/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12075176]

Can you explain to me the traditional politics/philosophy that seems so popular on this site. Why is the traditional life superior to the modern?
Why is homosexuality bad? Why shouldn't we live hedonistically and selfishly?
If the answer to this is "morals" how can you be sure that they are true? Why should you obey them?

[Anonymous No.12075332]

>>12075176
read the books, if you feel like there's something calling you, a higher meaning, then you are spiritually predisposicioned to tradicionalism. If you feel that you need to be "convinced" by someone through moralistic arguments, then it's not for you.

[Anonymous No.12075349]

>Literally "Feels>Reals"
Fucking evola man

[Anonymous No.12075356]

>>12075332
I sometimes feel that the world is meaningless and that a traditional, spiritual life would be better. But in the end all that matters is your feelings. We all want to feel happy above all so why is the modern hedonistic life bad? Should you instead just surrender yourself to some spiritual placebo?

[Anonymous No.12075363]

[Anonymous No.12075369]

Nobody really cares about traditionalists, they just want to intellectually justify their racism and homophobia

[Anonymous No.12075401]

>>12075356
if hedonism is fulfilling to you, then you're a hedonist, embrace it.
>>12075363
"too much violence"
that's not even close to the point

[Anonymous No.12075410]

What if I believe that the only way to recover traditional life is going through Marxist communism? Reactionary thought is impotent, it hasn't achieved anything of note. Fascism barely had 10 years of being a relevant political philosophy. Liberals always talk about how life was static, anti-innovative and backwards in the DDR/USSR. Well, this is precisely what we need nowadays, the rapid dizzying dissolution of social roles has almost been achieved by late capitalism. So, we have impotent ethno-nationalists and cowardly "libertarian socialists" who only accelerate this development. Time to reconsider.

[Anonymous No.12075444]

>>12075410
if this is serious: marxism is anti-hierarchal and materialist. By definition, anti-traditional

[Anonymous No.12075469]

>Can you explain to me the traditional politics/philosophy that seems so popular on this site.
Larpers essentially. Very few people on 4chan practice what they preach and live a traditional life.

Most anons are depressed because they live banal philistine existences but don't have enough insight to live a more fulfilling life, thus they turn to the traditional meme and believe they would be happier if they were covered in pigshit and living without running water or electricity.

[Anonymous No.12075471]

Freeing yourself from the passions of the flesh is the greatest moment a man can have in life

[Anonymous No.12075490]

>>12075469
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.12075494]

>>12075490
like I said, go practice what you preach

[Anonymous No.12075504]

>>12075494
i'm in uni because i want to afford a property before though

[Anonymous No.12075515]

>>12075504
I think you've got it confused, university costs money, if you wanted money you would be working

[Anonymous No.12075519]

>>12075515
>university costs money
if you are *merican

[Anonymous No.12075534]

>>12075519
it costs money regardless anon, you don't know much about life

[Anonymous No.12075545]

>>12075176

Evola was an actual fascist.
He wanted to distract from the "degree of wealth or indigence" in society because addressing it would undermine his politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

[Anonymous No.12075548]

>nofap
>calisthenics
>no materialistic desires
>no interest in getting famous
>fasting
>losing interest in games and other kind of cheap media
>reading into spirituality

Is this going too far?

[Anonymous No.12075550]

>>12075401
I can't be a hedonist. Since the greatest joys are sex and romance, and I'm an incel so that realm is closed to me. That is why I'm looking for something that is greater than that but so far I have found nothing.

[Anonymous No.12075553]

>>12075548
no, you are close

[Anonymous No.12075567]

>>12075548
might as well just be a monk and live in a monastery

[Anonymous No.12075585]

>>12075534
?
i don't have income, i don't play taxes. But thanks mr. life expert

[Anonymous No.12075590]

>>12075585
pay*

[Anonymous No.12075595]

>>12075545
big brained wikipedia reader at it again

[Anonymous No.12075596]

It's retarded shit for dumb retards

[Anonymous No.12075665]

>>12075176
>Why shouldn't we live hedonistically and selfishly?
You don't have to be a traditionalist to explain why this is retarded/evil.

>>12075401
That's honestly a great quote but you should be impaled on a stake for posting it with the twitter account. Did @WrathOfGnon make that quote? No he didn't, you cocksucking maggot. That pretentious classical artwork is annoying too. Fucking every alt-right quote needs to be accompanied by a dramatic old artwork/sculpture of a muscular Greek, it's pathetic LARPing.

[Anonymous No.12075671]

>>12075665
you should be impaled for calling it an "alt-right" quote

[Anonymous No.12075672]

>>12075176
>Why is homosexuality bad? Why shouldn't we live hedonistically and selfishly?
Because that goes against the virtues.
>how can you be sure that they are true?
Because moral realism makes a lot more sense than moral anti-realism and virtue ethics makes more sense than deontology or consequentialism.

[Anonymous No.12075674]

>>12075176
It's a counterreaction to the dissatisfactions of modern life. People are more unhappy than ever, and are searching for answers. For some that answer is in traditionalism, and returning to the values and attitudes of the past. For others who believe that we need to seek new sets of values, progressivism is their solution.

[Anonymous No.12075694]

>>12075671
Guenon's ideas are currently appropriated by the alt-right, and the whole image is clearly a product of someone who ascribes to that ideology.

[Anonymous No.12075719]

>>12075694
have you ever talked to an alt-righter about guenón? They completely discredit him for converting to islam.

[Anonymous No.12076258]

>>12075665
WrathOfIncel ruins good quotes with his autistic LARPing.

[Anonymous No.12076405]

>>12075176
>traditionalism means homosexuality is bad
Wow, OP, great take.

[Anonymous No.12076413]

>>12076258
>ruins good quotes
read: my beliefs are fashion statements
kill urself

[Anonymous No.12076511]

>>12076413
He's obviously referring to the representation of the quote rather than the quote itself moron.

[Anonymous No.12076526]

>>12075401
Shut up kierkegaard rkegaard

[Anonymous No.12076591]

Human beings are built a certain way. We evolved in a particular environment, and have not spent enough time in modern civilization to properly adapt to it. We're basically still animals, and traditionalism is a way of accounting for that. Progressivism is based on the idea we're already perfect, we're all completely rational and everyone can get along and be productive if we just be nice and tolerant.

The problem is that we're nowhere even close. Human beings are still biologically programmed to be biased against certain races, resist facts that conflict with our beliefs, follow whoever appears to be the biggest and strongest, fight over stupid shit, do things we know we shouldn't do if we think we won't get caught, so on and so forth to varying degrees.

Traditionalism says "We know you're not going to work if we don't starve you into it" while progressivism says "We know you'll work when you can, so we're not going to let you starve". Traditionalism says "Individualist hedonism is dangerous and wasteful, so we're not going to support you while you engage in such" while progressivism says "Just do whatever you want and anyone who has a problem with that is just a prejudiced bigot who doesn't understand you". Traditionalism says "You have responsibilities, and adhering to those responsibilities gives you power over your own life" while progressivism says "Responsibilities are a form of oppression, and you should have the right to shirk ones you haven't volunteered for if you so choose".

>tl;dr Traditionalism is based around organizing people as they currently exist, rather than how they hypothetically could in an otherwise perfect world

[Anonymous No.12076596]

>>12075548
No, this should be a base level for everyone

[Anonymous No.12076911]

>>12075363
Maybe, just maybe, there are right beliefs and there are wrong beliefs that should be punished accordingly.

[Anonymous No.12076933]

>>12075176
perennials are perhaps not the best example of traditionalism
>Why is the traditional life superior to the modern?
mdoernity sucks, world needs order, people who give a shit isntead of jsut lettinge veryone do what he wants, thats the surest way towards disaster as we see from current deconstructionist tendencies

[Anonymous No.12076947]

>>12076911
uhm, yikes

[Anonymous No.12076955]

>muh isms

Imagine being this modern

[Anonymous No.12076964]

>>12076911
FLY HIGHHHHHH LESBIAN SEAGULLLLL

[Anonymous No.12076981]

>>12075176
I enjoy destruction pal and i`m on the upper echelon of strong hoomans, i fight until i humilliate my enemy, i would annihilate fags on sight but i don`t fight because i know it`s not moral and truly enjoying my life will harm others, my gfather on the other hand harmed/killed a lot of people. I guess that my gfather is the good guy in this post

[Anonymous No.12077021]

Quick rundown:
Evola tells of the world of Tradition which is directly opposed to the modern world. Tradition has a special meaning for Evola (he spells it with a capital T) it means roughly "passing on". It is opposed to the modern meaning of the word "tradition" which basically means "an old habit or custom".
So Evola says much of the ancient world belonged to the world of Tradition because their societies centered on a transcendent value such as God. While modern societies center around Man (see Human rights). The fact that Traditional societies (in the Evolian sense) existed in the past is mere coincidence according to Evola because Tradition is a timeless concept, centering as it does on "the transcendence of it's own principle" (Evola's word). A principle then of course being a first given, something immutable we take for granted. In the modern world our principle may for example be the "inalienable rights of man". while in the old islamic caliphates the principle was Allah.

[Anonymous No.12077171]

>>12075369
No one cares about modernists, they just want to intellectually justify their faggotry and cuckoldry

[Anonymous No.12077175]

>>12075349
No it's principles before material gain. Huge difference.

[Anonymous No.12077273]

dysfunctional people are drawn to extremist politics.
"if the world was different I'd be more successful. Its not my fault its the external environment's"

[Anonymous No.12077408]

>>12077273
I get triggered by this post because it posits a false dichotomy "Me and the external environment". While my view is more holistic, essentially my view is "Me in the world". There is me and there is the world, but i don't see the world as an "external environment" in which i move around but i see it as a part of me, and me a part of it. So i would instead say "If the world was different i would feel more at home. It is the fault of forces that transcend my person."

[Anonymous No.12077760]

>>12075176
because tradition recognizes a center while the typical modern life recognizes none

homosexuality reproduces heterosexual dynamics within its own gender. tops and bottoms, etc. it's one gender trying to fulfill the function of two inside itself, it's an inversion of the very obvious and unmistakable duality of masculine and feminine.

>If the answer to this is "morals" how can you be sure that they are true? Why should you obey them?

this doesn't even matter to someone who doesn't immediately associate morals with coercion, it comes down to fundamental ontological types

[Anonymous No.12077776]

>>12075176
fags are plague vectors and liberalize social mores, they’re also a bulwark that women use against masculinity by accusing basically all male institutes of being homophobic and a means of normalizing pedophilia. Hedonism is bad because of dopaminergic dysfunction and limited resources. Hedonism is also a form of morality. If you’re curious about arguments against Hedonism, literally every single major Greek philosopher had some to offer.

[Anonymous No.12077793]

>>12075585
Time is money, retard.

[Anonymous No.12077805]

>>12077273

under your pretenses, being a follower of an extreme form of politics would be a rational mode of thinking since you would attempt to actuate a political system where people like you are successful. so if you're unsuccessful and not a follower of an extremist form of politics, then you're a loser AND stupid

[Anonymous No.12077809]

>>12077793

[Anonymous No.12077841]

>>12077760
>it's an inversion of duality
But when you have two opposed things and invert them, they just replace their positions. Pegging would be an inversion of the male-female relationship, homosex is something different.
Try thinking about the smart-sounding words that you throw up on your screen, whether they make some sense, before you send them to the rest of the world to look at.

[Anonymous No.12077918]

>>12075694
I don't think anyone who identifies as alt-right has read a word of Guenon, idiot.

[Anonymous No.12077980]

>>12075176
Traditionalists want to be tour guides not heros. Theres a certain kind of person who cant find meaning in anything that hasnt acquired a thick layer of dust on its body. These people are subhuman and their outlook on life is antithetical to the true nature of man

[Anonymous No.12077988]

>>12077980
i will fuck you

[Anonymous No.12078004]

>>12077980
Looking back exclusively is pathetic and self-defeating.

[Anonymous No.12078014]

Reminder that one cannot say Julius without also saying Jew.

[Anonymous No.12078021]

>>12077841
you didn't actually respond to the argument

[Anonymous No.12078035]

>>12077408
>im not saying its the world fault
>Im saying its the worlds fault

[Anonymous No.12078044]

>>12078021
I was just observing how it's pretentious and stupid in one aspect.

[Anonymous No.12078045]

there is nothing inherently wrong with traditionalism, but it seems like many of the twitter-spawned "trads" of today care more about how the ideology triggers SJWs than actually becoming spiritually enriched. that's pretty much why it gets called a "meme ideology".

[Anonymous No.12078051]

>>12078044
you corrected me on a word but didn't respond to the point made at all

[Anonymous No.12078061]

>>12075176

>Why is the traditional life superior to the modern?

it's not inherently, but going back to a time period where things were relatively sane is a useful thought experiment

>Why is homosexuality bad?

fags are gross lol

>Why shouldn't we live hedonistically and selfishly?

long term survival necessarily entails short term survival, and living like that is conducive towards neither. i can tell that you think that not wanting to commit 'suicide by fun' is a moralistic viewpoint, but some of us aren't completely retarded

[Anonymous No.12078063]

>>12078051
I literally said I was just observing, not responding to your "points".

[Anonymous No.12078110]

there are certain models of behavior that lead to certain outcomes. this website and the people on it aren't what is good though. what is good is eternal and unchanging. look up aesthetics on wikipedia. delve a little bit into music theory. it is evident that there are certain things that are consonant and others that are dissonant. there is a spectrum of appeal is evident in nature so that is an undeniable facet of it. even if it is just a coincidence of how we interpret stimuli it suggests that we are happier organisms when we are surrounded by things that we like rather than things that disgust us.
a lot of people in my opinion are drawn to conservative politics out of disgust, that doesn't make them "right," in my opinion they are often larger in consciousness than leftists but if you think any definable political movement is worthwhile other than platonic monarchy you're pretty much a fool that all this text is wasted on anyways.
moving away from that tangent though, there is good and bad in this universe, bad things will lead to bad consequences and good things will lead to good consequences. the trick is calibrating your judgement very precisely to know what things are good and what things are bad. you have to understand that ideas have inherent value and worth and really exist. and the value they have is whether they are true or not, and the worth that they have is what kind of bounty they bring in the physical world. and that this isn't loony tie-dye 4th grade english teacher, or crazy moralist preacher, that is the basics of logic and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12078156]

>>12076591
Only worthwhile response in this thread

[Anonymous No.12078262]

>>12075176
everyone has a role and everything is put into context. reasons for being and doing are fully integrated into daily life; there is less of a 'rat race' with no light at the end of the tunnel, and everyone has reason to feel proud of their place.
you don't need to be a traditionalist to answer the second question. these things are looked down upon because if everyone did them, society would collapse, and if anyone is doing them, it inevitably involves other people and spreads like a disease. if every dude is fucking other dudes, women aren't having babies. if everyone is stirner'ing no one is actually doing anything. not complicated.
'morality' is embedded in the human genome to an extent inasmuch as we evolved to be group animals who need to cooperate with one another to survive. it's up to society to get the most positive, productive traits to express themselves for each person, no matter their place.

[Anonymous No.12078285]

>>12075674
Is it possible to be satisfied with modernity?

[Anonymous No.12078301]

This stuff strikes me as a bunch of heterodox grab-bagging parading as syncretism or some guy selling me on Eastern claptrap.

So what is it, then? Seems to be where Evola and Guenon lead.

>>12078262
If the whole neglects the parts, the advantage of the whole is also ruined. This is the part where I start talking about a pendulum and point out that this fascination with traditionalism is just a fad like everything else. Of course, if we consider the nature of traditionalism intrinsic we can argue that we don't have to argue - but that doesn't really solve OP's problem or my own.

[Anonymous No.12078331]

>>12078301
evola grapples with nietzsche a lot, and with other contemporary western phil in ride the tiger. he deals with western esotericism about as much as eastern, and argues that most of what is worth learning from the east is at least spiritually descended from the indo-aryan tradition.
>This is the part where I start talking about a pendulum and point out that this fascination with traditionalism is just a fad like everything else.
>everything is a fad
pretty extreme self-defeating generalization.
i also don't think op is stupid enough to think man as biological entity is built and wired for something other than group cooperation.

[Anonymous No.12078346]

>The Kali-Yuga happens to the people you love. You see the inner shape, the real one, when they're just walking away across the room with their backs to you, you see their secret faces when they're alone, and you see that they're trudging, their shoulders hunched and rounded under the burden, their faces baffled and bewildered, almost muttering, but still defiant, still determined, because they're human, and their demand, their consciousness of birthright, is ineffaceable, ineradicable. The divine imprint. His image. And you think they haven't got a chance, but then again you can't really know. God alone knows their fate. It happens to the people you love. That's what breaks your heart. Breaks your heart.
-Marty Glass, Yuga: An Anatomy of Our Fate pgs 95-96-

[Anonymous No.12078352]

>>12078331
Which groups function best?

[Anonymous No.12078422]

>>12078331
>>12078331
Is there some compelling argument that things are not? Ideas rise and fall from prominence and wait in the background for their time to come again. As human knowledge has increased and the means of communication along with it, so has the pool of ideas. The size of humanity's collective memory now is larger than it was before simply by virtue of communicative penetration. We have more ideas competing for human minds and their places in the sun. I don't see it as self-defeating so much as understanding the sweep of time as it relates to men.

I've never seen a good argument against this. Perhaps you know some? I'd be interested to read them. If that comes off as sarcastic, it isn't. I get some people like to reexamine things on the back burner, so I came here looking to see what could be seen. I haven't seen much to dissuade me from my earlier comment, but I don't like to let initial impressions be my sole impressions, and it would be a shame to close myself off from something for that reason alone.

>i also don't think op is stupid enough to think man as biological entity is built and wired for something other than group cooperation.
I never said he was, but it doesn't solve my problem. Cooperation is a part of human society, and I don't think anyone here's been arguing against that. Maybe they have and I missed it - it's possible. But man's ability to question and examine his world, which of course includes himself, would suggest that he can and, in my opinion, should question himself and his society. If by nature of his questions he seeks to convince others of the rightness of his ideas and they agree or acquiesce, then is that not the group functioning correctly? Is this not part of society - change? It seems to me everyone is looking to balance what works with what doesn't, to varying degrees.

[Anonymous No.12078515]

>>12078352
homogeneous white aryans

>>12078422
'fad' has derogatory connotations that made me think you meant something else. i'm still not positive what you mean because you don't really seem to be making an argument, but are just stating things as they are (for the record i don't think literacy and easy long distance communication represent some kind of unequivocal good).
i don't think the average person can handle philosophical inquiry or involvement with politics. it's easy to convince people of the certitude of your ideas and soundness of your intentions if you placate to their base desires (see alexandria ocasio cortez, or any demsoc) because the average person does not have the time or mental capacity to really dive into why things that are difficult might be good for them if an easy alternative is waved in front of their face. liberalism takes as a given that everyone is born at philosopher-king status; the modern world is the end result.

[Anonymous No.12078529]

>>12075410
Communism is a meme, however. The critiques on Capital are still useful, and I do know Marty Glass tries to reconcile Marx and Traditionalism.
>>12075545
>Citing the current Evola wiki page that was pozzed to hell by (((editors)))
*ahem*
https://web.archive.org/web/20150310125503/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

[Anonymous No.12078673]

>>12075176
I think that a lot of young people tend to be disillusioned with the world, and thereafter escape into a realm of romanticized traditionalism. They wish they could go back in time to an imagined realm where everything was in perfect order all the time, where every man knew his place.

This is not to say that there are no possible benefits to a "traditional" lifestyle. Lots of people find it fulfilling if they work hard enough and apply themselves, as hackneyed as that may sound.

Homosexuality is itself nothing to be ashamed of (I'm bisexual), but the degeneration of the gay rights movement into a pointless and counter-intuitive "pride" movement is where many people take issue. Don't conflate homosexuality, which nobody can help, with the debauched image of events like pride parades. They're two different things, and you can be homosexual and against pride parades.

Regarding hedonism, it is like a firework. It is fun for a short while, but it runs out eventually, and one is left with consequences which one was not prepared to embrace. One should be able to fall back on principles when pleasure has exhausted itself.

[Anonymous No.12078693]

>>12078673
Good post. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.12078714]

>>12078673
>Homosexuality is itself nothing to be ashamed of (I'm bisexual), but the degeneration of the gay rights movement into a pointless and counter-intuitive "pride" movement is where many people take issue. Don't conflate homosexuality, which nobody can help, with the debauched image of events like pride parades. They're two different things, and you can be homosexual and against pride parades.
Except homosexuality (in men) involves anal. Which is objectively disgusting as that is where you shit.

[Anonymous No.12078734]

>>12075369
Thread is end.

[Anonymous No.12078740]

>>12075401
>unlike the man of old, who practices such high morals that allowed slavery and torture because of religious beliefs

[Anonymous No.12078774]

>>12076591
Lot's of unfounded assumptions in that text. Reads like an infomercial trying to sell you their 'good' product while portraying the alternatives cartoonishly

[Anonymous No.12078785]

>>12076933
Objectively pre-modernity sucks way more than the present day, but ok.

[Anonymous No.12078803]

>>12077760
>very obvious and unmistakable duality of
masculine and feminine.

Proof?

[Anonymous No.12078813]

>>12077776
>accusing basically all male institutes of being homophobic and a means of normalizing pedophilia

Do you also believe in conspiracies about Soros?

[Anonymous No.12078825]

>>12077980
>the true nature of man
Who are you to define "The true nature of man™" anon?

[Anonymous No.12078830]

>>12078785
>high standard of living is antithetical to tradition
that's where you're wrong, kiddo

[Anonymous No.12078832]

>>12075176
Am I the only one who thinks he looks really, really jewish?

[Anonymous No.12078835]

>>12078061
>relatively sane
The past was pretty insane. How long into the past and how insane are we talking?

>fags are gross lol
why?

[Anonymous No.12078842]

>>12078832
Julius was a delusional self hating italian man who believed in magic and wanted to transcend his ethnicity by becoming a spiritual nordic

[Anonymous No.12078845]

>>12078110
>what is good is eternal and unchanging
Proof?
>It's undeniable?
That's a wild assumption

[Anonymous No.12078851]

>>12078285
Is it possible to be satisfied with [insert historical period]?

[Anonymous No.12078856]

>>12078832
Italians and Jews share a lot of blood, you’re also stupid.
>>12078515
>Aryans
don’t exist anymore
>>12078825
He is a man.

[Anonymous No.12078866]

>>12078515
>i don't think the average person can handle philosophical inquiry or involvement with politics. it's easy to convince people of the certitude of your ideas and soundness of your intentions if you placate to their base desires (see Trump, or any populist republican)

Fixed.

[Anonymous No.12078988]

>>12078856
>Aryans don't exist any more
literally 'if we evolved from monkeys how are their still monkeys' tier

[Anonymous No.12078996]

>>12078346
nice.

[Anonymous No.12079031]

>>12078851
ah, it's all one thing. perfect, thanks for clearing that up for me

[Anonymous No.12079320]

>>12075176
I have a hunch that traditionalism appeals to people who are too weak and/or damaged to have discipline that comes from rationality and self-love, so they seek a pretend-outside dogma or authority to set up as a psychological construct that will give their lives structure because they have failed to obtain structure in a more natural way.

[Anonymous No.12079970]

>>12076591
I can buy this, it's also been my main argument for traditionalism since I'm or at least was until I got lost and made this thread.
But traditionalism is very inconsistent with suppressing natural impulses, it is against some such as free female sexuality(all cultures have been against it), while it is embraces some natural impulses such as racism and homophobia.
Arguments against homosexuality are often "it's unnatural" as if going against intented nature is bad, but then why is it opposed to other naturalities such as the female sexuality?
The female right now is perfectly free and she is slutty, hypergamous, this has been fixed by traditonal institution such as marriages, and virtues such as innocece which are entirely man made and not natural in any way.

[Anonymous No.12079971]

>>12078803
Not that anon, but are you by chance a fucking retard?

[Anonymous No.12079977]

>>12079970
not everything that happens is "natural" to the same degree, there are regularities and there are deviations, might as well take the warning labels off cigarettes because cancer is totes natural broooooo

[Anonymous No.12079980]

>>12078803
wow

[Anonymous No.12080107]

>>12079970
men reigning in on womens' selfish behavior is a natural phenomenon too by your reasoning, and i think it is in actuality as well.
so much symbolism in so many traditions tell us the same thing: unchecked femininity is chaos.

[Anonymous No.12080118]

>>12075356
I highly suggest you begin by reading C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man. It's short, and is one of the most concise criticisms of modernity I know of.

>All that matters is you're feelings
How so? That's a normative statement you're making. If you truly believed in a materialistic world, why worry about what matters? The truth is, the fact that we have a sense of anything "mattering" is perhaps a clue that there is more to explore. The more you read, I think you'll find that the scientific worldview you've been taught is based on some fairly big normative assumptions as well. It's never been a matter of SCIENCE vs. SUPERSTITION. That is a lie that the modern man eats up because he knows nothing of history or the development of thought throughout the ages.

[Anonymous No.12080130]

>>12078835

depends on what you're trying to accomplish, so i'll give you a non-answer to a non-question

>why?

this is one reason

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/28/how-will-aids-be-eradicated/in-barebacking-culture-hiv-is-embraced-not-avoided

[Anonymous No.12080306]

>>12078714
>semen goes out through peepee therefore antinatalism
Sound reasoning.

[Anonymous No.12080327]

>>12078988
No pure 'Aryan' has existed for millennia. All that remains are nations, European and non-European, that have, on average, varying amounts of genetic similarity (almost never more than 50%) to exhumed bodies associated with cultures that probably spoke the linguistic predecessor to many European, West Asian, Central Asian, and South Asian languages.
Checked

[Anonymous No.12080330]

>>12075363
>black legend
Shit meme

[Anonymous No.12080372]

>>12075694
go to bed emma

[Anonymous No.12080391]

>>12080327
that's where you're wrong, kiddo

[Anonymous No.12080552]

>>12075176
>evola
>durr hurr magic nordic supermen fairy tales because i'm butthurt about christianity
>traditionalist
Will never understand why anybody ever took him seriously

[Anonymous No.12080564]

>>12080552
He wasn't against Christianity. His politics were dumb though.

[Anonymous No.12080573]

>>12080552
>He wasn't against Christianity
He absolutely despised Christianity

[Anonymous No.12080579]

>>12075176
is OP literally Satan lmao

[Anonymous No.12080588]

>>12075356
>so why is the modern hedonistic life bad?
I think the only "problem" with hedonism is that it prioritises short time fulfilment over long term, whereas I think both have to be balanced to get the most out of life.

[Anonymous No.12080696]

>>12075176
>Why is homosexuality bad?

[Anonymous No.12080767]

Where to start with Rene Guenon?

[Anonymous No.12081006]

>>12075494
>traditional life
Evola himself recognised that in this day and age, it is more of a mindset than being some sort of Luddite or survivalist type.
>Once detachment, viveka, is interpreted mainly in this internal sense, it appears perhaps easier to achieve it today than in a more normal and traditional civilization. One who is still an "Aryan" spirit in a large European or American city, with its skyscrapers and asphalt, with its politics and sport, with its crowds who dance and shout, with its exponents of secular culture and of soulless science and so on-among all this he may feel himself more alone and detached and nomad than he would have done in the time of the Buddha, in conditions of physical isolation and of actual wandering. The greatest difficulty, in this respect, lies in giving this sense of internal isolation, which today may occur to many almost spontaneously, a positive, full, simple, and transparent character, with elimination of all traces of aridity, melancholy, discord, or anxiety.

[Anonymous No.12081012]

>>12080767
Crisis of the Modern World.
https://dinghal.com/bibliotheek/The_Crisis_of_the_Modern_World.pdf

[Anonymous No.12081150]

>>12075550
>the greatest joy is sex
That's why you are not a hedonist.

[Anonymous No.12081263]

>>12081012
>https://dinghal.com/bibliotheek/The_Crisis_of_the_Modern_World.pdf
Fantastic! Thank you!

[Anonymous No.12081338]

>>12080696
and if homosexuality wasn't a carrier for diseases, it would not be bad?

[Anonymous No.12081432]

>>12080767
Essential of Rene Guenon

[Anonymous No.12081440]

>>12078774
Yes, I am biased in favor the side that I'm on, thank you for pointing this out. My explanation on why traditionalism is better than progressivism probably does make progressivism sound worse, good work for noticing. If you want to explain how I'm actually incorrect, though, feel free.

[Anonymous No.12081441]

Nobody is serious about that shit OP.

[Anonymous No.12081444]

Tradlarpers are annoying. All they can do is post Evola's face and never why he was right in modern context. Suspect: they never read him.

At least they should post Caryle or de Maistre who were actually hardcore, but even then, dusts of yesteryears.

NRx I can admit has reason to exist. but not Rx.

[Anonymous No.12081470]

>>12075363
Inquisition was mostly anti-jewish, anti-islamic and anti mob-rule. Like all civilized control mechanisms, it operated on bloated fear and not blood baccanals - same can't be said about peasant revolts such as the French revolution.
Also, USA still practices torture.

[Anonymous No.12081482]

>>12075176
>Can you explain to me the traditional politics/philosophy that seems so popular on this site. Why is the traditional life superior to the modern?
We are in an age of relativism. There is no one set of morals that is shared by the people in our societies. Academia spreads the idea that all cultures are equal and subsequently all moral systems. Values that used to be common sense are being deconstructed and eroded. In this day and age only might makes right, those who are most powerful in a social space enforce their ideas and all other sets of ideas are being suppressed. I don't like to quote Peterson, but we live in an age of chaos. And this chaos leads to the erosion of our society. That is why people desperately try to go back and cling to traditionalism. Christian western enlightenment values in particular, since those are at least the lesser evil compared to other traditions.

[Anonymous No.12081506]

>>12079970
>But traditionalism is very inconsistent with suppressing natural impulses, it is against some such as free female sexuality(all cultures have been against it), while it is embraces some natural impulses such as racism and homophobia.
This is a fucking mess, right here. Look, you really need to define your terms. Does racism mean 'hates all black people and wants them to die' or 'would prefer peaceful and voluntary racial segregation'? Does homophobia mean 'goes out of his way to do bad things to gay people' or 'didn't vote to legalize gay marriage'? Does free female sexuality means 'walks around nude and fucks everyone who asks' or 'did nude modeling in college'?

You're assuming a lot. Again, we're animals, look at it from an animalistic perspective. Racism means not getting to close to other animals that have in-group preference for a group you're not in, meaning you won't get burned by trusting someone biased against you. Homophobia means prioritizing resources for individuals capable of reproduction. Repressing, for lack of a better term, female sexuality means you can have a reliable mother for children that won't be fucked out, disease ridden, disloyal or any of the other negative effects directly correlated with hypersexual behavior. If a lion tries to fuck another lion's wife, they're basically going to fight to the death, and you're saying it's unnatural that we wouldn't want a bunch of potential wives for 10 years from now completely ruining their bodies and minds today.

[Anonymous No.12081510]

>>12075176

I used to like him a lot until I understood that his philosophy is basically a Platonism imbued with a lot of arbitrary interpretation of history of religion to make it seem as if you could infer a Platonic dualistic metaphysics from every human cultural manifestation. Revolt Against the Modern World was not particularly original, although it is very well-written. Ride the Tiger really is a Stoic ethic he tries to support with, again, his own syncretic view of religion. There are some interesting thoughts in the Metaphysics of Sex, showing that he may have been more progressive about it that the /pol/ "aryan women in wheat fields" nazis make him to be.
That said, he's a fun read and possibly one of the most relevant Italian philosophers of the last century, but I'd go with Plato if you are interested in his sort of views, since the latter is more deep philosophically. Evola's books are basically just giant arguments from authority, claiming that things must be as he says because every religion in the world agrees (or rather is made to agree) with him.

[Anonymous No.12081529]

>>12081510

[Anonymous No.12081535]

>>12081510
>Revolt Against the Modern World was not particularly original,
What is though?

[Anonymous No.12081585]

>>12081510
>Revolt Against the Modern World was not particularly original

Who else has painted the traditional man and civilization which such detail?

[Anonymous No.12081648]

>>12081510
>just giant arguments from authority,
yes and those authorities counts Plato among them.

[Anonymous No.12081662]

>>12075176

Modern & traditional both have cons & pros.

Traditional living is time-tested & the practices that survived are considered good.

Modern life is entertaining & useful for innovation.

I guess that for me, traditional life is the core against which modern life is tested to see if some aspects of it are better & should be adopted.

Homosexuality isn't bad, as long as it doesn't become too widespread.

I object to hedonism's exclusive concentration on pleasure as valuable. The states of affairs have value beyond conscious pleasure, Too much focus on worldly pleasures can lead to greed & other bad habits.

[Anonymous No.12081664]

>>12081506
Yes but these embedded biological fears are useless now that we have a functioning society and rules. Traditionalism seems to want to heighten all these natural impulses to some law.

[Anonymous No.12081679]

>>12081535
>>12081585

Guenon for a start, and several other comparative scholar religion such as Eliade made a better work than him. Also, my problem is with the argument: showing that all religions of the world agree with you is basically just saying "since everybody said that it must be true", which is a really anti-philosophical claim of seeing the search for truth.
And philosophically speaking, all he is saying is reassumed in the introductory paragraph of Revolt - when he states that Tradition is something transcendent for him and that he thinks that the earthly order is the manifestation of a superior trascendent (possibly a-temporal and a-historical) order. This is Platonic metaphysics, if you read the Timaeus you will find all of this explained in a far better, philosophically engaging way. What I found annoying about Evola is that he's working like a literary critic, making small (and possibly not very relevant) claims and bringing tons and tons of textual material bended in interpretation to fit the claim. That is not how philosophical research should be done. Nor do I think that it is particularly "manly" or "warrior-like" to bow in front of the authority of any book. The rhetorical move he is using - as well as many other scholars of religion - is to make you think that things are true because they are ancient. This is a fairly common tendency in Italian philosophy, since the Renaissance (look at Ficino and Bruno) and before, which still resonates today in the idea that "the classics got it all". While I do believe that there is a great deal of value in the classics, they should not be venerated because they are old, as well as any text, and the fact that an ancient source agrees with what you say is, in all fairness, not an argument.
So this is why I disagree. Again, there are many things I would concede to him, such as being a good writer, a good scholar of religion, and one of the most relevant philosophical figures in Italy. I think that the ostracism of Evola from the Italian academia and its appropriation by the likes of the alt-right and "wannabe" fascists parties in Italy is shameful, as he deserves to be studied as a relevant intellectual. But he is not a particularly brilliant philosopher for me, nor do I think that his word should be taken as gospel.

[Anonymous No.12081686]

>>12075176
Also look at that quote, what is more important than having material wealth, or rather how should a society prioritize if not to maximize its wealth. What is essential according to Evola?

[Anonymous No.12081687]

>>12081679
I'm not asking for other people who had similar ideas. You said Revotl wasn't original so I'm asking what other book does the same thing?

[Anonymous No.12081689]

>>12081648

Indeed they do. I'm not saying Plato is right. But Plato uses philosophical arguments to support his ideas, Evola doesn't. Plato tells you that his metaphysics is right because the world is made to work according to it and offers a series of reasons why it is so, Evola tells you his metaphysics is right because all the oldest books on the planet agree with him. I may disagree with both in the end, but I am more interested in what Plato has to say.

[Anonymous No.12081707]

>>12081689
again, you miss the point, viz. that since Plato has already told you what he thinks, Evola doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, you just go check out Mr P. and since you happen to be familiar with both, I don't see what the big deal is.

[Anonymous No.12081714]

>>12081664
>Traditionalism is important because it accounts for traits we still have, while progressivism just pretends we don't have them anymore because we live in a society
>YEAH BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THOSE TRAITS? WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY SO THEY DON'T COUNT
Are you thick in the skull? Blacks and whites are GENETICALLY PREDISPOSED to behaving differently, forming different cultures, holding different values, and being biased against each other and you're saying that having 'rules' just overpowers that and makes it irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.12081721]

>>12081714
Soon we'll all be merged with machines so none of that will matter.

[Anonymous No.12081733]

>>12081721
my penis will be merged with your mother's asshole

[Anonymous No.12081759]

>>12081687
>ou said Revotl wasn't original so I'm asking what other book does the same thing?

It wasn't original in that basically everything Evola writes about 'tradition' stems from Guenon's ideas (albiet filtered through Evola's idiosyncratic views and influenced by his affinity for German Idealism, Plato, Nietzsche, etc). He basically took Guenon's ideas and ran with them in a similar but different direction. I'm not accusing him of stealing though because Evola was open about being influenced by him.

[Anonymous No.12081781]

>>12081759
If all it takes for an author to be unoriginal is for him to be influenced by other thinkers then there would be no such thing as an original author. This is beside the point anyway because as I've said, I'm not asking you to tell me who he was influenced by because it's irrelevant to the claim you made and the question I asked. You said a specific book which is doing a specific thing was unoriginal and I think you're talking out of your ass which is why you're unable to answer the question. Revolt is unique because no other traditional has painted a traditional man and civilization with such detail using historical sources and symbolism.

[Anonymous No.12081832]

>>12081687

You don't seem very keen to discuss, so I'll just make a list of all the books who discuss similar points of Evola in a better way, in my opinion (some of them were mentioned in the post).

>Plato - Timaeus
>Plato - Critias
(both directly concerned with "tradition", past civilization, and the metaphysics Evola proposes, only philosophically deeper and presenting arguments agains the historicization of philosophy - see Critias)

>Guenon
His whole bibliography tackles with basically the same themes, only 50 years before him (Evola quotes massively from him)
His most relevant books:
>Man and his Becoming according to the Vedanta
>The Crisis of the Modern World
>Symbols of the Sacred Science

>Mircea Eliade
Posterior to Evola, inspired by Guenon as well, surpassing both in philological accuracy:
>History fo Religious Ideas

The more similar I would say is Guenon. What I claiming, of course, is not that another book which is exactly like Revolt exists and has been written before Evola. I believe that Revolt is philosophically unoriginal because his metaphysics is just repeating Platonic metaphysics without providing philosophical support, and methodologically unoriginal because the assumption that all religious traditions may be made part of a traditional philosophia perennis was already explicit in Guenon and proposed by many other classical authors - especially in late antiquity.

[Anonymous No.12081861]

>>12081832
You're right that I'm not keen to have a discussion with you because I don't like to talk with dishonest people. If you actually believe Revolt is comparable to Timaeus you're insane. I don't think you are insane so you must be either ignorant, as in you have read the those books, or you're being dishonest.

[Anonymous No.12081883]

>>12081781

Just to be clear, Plato in the Statesman paints traditional man and civilization using historical sources (available at his time) and symbolism, so that is not an original way of looking at things.

Also you keep forcing me into defending the claim of unoriginality but never address the one that Evola's books fail to present philosophical arguments, which is also part of why I think he's not that great. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
This is what an argument from authority is. Saying that you are right because somebody important says that you are right. This is what Evola does when he invokes tradition: he says he is right because "authoritative sources" say he is. This is simply not a valid argument. That's why I think he's a mediocre philosopher.

[Anonymous No.12081908]

>>12081861

I did not quote only Timaeus, I have quoted a list of book and you should address all of them.

Moreover, calling me insane or dishonest does not prove me wrong in any way. If an insane person says that the sky is blue, or if I say it with dishonest intent, I am still right. The psychological biases of your interlocutor are in no way relevant to show if he's right or wrong.

So if you want to address my arguments, address them. If I'm insane or dishonest that's my own problem. I have provided a very specific reason why I think Timaeus is comparable and superior to Revolt. It is comparable to it because it discusses the same metaphysics. It is superior to it because it offers explanation to it in the form of sound philosophical arguments, while Evola only uses arguments from authority, which are unsound.

[Anonymous No.12081931]

>>12080573
source?

[Anonymous No.12081972]

>>12081908
I don't even think you're capable of understanding what I say because I literally said I don't think you're insane. I think you're dishonest which is relevant because I don't have discussions with dishonest people. The belief that the Timaeus is comparable to Revolt beyond a superficial level is so manifestly stupid that I'm not going to bother with it. It's not important to me.

I have no idea why you're talking to me about his philosophical arguments or arguments from authority. Are you confusing me with another poster or is this more dishonest shit? Don't bother answer that because I don't care.

[Anonymous No.12081991]

>>12075176
>non credit in unum deum

[Anonymous No.12081994]

>>12081991
based

[Anonymous No.12082139]

>>12076591
>Human beings are built a certain way
nope
>We evolved in a particular environment
explain how humans were already capable of living in any environment on earth 200000 years ago then
>and have not spent enough time in modern civilization to properly adapt to it.
"we haven't spent enough time in pastoral kinship communities to adapt to them, we need to go back to pure nomadism"
>We're basically still animals
animal's can't tell to themselves that they're animals

>Traditionalism is based around organizing people as they currently exist, rather than how they hypothetically could in an otherwise perfect world
except that's exactly the opposite of what traditionalism does. so-called traditionalism STARTS by whining about the conditions of society that currently exist, it can't even exist without whining.

[Anonymous No.12082160]

>>12082139
Are you too stupid to make clear what you're addressing without having to quote individual sentences?

[Anonymous No.12082180]

>>12082160
i quoted particular arguments/claims, not random sentences

[Anonymous No.12082190]

>>12081931
his ass
real talk though, his main criticism of christianity was that he believed it failed to take a hard stand against modernity and egalitarianism, and believed it to be a watered-down form of itself.

[Anonymous No.12082197]

>>12081832
>already explicit in Guenon
friendly reminder: what did Guenon say about originality?

[Anonymous No.12082201]

>>12082190
Not sure if thats correct.
In revolt he mentions that christianity itself was a usurpation of the traditional order

[Anonymous No.12082243]

>>12082201
this is also true. he took the "we are all one in the body of Jesus Christ" line to heart, and thought that it was more concerned with equalizing mankind in the physical sense. older christians didn't really view it this way, and understood hierarchies were necessary [insert every pre-Enlightenment European monarchy]. but it was still a major gripe of his, i think he was more in-line with a hybrid of neo-paganism like Faye with a dose of eastern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12082263]

>>12077760
homosexuals who exist in the current social order reproduce dominant social relations, who would have thought. still gives you no ground to assert that said dominant sexual ideology is "historically trasencendal" or "an eternal duality of principles"

[Anonymous No.12082277]

>>12082263
>who would have thought.
go away, filthy relativist.

[Anonymous No.12082299]

>>12078110
>we are happier organisms when we are surrounded by things that we like rather than things that disgust us.
when you put it like that it's almost like saying that water is wet. the point is "how come we like this and not that?" or "why exactly this or that?" and this is when the reactionaries expose their true face.

[Anonymous No.12082326]

>>12082299
not that anon but pointless diatribes like "progress" and "change" are what landed us in this scenario. the only ones who stand to benefit from these vague euphemisms are those at the top of the social order, who wish to form a "classless" society with next-to-no social mobility underneath them

[Anonymous No.12082337]

>>12082180
and you took them all to absurd extremes because you can't argue against them unless you exaggerate traditional claims to absurdity

[Anonymous No.12082347]

>>12082337
ah the classic motte & bailey strat
>X
>i don't think X is true
>nononono i meant Y of course
>oh maybe Y is more tenable
>heh, i knew you'd agree with X

[Anonymous No.12082365]

>>12082180
I don't think you understand the question that was asked. Yes, you quoted particular arguments or claims and not random sentences but are you too stupid to make clear what you're addressing without having to quote individual sentences?

[Anonymous No.12082370]

>>12082326
what scenario? see what i mean with trads not even having a point of reference unless everyone already agrees with their diagnosis of society from the get-go?

besides, you aren't escaping from the pointless diatribe of progress and change. your ideology explicitly thinks "progress" and "change" (as defined by progressives) are something to be resisted, therefore forming the natural opposition to the progressives. they say we ought to pursue the direction of progress (which is on its face laughable) but you counter with "we need to go against progress because it destroys order" which is just as pathetic.

[Anonymous No.12082380]

>>12082365
give me one reason why i should use your own preferred method of posting instead of something that works better

[Anonymous No.12082414]

>>12082380
You shouldn't quote and respond to individual sentences because it makes conversations harder to follow and more difficult to respond to without also resorting to the same lazy tactic which will cause any conversation to lose coherence, meaning one single argument will turn quickly turn into two separate arguments which will then turn into three and so on. Additionally it encourages people to put effort into their replies simply by example. After all, if you won't put effort into your replies why should they?

[Anonymous No.12082430]

>>12082414
if you make many separate claims, then it's a matter of course that you will end up in just as many different strands of argument trying to defend each claim from attacks. the "holism" meme doesn't work in this context because the entire position of the post i quoted is grounded in this appeal to empirical claims like "we're built one way" or "evolution makes us not adapted to civilization", rather than being a complete presentation in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.12082436]

>>12082370
no, read up on involution. involution both mathematically and philosophically represents when a certain function, value, or idea undergoes some changes and eventually returns back to its original state. traditionalism argues that everything is a cycle, similar to the strauss-howe theory. it argues for positive stagnation, to preserve an orderly social structure for as long as possible. however, the cycle is always moving (even if slowly), and traditionalists understand that various ages or periods of time (each denoted by various phenomena) are ultimately unavoidable. this was what evola's "ride the tiger" spoke extensively on, that the man of tradition in an era hinging on social collapse should instead ready himself internally for what's to come afterwards while simultaneously aiding society's collapse by going along with it.

you say "progressives want to change" and "but you only want to resist", implying that both options are equals. they are not. traditionalism desires an ultimate preservation of order, whereas progress demands change which cannot occur without chaos. ultimately these two forces reset when the critical point is reached and the cycle restarts often via civil war.

[Anonymous No.12082454]

>>12082430
A reasonably intelligent or motivated person doesn't need to quote individual sentences to make clear what exactly they're responding to. I don't care about your specific argument and the post you're responding to and you're missing the point to think I would.

[Anonymous No.12082476]

>>12082454
so you just want me to post in your own preferred way

>it makes conversations harder to follow
not really
>difficult to respond to without resorting to the same tactic
if you claim that i can respond to a post that is just a string of disconnected arguments in a "holistic way" then others can respond to my quote-chopping in a "holistic way" just as easily
>effort
the value of a reply is measured by the content of the argument, not the quality of the rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.12082495]

>>12082476
Well, if you ever wonder why nobody responds to your arguments in a reasonable way you have the answer. There's a reason nobody in academia would ever talk to somebody like that. It's stupid.

[Anonymous No.12082497]

>>12081972

For what counts, I am not being dishonest. I have provided a very clear reason explaining why I think they are comparable:
>It is comparable to it because it discusses the same metaphysics.
Why do you think this idea is stupid? Engage.

>>12081931
What source do you want me to provide precisely? If you want the precise passages from revolt agains the modern world and the timaeus to be proven wrong with philological accuracy I can provide those: confront Timaeus 27d-29d and 48e-52d with the first chapter of Revolt "The Beginning" and tell me if Evola is not simply taken Platonic metaphysics and simplifying it. He will try do demonstrate the existence of the superior order by appealing to a thematic coherence of all religions, which for me it's not an argument. Plato uses philosophical argument, tackles the nature of reality, and bases his conclusions (which are similar to Evola's) on bases that are way more solid and complex (e.g. introducing chora as the basis for the development of becoming).
Both texts are available online, Timaeus on Perseus and Evola as a PDF. If you want me to quote from specific sections showing you the similarities I can do that as well.

On the other hand, if what you mean when you ask for a source is that you want someone more authoritative then me to provide you with an argument, I don't see what that would change in the discussion, as you should debate my claims, whether other people agree with them or not.

[Anonymous No.12082518]

>>12082497
are you having a stroke? look at the posts you are replying to

[Anonymous No.12082522]

>>12082497
>It is comparable to it because it discusses the same metaphysics.

Oh yeah that's very clear and not vague at all.

[Anonymous No.12082534]

>>12075176
Lit is just full of dumbass pseudointellectuals who love Christianity, Greek philosophy, and writing shitty short stories

[Anonymous No.12082552]

>>12082497
>tell me if Evola is not simply taken Platonic metaphysics and simplifying it
Well fuck, I guess my research isn't original research because I use some of Euler's work. What do you recommend I do, O' Enlightened One?

[Anonymous No.12082590]

>>12078714
>Except homosexuality (in men) involves anal. Which is objectively disgusting as that is where you shit
You don't have to do anal m8

[Anonymous No.12082810]

>>12082139
>nope
Not an argument.
>explain how humans were already capable of living in any environment on earth 200000 years ago then
We evolved.
>"we haven't spent enough time in pastoral kinship communities to adapt to them, we need to go back to pure nomadism"
What? I said we need to account for our flaws until we evolve out of them, that's the exact opposite of what you're implying.
>animal's can't tell to themselves that they're animals
What? Why? Says who? Are you saying we're not animals or...?
>so-called traditionalism STARTS by whining about the conditions of society that currently exist, it can't even exist without whining.
That's not an argument either.

[Anonymous No.12082812]

>>12075363
>yeah i know x is violent and occuring right now but remember the inquisition?

[Anonymous No.12082814]

>>12082810
>>12082139
Quality posts

[Anonymous No.12082824]

>>12082814
Hey thanks man. Always nice to meet a fan of my work.

[Anonymous No.12083078]

>>12075176
Because the modern world fucking sucks

[Anonymous No.12083082]

>>12077175
Principles are literally feels
Materials are literally reals

[Anonymous No.12083091]

>>12075356
>claim this
>refuse to play against women
What was Fischer implying by this

[Anonymous No.12083111]

>>12083091
I rather doubt he was afraid he'd lose. His elo was higher than the highest ever female elo. So that's a good question I guess. Maybe he just felt bad beating women or something?

[Anonymous No.12083114]

>>12080696
So lesbians are good, since they don't carry as much disease?

[Anonymous No.12083143]

>>12078714
have you ever fucked a roastie in the bumhole? confirmed virgin desu

[Anonymous No.12083147]

>>12083082
This. Principles is for pussies. Acting is for man.

[Anonymous No.12083165]

>>12083147
t. boy

[Anonymous No.12083253]

>>12075176
>Can you explain to me the traditional politics/philosophy that seems so popular on this site. Why is the traditional life superior to the modern?
Because a few years back idiotic leftists and trolls posing as such started to advocate LGBT rights and class consciousness. The whole thing went too far and the concept of reactionary politics somehow merged with the literal reaction of the site as a whole to produce this bastard politics.
>Why is homosexuality bad? Why shouldn't we live hedonistically and selfishly?
A lot of traditionalists are fine with homsexuality. A lot of traditional cultures didn't treat it as a taboo like Western society does.
>If the answer to this is "morals" how can you be sure that they are true? Why should you obey them?
I'm not really a traditionalist so I can't really answer these in good faith.

[Anonymous No.12083269]

>>12078803
>>12079971
>>12079980
Still no proof

[Anonymous No.12083280]

>racism and homophobia
>natural
That's a pretty nice manipulation. It's all traditionalism based on this kind of assumptions?

[Anonymous No.12083393]

>>12076591
>>12081440
You base your position on vague or unfounded assumptions that are spewed as if they were transcendent facts, all that while misrepresenting the other position because, of course, it has to be a dichotomy between progressives and tradition. It's just snake-oil-selling tactics when you can assume how "humans are built" and say it with a straight face. Of course, people who already agree with the way humans happen to be "built" will be lured by that rhetoric without questioning much of it. It's peak NPC ideology.

[Anonymous No.12083437]

>>12083393
Literally not an argument. You basically just said "your post is dumb" without actually pointing out anything specific that is incorrect.
>You're an NPC idealogue!
I wouldn't call myself a traditional traditionalist, which I went out of my way to clarify earlier. Just because my cultural philosophy includes some conservative elements does not mean I'm a part of the fucking Borg.

[Anonymous No.12083478]

>>12077776
Actually a good and insightful post for being so brief, especially the point about dopaminergic dysfunction.

[Anonymous No.12084566]

>>12082522

I have given the passages where it is shown that they discuss the same metaphysics. I have been clear. You keep not engaging with the arguments. Have you read the Timaeus or are you criticizing my comparison just because you don't like what I say?

>>12082552
I have specified very clearly why he is not original. He is trying to demonstrate the same thing - i.e. the existence of a superior transcendent metaphysical order (what he calls Tradition) with an invalid argument. If he had proposed a new and different argument from Plato's, I would have called him original. Since he does not, and appeals to arguments from authority which are unsound, he's not original.
This is not difficult to understand and you are not engaging with my arguments.

[Anonymous No.12084767]

>>12075548
>no materialistic desires
Please tell me how you have defeated the urges of hunger and thirst.

[Anonymous No.12084770]

>>12075585
Opportunity cost.

[Anonymous No.12084775]

>>12077408
You don't get to skate around the issue with an Ortega y Gasset paraphrase (a liberal, incidentally), there is still an external locus of control held in common among those drawn to traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.12084779]

>>12077760
Isn't there a gay kangaroo that you should be rimming?

[Anonymous No.12084839]

>>12083147
>Acting is for man.

[Anonymous No.12084888]

>>12083114
Yes