/lit/ - Literature

What a wanker

>>16740636
Imagine being a homosexual, lmao kys

>>16740608
Can you summarise this dude's ideas?

>>16740661
Enlightenment BAD because GOD

>>16740608
Based

>>16740661
BASED

>>16740672
based as fuck holy shit

>>16740608
says the guy who spent his early adult hood watching guys get their heads smashed open

Holy shit, did De Maistre actually say that? I almost spit out my bite of vegan protein cookie, god damn lmao

>>16740672
Rationalist government is inherently self-destructive.

>>16740804
Who was the guy who said anything that can be built on reason can also be undone by reason?

Don't forget about de Bonald.

>>16740608
ROUSSEAU BTFOD

>>16740672
Yes.

>>16740608
can someone help me connect the dots of how the the world churned out marx and engles after the enlightenment

>>16740991
It all began with this malevolent fellow

>>16740672
yup based
>>16741036
no it began with this guy

>>16741036
thanks m8. So, one time I got in conversation and someone told me about the anti-god aspect of marxism, Dialectical materialism. In this conversation, It seemed like what was being described was a nineteenth century version of socrates. in respect to the sense that both advocated a non - ideal / metaphysical dimension.
a line or two about him, I do not know kant very well.
>>16741071
or him

>>16740608
Would they be friends?

>>16740661
He proved that reason topples reason so it's abhorrent to use it to order society, society must be founded on something which exists above the argumentative and whims of reason. He takes reason to it's limit to show it's never a grand solution but a series of finite measures that generally remain foreign to the human condition.

Maistre is an excellent example of using various natural paradoxes and ironic reason to defeat the very notion of reason itself as a human faculty, and expose that humans were never rational to begin with. He's a master contrarian unlike any other and he uses it to justify Traditionalist angles of philosophy, unlike pretty much every other contrarian who uses it to espouse degenerative attitudes.

Sort of how Diogenes was the homeless peepeepoopoo Sam Hyde of the streets, Maistre was the aristocratic Sam Hyde of Freemasonry, secret societies and modern government philosophy.

just because the enlightenment is flawed doesn't make what it replaced correct or the only other option. Remember, before enlightenment there were no options.

Liberalism didn't replace conservatism. Conservatism wasn't even defined until the mid 1800s when it was needed to refute liberalism.

>>16741203
If kant said that reason is not to be followed because of it's 'flaws', what was it that he proposed instead of reason?

>>16741071
this, but one has to wonder; didn't Plato retrospectively refute Nominalism and how did the Church let Ockham get away with it?

>>16741275
We're talking about Joseph De Maistre, not Kant. But if you're talking about Maistre.

Reason cannot be the foundation of society. The foundation of society must be something irrational, irrational in the sense that it is beyond critique and that means a source of tangible or mythical authority. The use of reason to govern should be delegated entirely to an occult or secretive part of the governing body and kept completely out of the hands of the plebians.

Listen to this lecture by Isaiah Berlin for a good explanation of Maistre's thinking
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=juMl4TQzA34

0:00 for biographical context
7:15 for the beginning of the explanation

>>16740672
So this is the power of rightoid "intellects"...

>>16740672
yes.

>>16741415
>"Why is reason good if it topples the positive dynamics of civilization?"
>"HAHAHAHA WHAT THE FUCK DID THIS GUY JUST CRITICIZE REASON?!!?!?!?"

>>16741415
I mean to be fair that was a horrendously shitty explanation of his philosophy

Fuck The """Enlightenment""".
Fuck The French Revolution.
Fuck The American Revolition.
Fuck Liberalism.
Fuck Modernity.
Fuck Democracy.
Fuck Freemasonry.
Fuck Atheism.
Fuck Scientism.

>>16740672
HEAR, HEAR

>>16741490
>“All sciences have their mysteries and at certain points the apparently most obvious theory will be found in contradiction with experience. Politics, for example, offers several proofs of this truth. In theory, is anything more absurd than hereditary monarchy? We judge it by experience, but if government had never been heard of and we had to choose one, whoever would deliberate between hereditary and elective monarchy would be taken for a fool. Yet we know by experience that the first is, all things considered, the best that can be imagined, while the second is the worst. What arguments could not be amassed to establish that sovereignty comes from the people? However they all amount to nothing. Sovereignty is always taken, never given, and a second more profound theory subsequently discovers why this must be so. Who would not say the best political constitution is that which has been debated and drafted by statesmen perfectly acquainted with the national character, and who have foreseen every circumstance? Nevertheless nothing is more false. The best constituted people is the one that has the fewest written constitutional laws, and every written constitution is WORTHLESS.”

BASED

>>16741490
Alright now that's based

>>16741490
>can't square the circle

Somebody gets it

>>16740608
conservetarded critiques of the enlightenment can only get you so far, pick up adorno & horkheimer "dialectic of enlightenment" if you're ready to sit at the table with the adults

>>16741564
>Marxist "philosophers"
How's that undergrad going?

>>16741290
Plato did and Proclus absolutely ended all hope for nominalism (see the first few propositions of Elements of Theology)

How did the Church let them get away with it? Avignon papacy was under siege from secular power. Wiliam of Ockham and the various Franciscan group got Patronage from Louis IV of Bavaria.

If you want a quick read that explores this more, check out John Milbank's Franciscan Conundrum

>>16741155
they'd agree on a lot but Burke was way milder than Maistre
Maistre would probably get tired of his moralising, would be quite displeased with Burke's political involvement with the Whigs, would hate his support for the American Revolution, would disagree over his understanding of tradition, and many such other things

>>16740608
Based

>>16741469
>Kike on a stick death cult
>positive

>>16740672

>>16741247
>there was no political philosophy before 1750
>De Maistre being conservative instead of making something new only called "conservatism" because he agreed with some previous pilosophers
How can non-liberal even compete with this level of brainwashing?

>>16740856

>Death alone prevailed.

BASED

>>16741071
ockham ball torture lmao

>>16741071
I've yet to finish the Greeks, and I've only just started the Church Fathers.
What did Ockham do wrong?

>>16740608
>Saying "man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" is like saying sheep are born carnivorous, and everywhere they nibble grass.

>>16740608
>Saying "man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" is like saying sheep are born carnivorous, and everywhere they nibble grass.

>>16740608
>>Saying "man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" is like saying sheep are born carnivorous, and everywhere they nibble grass.
>Yes (but without the shit analogy)
https://youtu.be/TtUz514rXKo

>>16743267
>implying Indo-European Religion can be equated to abrahamistic goat fucker garbage

>>16740672
Yes. There’s a reason everything is so ugly nowadays.

Based edgelord

>>16745023
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!! I-IS IS THAT NATURE!?!?!? OH GOD OF MERCIFUL LIFE BUILD THE WALLS HIGHER!!!! JACKALOPES IN MY DREAMS!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! PLEASE LORD OF LIGHT BLOCK IT OUT INTO THE HEAVENLY DARKNESS!!!! BUILD THE WALLS OF HEAVEN AT MY FEET!!!!! DRAGONS AND UNICORNS!!!!!! I'M GOING INNNSSSAAAAAAANNNEEEE!!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

>>16745965
Yes.

>>16741071
Cope. Ockham is the only good Catholic theologian.
>>16744837
BTFO Aristotle.