/lit/ - Literature

>>19604013
>innumerable problems
innumerable*

>>19604013
>having endless open dialogue rather than putting one's foot down
>People should not have the freedom to believe what they want.
>People should not have the freedom to call into question divine or theocratic rule.
Start with the Greeks

>>19604013
I forgot to mention the trash of democracy.
>>19604022
I think Plato most likely agrees to a large extent. He was anti-democracy.
Democracy is a form of secularism.

>>19604028
Plato was, by his society's standards, a religious sceptic. His anti-democratic attitudes are not "trad" in his case but the result of dialectic. Furthermore, open discussion is necessary, under his rubric, for attainment of knowledge of the Good.

>>19604040
There is no such thing as a truly open discussion, which would lead to chaos. There always need to constraints for discussion to occur. In the present time, these constraints are secular by nature. Certain secular axioms that underlie discussion involve respect for differences in viewpoints, the belief in independence and freedom of thought, and the belief progress is only possible through an impartial scientific manner of thinking.

>>19604040
>>19604067
However, when I think of it more, scientism is fundamentally religious in character and is an outgrowth of secular values. We are living in a post-secular age where people cannot question "established" scientific claims where people in lab coats are the priests.

>>19604013
Pipe dream to ever enforce what people wear, think and believe. Take the anarchy pill

>>19604188
Kys.

>>19604196
You can't do shit about that either, cope and seethe statist faggot

>>19604205
Anarchy eventually leads to kind of organized structure, you naive and stupid faggot. You are Butterbitch level stupid.

>>19604213
Our conversation right now is anarchic by nature and we're on of the most anarchic sites still on the world wide web. Authoritarians always love rules for thee but not for themselves.

>>19604235
I love rules when they are tailored according to my value systems. I post here because I am constantly censored on other websites.
I'll read De Maistre even though I am not Christian.

>>19604013
Okay but those are just assertions and this isn't your diary

>>19604013
>I am sick and tired of people spouting secular values.
It started with the greeks.
Remember that philosophy is their word.
It is greek philosophy that led us to where we are today

>>19604336
I asked for books. The only one I know of that's close to my views is De Maistre.

>>19604322
"I just think we should mold our entire society around what I believe" yeah you and everyone else
You sound like a megalomaniac lmao. How would you enforce even millions, much less billions of people to think the way you do?

>>19604348
Okay but you didn't really say anything. You just asserted a lot which could lead you anywhere. In the language you used I'd recommend paul joseph watson on yt.

>>19604392
Most societies in the past were molded by the interaction of a kind of ruling elite with religious institutions. They existed in a kind of symbiosis even when tensions would emerge. They were two sides of the same coin.
Secularism is utter and complete trash, but it has evolved in the same manner into scientism, which I consider a tradition. The ruling elite are in a kind of intimate interaction with leading scientists, who have replaced religion. This pattern is impossible to avoid as human beings.

>>19604399
I want anti-science, anti-secular, pro-theocracy and authoritarian works, you idiot.

>>19604013
>People should not have the freedom to believe what they want.
>People should not have the freedom to dress as they wish.
So if some powerful authority told you that everyone has a right to dress the way they want, and that if you complained you'd be killed, what would you think of this?

>>19604408
Pro theocracy is the only thing you said and it's general as hell anyways.

I would say that the arguments for them were bereft that after ww1 ppl argued for naziism, liberalism or communism but nobody meaningfully argued for monarchism which was the standard theocracy in europe. You'd probably have to develop it yourself.

>>19604422
Don't burst his bubble. That's obv not a real position as definitionally authority has authority. It's unfalsifiable.

>>19604422
I wasn't thinking that deeply when writing the OP. I didn't think about the logic conclusion.
Secularism is untenable, which is why evolved into scientism and technocratic authoritarianism.

>>19604434
>logic conclusion.
the full conclusion*
>evolved
it evolved*

>>19604434
If you want to replace the current system you have to have a clear system in mind to replace it

>>19604443
I want a monarchy that is intimately connected to religious institutions. For example, a divinely appointed kings surrounded by priests or monks for moral guidance. There can be a council of intellectuals for agricultural, commerce, and military matters too.

>>19604457
However, we already have this, so that's the problem... I think it would make more sense for me to attack scientism.

>>19604465
You have to say how you attack "science" or it'll be a guessing game.
Is it modern overspecialization, individualist, capitalist, neo-aristocratic uni academia science?
Is it empirical, experimental science a la newton or is it rational, analytic science a la descartes?
Is it materialism you have an issue with and is it materialism entirely or do you think it just has really low value e.g. in the cave for plato?
You could cover all these by simply saying what you're for rather than what you're against. If it's accurately variabilized then you can deal w problems you haven't even approached yet.

>>19604457

Wow. Where can we get these divinely appointed kings?

>>19604457
>>19604465
God I hate these edgy 14 year olds that have invaded this site

>>19604480
The belief empirical science can describe the nature of reality. I ascribe to instrumentalism.
>>19604499
Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Du Pont family, and a couple of others do view themselves to possess special blood. They exert tremendous influence on various important industries and institutions. Rockefellers for example promoted feminism for economic reasons.
>>19604523
What makes you think I am 14 years old, dumb cunt?

>>19604537
And we're just gonna roll with them thinking they have "special blood"? And we're just gonna roll with them being divinely appointed? I'm serious, how do we verify these divinely appointed kings? Is it Jeff Bezos? Is it Elon Musk?

What... the fuck?

>>19604480
>>19604537
The push for mass surveillance, toxic vaccines, digital biodigital signatures, and so forth all tie into my explanatory framework of sociopolitics. In some sense, mankind's psyche has not changed at all. It's just things feel more destructive with technology and its invasive measures.
I predict the overt creation of new religious cults centered around trahsumanist bullshit in ~20 years.

>>19604013
What is pic rel? Who is it by? It's very enchanting

>>19604572
You're interested in politics.
If you're interested in foundations start w the greeks.
This is a longer series of posts that goes over hoe to study and reach what you want.
>>/lit/thread/S19500771#p19500901

>>19604567
They're small fry compared to the wealthy elite families like the Rockefellers. For example, most of modern medical and pharmaceutical industries were financed by the Rockefellers.
None of this stuff we see originated organically from the common people.
You have the elite class and the priestly class; they interact to some degree for various purposes (e.g., advice). The priestly caste was replaced by scientists post-WWII, which led to secularism, and now we have scientism with a mix of technocratic totalitarianism where bodily autonomy will become a thing of the past.
This pattern, while seeming to possess novel implications, still falls into the psyche of mankind.
Baudelaire once pointed to something like this too.
The entire framework people use to discuss politics is based on a flawed paradigm and believing the common man to possess more political agency than he actually does.
I prefer to just refer to elite of the common times as "black nobility".

>>19604590
>None of this stuff we see originated organically from the common people.
So will of the people decides the king? Rousseau argues this but for liberalism. Locke uses natural law to dictate individuslism. Usually theism is used to justify monarchism but that has holes still.

>>19604590
What the fuck dude?

So the people with the money to finance researchers doing real research are the people with the special blood, rather than people whose brain matter did all the work?

What do you think is making their blood special? Like seriously? On a chemical level, what do you think is making their blood special? And how is it remotely possible that they function as an organism in the same way we all do, but have special blood? They can't do anything different physically except be rich.

>>19604408
>I want anti-science, anti-secular, pro-theocracy and authoritarian works

>>19604598
All of those are superficial differences when viewed at their manifestations or expressions.
A high-level researcher or scientist is technically a priest of a different religion.
The highest-level of elites like Rockefellers are immune from both national and international laws. They are effectively monarchs when viewed from a different vantage point.
It's good to just deconstruct all that gibberish and acknowledge the reality in front of you that's unfolding and how these patterns have always existed to some extent in the past. A very good intellectual, for example, would have predicted secularism's eventual evolution into a kind of technocratic scientism.
It's like Deleuze's idea of difference and **repetition**. There may be differences now, but there is a kind of repetition undergoing, which is kind of recursive in a sense and stems from the psyche.

>>19604625
Dude you sound like a schizo. I gave an actual answer. You can't expect to replace something if you have no alternative or means to that alternative. Do you think there's no measurable difference between will of the ppl or natural law? One leads to slavery and one leads to just regular disenfranchisement. You can't just snap your fingers and expect everything to change. You're not being pragmatic at all.

>>19604631
Certain eras have latent problems which progressively gets worse and peaks until either implosion or transforming into its (relative) opposite.
Right now we are at the phase of secularism transforming into a kind of "scientism + technocracy + quasi-monarchism". Black Rock and Vanguard, which buy up most major companies, are like the new "fortress or castle". If you can get the major shareholders of Black Rock and Vanguard, you'll figure out who the contemporary monarchs, which function more globally now manufacturing fake narratives and global conflicts. That list is kept hidden.
We are technically slaves or cattle and there will be a biodigital signature enforced on most of us soon.
I refuted my own OP.

>>19604661
>transforming into a kind of*
peaking into a kind of*
I would not say what we're at is a transformation of the opposite of secularism. It's a peaking.

>>19604661
As lomg as it's falsifiable and testable sure

>>19604688
It's an instrument based on figuring out patterns in the past and then creating provisional models to predict the future. How can an instrument or simulation be claimed to conform to the nature of reality? Even machine learning models are doing a better job of predicting future trends in fusion particle experiments, and they don't involve deriving physical laws from data. Science cannot describe reality.
It's when science is used to deal with metaphysical questions that it becomes a religion.

>>19604457
>I want theocratic monarchy
Lol, closest you could get to this is running a successful business and working closely with a church for charity efforts. Business would allow you the freedom to organize your local society how you like, as long as you can make money. You'll get a lot farther doing that than "changing hearts and minds."

>>19604013

>>19604013
i doubt you actually want to read anything, and instead just want to rant about how the world should be the way you want it to be and everyone else should listen to you.

but in case you do actually want to read a book, the obvious choice is A Secular Age by Charles Taylor.

>>19604408
Rene Guenon (pbuh) - collected works

>>19604013
>my name is...
>NOTIM PORTANT

>>19604013
>People should not have the freedom to believe what they want.
My first act as padishah-emperor is to have you banished

>>19604457
>divinely appointed kings surrounded by priests or monks for moral guidance
You can become a priest and move to Vatican City or Mt Athos whenever you want. Leave the rest of us out of it. Of course, since you're just a retard you won't do shit anyway

>>19604013
Jean Borella - The Crisis of Religious Symbolism
René Guénon - The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times

>>19604013
Gravity's Rainbow

>>19604013
>sickening me
>I'm tired
Another right-wing apologetic arguing from feels.

>>19604013
Now this is what I call a slave mentality

>>19604408
Why not just move to Iran, Afghanistan or some similar country OP?

>>19604590
>The priestly caste was replaced by scientists post-WWII, which led to secularism
Lmao you faggot are complely uncultured about history. Please do keep posting, your retardation is amusing.

>>19604013
you got btfo in the fungi thread and now you're shitting up the rest of the board huh

>>19604040
You're retarded

>>19604235
The man who has no master within ought to have a master without - Plato/Socrates