Expand and give your thoughts about this

[Anonymous No.14105002]

“One does not inhabit a country; one inhabits a language. That is our country, our fatherland - and no other.”
-Emil Cioran

[Anonymous No.14105141]

One cannot inhabit language, because language is not a place. One inhabits a country. The fatherland is the country one was born or raised in. What is language? A tool. What is a country? A place.

[Anonymous No.14105161]

Sounds like typical 20th century analytic and continental "muh language is everything" bullshit as a means to cope with the fact that they can't handle metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.14105164]

>>14105002
Cioran is shit, the sooner you realize that the better for you

[Anonymous No.14105205]

>>14105002
So what happens when you learn a second language and live in a country where its spoken for the later parts of your childhood and then adulthood?

[Anonymous No.14105322]

>>14105141
>One cannot inhabit language, because language is not a place.

[Anonymous No.14105405]

>>14105322
???

[Anonymous No.14105415]

>>14105405
it's a figure of speech you shit for brains

[Anonymous No.14105430]

>>14105161
you're a retard. that quote is supposed to go against fascism (which he himself adopted when he was young, though he later abandoned it) and other race-based ideologies

[Anonymous No.14105536]

>>14105430
>has no idea about the language turn and language obsession among philosophers in the 20th c.
>can't understand the quote is making a metaphysical statement about being ("inhabits") and persons ("one")
>can't understand how the quote is trying to ascend to the semantic plane and ground being in language
>makes a pitiful tiny reddit-brain interpretation because his brain is locked into politics 24/7 and can't do philosophy beyond monkey alert calls

[Anonymous No.14105564]

>>14105536
>Cioran
>metaphysics/epistemology
I hope this is bait

[Anonymous No.14105566]

>>14105430

>OOOH AH AH AH FASCIST OOOH AH AH AH

[Anonymous No.14105584]

>>14105564
>"inhabits" and persons
>not being metaphysical claims

You're a tiny brained monkey literally at the level of jacking off and the material. Please never touch metaphysics, as you aren't cut out for it.

Don't bother responding, because I'm leaving the thread as its clear I'm arguing with an imbecile. Anyone here with a slight amount of philosophy would recognize what he is doing.

[Anonymous No.14105592]

>>14105584
If only you would read Cioran...

[Anonymous No.14105632]

>>14105161
This is more or less the correct take. Linguistic empistemology came to a full stop with Wittgenstein. The rest of the last century was a confused tangle of charlatans trying to use metaphor to re-insert meaningfulness into the human experience. It's thespianism. Valuable in the sense that all of those inclinations represent, together, one major philosophical reaction against modernity, but more educated lines of thought on the subject of anti-modernism have since cropped up which don't rely on metaphor and continental hand-waving about potentiality. Language is still a huge issue, Wittgenstein was right in the Tractatus, but progress is a meme. The incredible machine of reason has delivered us to Nihilism so that we might reorganize ourselves into a sustainable state of being, not so that we can fantasize about forcing the irrational issue of language through a scientific framework. If you've dealt with Lacan, Saussure, Cioran, Camus, Brassier, Flusser, Jung, Mainlander, to a lesser extent Kierkegaard (the novel), Jakobson, and the schism in the thought of Wittgenstein following the Tractatus and haven't found your way into issues of initiation and tradition as expressions of sustainability instead of the ideological perpetual motion machine that is modernist drivel like "progress," I don't know what to tell you

[Anonymous No.14105649]

>>14105002
Cioran nicked this notion from De Maistre.

[Anonymous No.14105671]

>>14105632
>and haven't found your way into issues of initiation and tradition as expressions of sustainability instead of the ideological perpetual motion machine that is modernist drivel like "progress," I don't know what to tell you
can you explain this in simpler terms

[Anonymous No.14105992]

>>14105671
basically "x and y, therefore, tradition, if not, then u r retard" just in smarter words

btw the argument is non-ironically solid

[Anonymous No.14106602]

>>14105205
You keep thinking and dreaming in your mother tongue. At least, I do.

[Anonymous No.14106660]

>>14105002
Naturally developed languages are cultural artifacts in the most far-reaching sense. What a nation should attempt to conserve is the contemporarily predominant haplogroup, but rather it's lingua franca.

[Anonymous No.14106754]

>>14106602
It's not my native language but I've been thinking in English for many years now, and frequently dream in it.

[Anonymous No.14107001]

>>14105164
Why?

[Anonymous No.14107646]

>>14105671
yeah I've written a little bit on this, I'll paste it here. I don't pretend this is good or anything, its just my own thoughts on the subject as I try and untangle them.
>5
>The fountainhead of the forces of decline in the West is 'Progress.' It is against the idea of Progress and its effect on our perception of our own history, and on the value of our culture and heritage that we will produce a proper definition of tradition a little later. Adapted from a scientific context and mapped over the social and cultural spheres, appeals to Progress break apart complex traditional systems which were based on perceived similarities from one generation to another, and re-organize our picture of ourselves into a linear structure where what came before is re-gressive, and what lay ahead is pro-gressive. This linear perception lies in stark contrast to the cyclical perception common throughout history, and is based upon perceived differences from one generation to another. In this sense, the linearization of cultural change is essentially unnatural. Moreover, those perceived inter-generational differences required of the linear, progressive model is exacerbated by the mystifying effects of aggressive technological development experienced by all developed nations in the past some two centuries. We must be careful, however, not to mistake technological advancement for an antagonist. Ludditism is a fool's quandary. Rather, we would do well to realize that the progressive trajectory of technological improvement is simply not an apt metaphor for the development of the human psyche or the perennial challenges posed by the natural world onto men of all ages. Neither is Progress a useful datum against which to measure the justness of a civil system, nor proper grounds for an historical comparison.
>6
>There is no goal or stable state at the end of the line called Progress, only the continued overturning of ever smaller and smaller stones until the entire foundation beneath one's feet is dug out and upended. While it may be implied that complete and total egalitarianism is in fact the goal, the reality of the situation as demonstrated time and time again throughout history is that the upending, not the so-called utopia, is always first to come. By a turn of irony, the doctrine of Progress can be compared to the Capitalist pressure not just for constant profit, but for constant growth--that is, ever increasing profit; ever more Progress. Both are, in essence, ideological perpetual motion machines. It is difficult to overstate the pervasiveness of the perceptive contagion called Progress, in all aspects of Modernity.
1/2

[Anonymous No.14107659]

>>14107646
>7
>In the analytical (scientific) realm, Progress serves us well as a method by which to hone our tools. Progress is not dogmatic to the sciences, but rather is incidental. In other words, progress does not guide the hand of the scientist--it is not a constantly self-evident state of being which can be checked at any moment, as the notion is so commonly put to use outside the natural sciences. Instead, Progress is a quality exhibited by one hypothesis or model relative to another, only upon examination and experimentation, and only with respect to the quantifiable improvement in the new model's ability to conform to observation. That the analytical notion of progress so described can be excised from the context of the natural sciences and the technologies they enable, and sold to the denizens of modern democracies as a consumable, political principle is perhaps the most staggering accomplishment of the global mercantilism that so thoroughly characterizes our time.
>8
>Shifting the focus of the West's perception of itself from similar men facing the same struggle with different tools, to different men facing newer and newer struggles which are only made possible by newer and newer tools, in effect deletes the autonomy of the individual. The former man, reduced to nothing, begins to rebuild with his bare hands for he is acquainted with the perennial qualities of the natural world, and through labor and struggle he derives an idiomatic wisdom from them. The latter man, reduced to nothing, is excluded from the rebuilding process because his place along the line of progress is beyond the capabilities of his hands. He is destroyed.
2/2

Again, I don't pretend any of this drivel is salient or worth reading. It's really just my blogposting on why I think "progress" is a huge modernist meme and a successful one at that. Still working on this and its part of a larger treatise. Hope this helps clarify what I mean

[Anonymous No.14107666]

>>14105141
Based retard

[Anonymous No.14107674]

>>14105671
>>14107646
>>14107659
I should add to this, here's the simple structure:
>Science -> what comes after by what came before, makes possible technological progress
>Technology -> make more efficient or ergonomic the imposition of our will onto the natural world
>Initiation -> those tasks which cannot be made easier; cannot be solved by technological development
>Tradition -> base of knowledge regarding initiatory struggle. Fundamentally non-linear, depends on cycles

[Anonymous No.14108790]

Is there any greater sign of civilization than Laconism? To stress, to explain, to prove... so many vulgarities

[Anonymous No.14109151]

>>14107674
I'm not much of an expert on the matter but I'm gonna throw my two yen anyway.

Personally I think that what is most impressive in scientific progress is the tacit assumption of ever increasing, asymptotic betterment of our material conditions. The assumtpion is disingenuous because science itself has uncovered the existence of serious limits to our continued survival (the limited lifespan of the Sun, or more fundamentally the possibility of heat death of the universe), yet there is ungrounded optimism in the idea that science will surely solve these and other problems in due time. It seems to me that there is a certain resistance against the possibility that perhaps certain problems are unsolvable, and anyone who suggests the existence of such a possibility is branded as a defeatist and a heretic who has betrayed the one true faith in progress.

When it comes to progress outside the sphere of the natural sciences, the situation is even more incredible. While progress in the sciences has an identifiable (if somewhat vague) objective in ever increasing efficiency and ever increasing control over Nature (achieved through an ever increasing understanding of Nature itself), "progress" in society at large doesn't seem to have any coherent objective and indeed progressivists will often try to eat each other because their objectivies are contradictory (for instance, the struggle of feminists will conflict with the struggle of transpeople, as it happens when a transwoman wins a sports competition and ciswomen will claim that transwomen are not real women and shouldn't steal women's competitions). Progress in society seems to be an amalgam of egoisms in a loose coalition against the class perceived as most privileged (usually white males). But the alleged oppressed have no intention of letting go of their own privileges and any form of egalitarianism is not only fundamentally impossible because of the nature of things, it is not even desired.

[Anonymous No.14109165]

>>14105584
>amount of philosophy
lol