/lit/ - Literature

>>17371697
I would also be interested in this. I know it’s kind of an old trope to equate modern hypermorality with puritanical impulse but I think the substitution of politics as religion is still a valid critique.

Requesting works not by basic bitch conservatives if possible, I don’t want to read Ann Coulter.

"Alexander Grau"
Haven't read his book yet but I enjoy him in his articles in Cicero Magazine.

>>17371697
Political correctness is just modern day Christian Karens. You had the same people in Ray Bradbury's day trying to get plays and the like banned because they were against "community standards".

Political correctness is just community standards writ large because of the twin forces of the totalitarian state and big tech.

This man observed this in the 19th century. Nothing new under the sun.

>>17371697
It just came to me, but hypermorality is just the other side of traditionalism.

Throughout history, humans go through these cycles of liberalism to conservatism, to liberalism to conservatism again. We're banking sharply into the conservative phase again.

Like traditionalism, hypermorality is strict adherence to societal rules. They may not be traditional rules, but they're strict, and rigorously enforced by those who subscribe to them.

>>17371783
Could this be a reason why it’s mostly the effeminate who pledge undying loyalty to the progressive stack “doctrine”? It gratifies both their proclivity toward submission to authority and their high empathy / aversion towards conflict.

>>17371809
That makes sense, I've always felt that effete males have more of a female brain, being wired more towards conflict aversion and social consensus.

I also think the progressive stack is what Joyce called "a festival of inversion," and that people who revel in such have always existed in society. Society will always have a caste of freaks and outcasts who are looking for their time in the sun and the progressive stack is very convenient for them to get their message heard.

>>17371697
Industrial Society And Its Future

>>17371850
>Requesting works not by basic bitch conservatives if possible, I don’t want to read Ann Coulter.

>>17371697
I think that it's quite simple. Nietzsche sniffed out slave morality in Christianity, but I think he was a bit wrong, as Christianity isn't about resenting strength as Nietzsche read into it, but about subordinating one's self to the strongest being, that is god. However, when you remove the God from Christian morality you end up with exactly the slave morality Nietzsche was talking about, as its not longer about subordination, but simply about resentment.

>>17371871
Resentment toward whom, the brahmin? You’d think people would start hating jews in that case, being lightyears the most privileged tribe in the first world.

PS: Pls don’t make this thread about da joos just because I mentioned them haha

>>17371783
>rules
Rules are the essence of hypermorality and the key to understanding cognitive dissonance that often accompanies hypermorality. Hypermoralists value rules more than they value ideals because ideals sometimes clash without resolution but rules are always a binary in or out of compliance scenario. It is completely understandable why the vast majority of society gravitates towards a system which yields defined outcomes. Unfortunately prioritising rules over ideals leads to creation of rules that conflict with base ideals and creates potential cognitive dissonance. Hypermoralists after do not have consistent ideals and can only cling to their record of compliance as evidence of their good moral character.

Living by ideals is nonsensical to the average normie. It means arguing in favor of some stranger asshole's right to call someone a nigger because the ideal of free speech is powerful when the bar is kept that high so that tyrants cannot slowly erode away the power of speech and eventually imprison their opposition through the creation of rules. You sound like a crazy person arguing for a potential 50 years into the future vs. the pressing argument of the present unpleasant behavior. Your average normie is just not equipped to think about tomorrow let alone care about the future for their offspring in 50 years. They want blood on the sand in the colosseum. They want witches burning at the stake. They want order, not purpose or meaning.

>>17371697
Bump

>>17371697
What distinguishes 'hypermorality,' from morality? Why is it anything more than just a shift in a society's ethics? If I had to guess, I'd say it's a culture of purity spiraling.

I mention it here:
>>17365022
In its purely technical aspect it is a bit like diminishing returns, where the resources have become depleted a much greater effort is required to complete their extraction. This often occurs at a loss. At first the organisation ossifies, then it decays, or feeds on itself.
Morality is perfect in establishing being, or even becoming in many cases. But in great shifts there is a mechanical quality to change, becoming reveals its destructive qualities and to strip away the old order its morals must die or be replaced by something else.

Morals are simply not enough for the neutralisation process in the transitional period. It is the same as what Tocqueville says of American monuments, they must take up a much greater territory and force while also disappearing into nature to achieve the same effect. This is essentially the law of technology in the modern era. One does not overcome morality, it becomes instrumentalism.
It is a mistake to characterise this as a religious effort, it is a stripping away of the sacred into the profane. Hence why it takes so much more effort to achieve the same results as a moral society, the elements are weakened.
Junger said of Nietzsche that he moralised three times as much as an amoralist.

>>17371697
i assumed people required some form of morality as a defense against the unknown(future). something like 'the system/method has to be applied or people will die'. its like a defense mechanism to ensure survival, which is why people react so strongly when someone breaks their moral code. they believe that they are literally in danger. its the same thing i see with how militant people become on fad diets. they believe that their diet is the thing that gives them health and life and anyone who eats differently is an ill-informed idiot putting their lives at risk. if you dont believe me, go down the no-carb diet rabbit hole.

>>17371972

You can see quite easily the fascistic tendency of the basic normie with these corona-measures

>>17371809
i think there is also a survival mechanism at play as well. small groups of fanatics tend to gain power and people will at least play along just so they dont feel threatened.

>>17372344

You are on to something, the problem today is twofold:

>Most rules and morals are so refined and multi-leveled that you can remove them without immidiate feedback
>There is a strong rejection of any foundational human nature that would dictate something as universally desireable


Also worth mentioning is that most morals were tied so tightly to Christianity that once it was rejected as "materially" false, many threw the morals along with it.

>>17371871
i think that there is a powerful force of the christian morality that can only be understood in the inverse. If a christian is to only subordinate themselves to god, that means they are never to subordinate themselves to anything else, which is a strongly anti-authortarian position. and anti-ideological position. and anti-materialist position.

>>17372344
I mean, that's literally the purpose of morality, it's a heuristic for dealing with problem actors in society. The thing is, how do you convince the average person to sacrifice personal desires to benefit others?

Some are so innately good, they do not require anything more than an explanation. Others, however, need the threat of transcendental punishment. That is why it is foolish to get rid of religion. If nothing else, it gets selfish people to act good.

any recs on ethics and morality? something sociological about dealing with groups in society that try to go against it or are seen as villains like fascist and communists?

>>17372381
yah, that is the main problem. the question of 'whose morality?'. you may think that i am doing something wrong whereas i think i am doing something right. we can both strongly disagree, but if we are both living, thriving and surviving, there is no ultimate arbitrator which is reality. society has become so scure, people can act with a wide variance without much consequence, but the human mind seems to still demand a very narrow morality. i quess complex moral systems are to complex to make reliable or repeatable decisions.

>>17371697
bumping for when I get off work

>>17371697

Unironically Ted Kazynski

>>17372398
well, i dont know if this will add much to what you wrote, but i will write it anyway.

I believe the foundational basis of morality is how to conduct interpersonal relationship, since we are very social animal and we need to get along. And the first step in an interaction is identifying the person and having an understanding of them before you interact. how a person identifies another will regulate how they interact.

I have lived in small towns and large cities. I find what is considered good morality changes between the two. I think a lot of this moral conflict arises due to the nature of interactions.

While in a small town, i get to know people more completely. I will see them at work, in social situations, play sports with, might have gone to school with them, they may have went to school with my parents etc. So when i see a person in a small town, i know the person as an individual soul. And they know me as an individual soul. And therefore we can interact at that level.

When i lived in cities, interactions become very brief and shallow. Therefore I needed a quick way to identify how i was to interact with people. And so does everyone else. The easiest ways to identify a person to gain a quick understanding about them is race, gender and occupation. And I think this is why racial or gender identity is so important to some people, because it is how they recognize each other. and it is why people come up with more unique gender identities, because they really want to be identified as a unique individual.

I think it is also why we have such strong ideas now of white or black thought and culture. there needs to be a strongly defined idea of a black person, an almost generic black person, so people will know how to interact with someone they just met.

Its like how you will see, in a city, someone being rude to a server. they are not seeing a human, but a server, because that is the required extent of identification required. In a small town, you would never think to do that, because you would know the server as a person first due to other interactions with them. its the same thing for police, for that matter.

one famine away from total war anon, hope you like dying for your meals.

>>17372628
interesting thoughts

>>17372628
that's an interesting way of seeing things.

>>17372341
Good answer.

>>17372628
And the internet is an ultra extreme version of the city environment you speak of, which seems to be bleeding into real life more and more.

>>17372642
thanks. i should have added that:

if the majority of a persons interactions are fleeting and shallow, and their interactions are structured of a shallow identification of a person(race, gender, sexuality, occupation), it is not only how you would see other people, but it is how they would see you. and then, because a large part of identity is formed from socialization, you would see yourself only as your race, gender, sexuality, and occupation. or to some extent, at least.

that is why i think that identity politics is so important to some people and they treat it so rigorously. if a person is not recognized as their race,gender, sexuality, they cease to exist(metaphysically). and if all social interactions are dictated by group identity, and some people decide not to respect those rules of social interaction(morality), then they are seen as a serious threat.

this is the conflict or hypocrisy of identity politics. They demand that they want people to be identified as individuals(unique souls), and not the groups they belong in, but then they define their own individuality by their group identities. hence they can say racism(judging a person by their race) is bad, yet demand they be judged by their racial identity. I reckon thats why, in the face of this contradiction, they had to change the definition of racism(the famous racial judgement + power)

>>17372721
yah. you dont have a soul, anon. you may think you do, but you dont. because i never get to interact with you enough to see it. but i can see on your social media profiles what you gender and skin colour is, so i will interact with that and only see you as that. and you will become that.

>>17372766
*and only that

>>17371697
Moralists have always existed.

>>17371697
Nietzsche noted that modernity was profoundly moralistic. Chantal Delsol refers to the politics of indignation as a black market morality.

>>17371865
I’m actually >>17371737 and I don’t think uncle Ted could be at all compared to a crater brain like Bill O Reilly

But it is old news I want stuff that’s not typically shared. Everyone’s-heard of industrial society

>>17371747
I haven't figured out how to get Cicero Mag sent to the arse end of the Earth yet.

>>17371697
Bump

>>17371747
I read an interview with him some months ago. I think he made som good points, but then leaped to some pretty baseless conclusions from there.

>>17371865

Ted hated conservatives and basically considered them to be so stupid he only spent one line pointing out how obviously backwards and incoherent they are and didn't seem to think it was even worth saying any more about them.

>>17371768
yes, liberalism is a gnostic Christian heresy.

>>17371697

If you really want to understand whats really happening right now and why its happening read pic related

>>17376422
what are the Germans up to again?