in terms of artistic pursuit insofar as the state sanctioning or supporting grand buildings, I'll grant that it's certainly easier for a monarch to get something done in a particular way than a bureaucracy. But this is what's being conflated here: the masses with bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is inherently not representative of the masses. Its very function is to carry out and maintain processes that exist above and dictate then masses. The claim that a bureaucracy cannot produce great art is therefore not a condemnation of the masses, a condemnation of a society, but instead the condemnation of bureaucracy. A question here is: who is expecting great art from the bureaucracy in the first place? Isn't this critique instead actually making a case for why the masses, not the bureaucracy, should be making the decisions?

But what's also missing in this claim is considering that the major artworks that we think of were commissioned by wealthy patrons, who in turn covered the living and working costs of the artist. This dynamic would support my basic argument that the production of good art is deeply related to the material, economic stability and security of the artists themselves.

>>15768428
imagine being this stupid

>>15769342
All this nonsense about standards of living isn't what I take away from his writings. It's this.

>that 1 book analysing the decline of the west and how all of its critics basically nitpick random shit from it
>mfw its the exact same thing in this thread

>>15769602
Which book

>>15766871
This, believe it or not. Actually a pretty good book, and his data seem to support Spengler's thesis, and he says as much.

>>15769113
To call Kant and Hegel the last significant philosophers is just belaying his bias. They are important, very much so.
But to call them the last significant ones is basically just ignoring the massively influential thought that came from outside of them.

Additionally, most great men only become great in hindsight. They don't stand out from the crowd at the time as far as they do a hundred years later. This seems to be a thought process built out of focusing on hindsight and not recognizing that we don't have a good view of the present or any view of the future.

One can name drop Mozart, but I can see someone like Micheal Jackson having a similar amount of presence in the future has his ability to nearly perfect the pop music of his era is not unlike Mozart or Bach or whatever deep cut I dig up for this last slot to make me look more /mu/.

>>15769752
>has his ability
*as his ability

>>15768987
Artistic decline is civilizational decline

>>15769752
We have two hundred years of hindsight from Kant and Hegel. No one has thus far counteracted what they were able to enact. Not Nietzsche or Heidegger or Strauss. No one becomes great in hindsight. They may be caught up to. No hindsight will make Michael Jackson equal to Mozart. Presence in the future or "influence" by itself is meaningless. None of that is incompatible with lowered standards. If we are that bad at being aware of the present so much the worse for us.

>>15769894
This is certainly false within the real of both philosophy and music. In philosophy the linguistic turn was at least as influential as German Idealism if not more. Carnap is just as significant a philosopher as Hegel. Spengler is pseudo history.

>>15769752
You obviously can't get acquainted with a 1000 page philosophy book from a 4chan post, but Kant and Hegel were among the last great metaphysicians to cut broadly into public thought. Mainstream philosophy after Kant became primarily concerned with ethics and politics starting with Schopenhauer who inherited Kant's epistemology but made the ethics of the will to life the whole point of his philosophy. Then you get Marx and Nietzsche who are just pure ethics without metaphysics. Marx and Nietzsche were men of their day, significant in the 19th and 20th century, irrelevant in the 21st, and will be forgotten by the 22nd. Kant and Hegel on the other hand will be studied until the end of Western civilization and likely by whatever civilizations come after us, as we have studied Plato and Aristotle.

Michael Jackson will be forgotten as well. All modern culture is transitory rootless invention without any part in a greater story like Marx and Nietzsche.

>>15769491
>>15767959
>>15769115
>Pinker

>>15767906
Ur a retard .Learn to play high quality video games like Deus ex,fallout 1&2, and other top notch titles mutthead

>>15769958
This is just your bias speaking. All the thinkers you listed are being studied just as intensely as Kant or Hegel. In fact, Marx moreso because of his influence on social science. Kant is influential in a variety of fields but more for anticipating certain scientific problems like how sense datum is combined into a single experience, not for the actual core parts of his philosophy like the spontaneity of discursive consciousness, the moral argument for god, etc.

Transhumanism is the only way forward for humans.Those who wish to join this cause can flourish and those who resist it get eradicated.

>>15769946
Nothing I said is a defense of Spengler in particular. I don't even really care about him. And you missed the point of what I said. "Influence" can just as well mean the proliferating of academic-industrial journal debates and incentivized back and forth and elaboration of bullshit: see current academic (especially analytic) philosophy. The linguistic turn is arguably a vulgarization of earlier german stuff, in a reactionary direction.

>>15769994
Lol we're gonna be hitting the limits of hardware in less than a decade. Transhumanism is a meme.

>>15770028
If we importance outside academia, Kant and Hegel are almost completely irrelevant with the exception that Kants political writings were influential on the United Nations. Also don’t see how linguistic turn is a vulgaizarion of earlier German stuff. Sounds like a coping conty take.

>>15770052
I don't argue with analcels. Your first sentence is remarkably naive: who care if the average person can name Kant or Hegel? Do you think the average person knows who rules them?

>>15770038
Well Ur the one who's gonna get BTFO after we achieve singularity in about 40-50 years.

>>15769994
I'm afraid.
I'm afraid of what comes after the average person no longer has any use in production. When all we are good for is consumption of goods what comes of us? What will our lives be like? There is no utopia to be found, so what comes of us when resources are still scarce, but humans aren't in production anymore?

>>15770119
Increasing our computational capability (IQ)of course.But to hope for such a bright future ,we need to get our act together, individually and collectively. Isn't the ultimate goal of consciousness self contemplation and realization of ourself and the universe.

>>15766932
violent crime rate is the lowest it's been in half a century bro

>>15769958
>Michael Jackson will be forgotten as well
Thriller is the odyssey of the modern age

>>15766871
What is the Second Religiousness? Does it destroy Secularism and Materialism?

Nobody even recommended me any books.

>>15770554
>What is the Second Religiousness?
you ever wonder where all the christian larpers on 4chan come from?

>>15766906
This might be bait but it's unironically true
All those theorists are spouting nonsense trying to pose as some prophetic figures or "the smart guys who know what's up" in their times, civilization is currently at it's peak by every metric possible but you'll still get some faggot whining about something he doesn't like as if it's the end of the world.

>>15766906
>graph go up therefore world more gooder

>>15770829
Yes.

How do other races even live with themselves

>>15771028
What are you implying?

>>15766906
Last Man seething

>>15771032
They gotta die

>>15771036
Ok powerless pedo neet, keep seething.

You guys should see the google image results for black girls lol

>>15771046
I'm doing alright, ad hominemman

How many years of suppression and evil will it take to turn this girl into another college grad? 20? 25?

Oh I don't know if I mentioned this but there's a part of the Bible that proves Jews and Euros are the same thing. All whites are Jews.

So Esau had red hair

Wow, amazing that was overlooked for 2000 years

Almost seems like a concerted effort

I guess I'll have a coca cola and blast off in my space ship to Mars now

thanks white people

WHITE POWER oh thanks for making God happy too

>>15770558
just read spengler, unabridged decline and man and technics. there are no serious critiques of spengler.

>>15766912
Link/title?

>>15766871
There is no critique on his concepts and ideas, only critiques on how he wrote it because he valued a free writting style more than the purely academic scientific style of writing popular in academia

>>15766906
>countless scientific breakthroughs
The rate of macroinnovations per billion of people is at 17th century level.

>>15767438
He has a book on technology too

>>15768195
No he really wasn't that overly pessimistic, pretty sure that he wrote in one book that man can still thrive in this time and his primary objective should be the destruction of money-power and democracy

>>15770554
People that don't actually believe in god but push all the tenets of religion.

>Capital Is Breaking Free. And That's A Good Thing

>>15768783
People making art/music etc in the 19th century were connected enough to be modern but still disconnected to the extent that independent thought and innovation in art was possible
Today, we have a hivemind

>>15771439
proof or source you fag

>>15772013
Is he wrong tho? Most of the inventions in the last 20 years have been consumer products

>>15771436
this is retarded. you are saying people unanimously agree with spengler

>>15772023
i want a source

>>15767959
dude compared to the 1800s Twizller consumption is at an all time high, life is great!

>>15772013
>>15772029
see >>15769708
also Charles Murray: Human Accomplishment

>>15766906
With the Death of GOd came the new Religion of materialism and now we have the fusion of neo-Marxism and post-Christianity in the form of the BLM cult movement. Kneeling, standing 2 meters apart, chanting in unison. Destroying every aspect of whites in USA, destroying communities, destroying destroying destroying. What will be rebuilt? Probably nothing. China will just pick up the pieces. I predict humanity will be extinct by the end of this century, or we will simply all be living like the insect half-people of impoverished Chinese ghettos. But hey at least we weren't racist.

>>15772046
>BLM cult movement
there concerns are valid

>>15772046
>I predict humanity will be extinct by the end of this century, or we will simply all be living like the insect half-people of impoverished Chinese ghettos. But hey at least we weren't racist.


so emotional and hyperbolic. simply saying that black people shouldnt be killed by the cops is not going to destroy america

>>15772062
It doesn't matter what they have for concerns, the end result is annihilation of America. I imagine Chinese are funneling money into many of these pseudo revolutionary groups similar to how the KGB funded the anti-Vietnam war movement. America got destroyed by psyops.
>>15772070
Someone should tell black people to stop murdering whites then. Won't happen. Separation is the only solution but it won't happen. We will keep pretending we can live in a "diverse tolerant culture" which so far has only been mass terror doxing of wrongthinkers, violence, lies, hysteria, panic, and paranoia. America is out the door at this point. Humanity maybe has 100 more years left to exist but America will probably fall apart this century.

>>15772081
fall apart this decade*
If Trump wins re-election there will be blood on the streets. If Biden wins he will finish off whatever was left of American identity. After that, the elections in the USA will be meaningless cycles of violence and bloodshed. Kneel before your Materialist god and chant away while you can

>>15772089
The end of the world is always right around the corner
Sure everything could go to hell at any moment, but will it? Probably not. It's probably just gonna go on and be as mundane as it has been
When was the last time an election changed anything? I can't recall

>>15768735
We are also living in the time where nobody shares a communal experience, has no shared sense of values and has no capacity to judge anything, So yeah our culture has completely declined. The fact that it became this self criticizing shitfest, always stuck in trying to abolish it's own institutions says as much. That's the definition of decline. Just because we don't suffer doesn't mean somethinh that was once here( our culture/sense of identification with one another etc.) has not disappeared

>>15769116
On the high iq range religiosity still correlates positively with having children. whereas atheism doesn't

>>15769066
look up the co-occurrence model for the decline in g-factor.

>>15766871
put down your book and look out the window