/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14518625]

why do left and right wing ideologues often see their political beliefs in the writings of the same philosopher?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14518647]

>>14518625
Which philosopher? The Bible?

[Anonymous No.14518685]

theory dependence of observation

[Anonymous No.14518689]

>>14518647
Neechayay, for example.

[Anonymous No.14518702]

>>14518625
Brainletism.

[Anonymous No.14518763]

>>14518625
Depends on the philosopher.

>>14518689
Because rightwing ideologues are stupid

[Anonymous No.14518777]

>>14518625
they start with different basic assumptions about human, society, and history, which means the exact same input is filtered into different outputs

[Anonymous No.14518779]

>>14518625
Depends on the philosopher.

>>14518689
Because leftwing ideologues are stupid.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14518791]

>>14518779
>He thinks Nietzsche is just like him

[Anonymous No.14518792]

>>14518763
>>14518779
hello ideologues

[Anonymous No.14518802]

Confirmation bias

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14518821]

>>14518792
Nietzsche is no Marx, but his ideas are actually leftist. More leftist than rightist anyway. It would be a misunderstanding to paint him as centrist too. He does break the false dichotomy of left and right down, but he’s no rightwinger.

[Anonymous No.14518845]

>>14518821
shut the fuck up ideologue

[Anonymous No.14518860]

>>14518821
>the man who was so elitist he had to invent a hypothetical category of superhuman who would rule over the cattle-like remainder of humanity was leftist
pls explain yourself

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14519079]

>>14518860
>elitist
>rule over
You first

[Anonymous No.14519094]

>>14518625
Because they aren't actually left and right wing as defined by the linear political spectrum and are both far more authoritarian than either espouse to believe.

[Anonymous No.14519124]

Politics is a shifting sand unless defined in classical terms. Anyone trumpeting Marxism or fascism are irrelevant because you can’t even creative a cohesive narrative out of their insights when confronted with technology. That’s why Phillip K. Dick is more important than Marx could ever be.

[Anonymous No.14519174]

>>14519124
Oh, this is why the dickheads are overshadowing he Marxists so much right now. Hm.

Go on though. Explain how this could be, even though it isn't.

[Anonymous No.14519182]

>>14519174
Pathetic lol

[Anonymous No.14519191]

>>14519174
In terms of actually resonating with the public I mean yeah, seems more accurate to say Dick is important. But go off queen, tell me about how any day now the working class will wake up and seize the means of production lmao. Are we still pretending money and assets and the means of production are even physical things to be seized with the internet and globalism? Yawn

[Anonymous No.14519219]

>>14519191
>In terms of actually resonating with the public I mean yeah
Yeah? Like more movie based on his books now?
Socialism is still a big thing globally. Some Marxist ideas are obviously dead and gone, but on the whole there's a bunch of neo-Marxians refreshing the concepts. Anti-capitalism is a real thing.
Nationalism? a side issue the media focuses on to avoid giving any press to the socialist movement of course.
But go on and expand on this Dickhead stuff. I haven't heard.

[Anonymous No.14519221]

>>14518625
>Case dismissed

[Anonymous No.14519226]

>>14518821
After reading Genealogy recently, I could not disagree with this claim more. I don't think he was a conservative after a certain point of course, but you can tell he was inclined to that kind of psychology at least when you read On the Birth of Tragedy or any of his other very early work. He was most certainly opposed to socialists and if anything consistently illiberal, so, I just don't see it. I can't even paraphrase him adequately right now, but after a certain point his divergence from literally any school of thought was very intentional, "philosophizing with the hammer" and all that. And I still find myself reevaluating every moral and social stance I've ever taken after reading Genealogy.
t. left-leaning anon.

[Anonymous No.14519232]

>>14519219
Oh I’m sorry are you under the delusion that third worlders opinions are important? There’s always a rising and lowering tide of Marxism globally. The only people who matter are in the West. There will never be a way to stop neoliberalism without them.

[Anonymous No.14519243]

WHICH BUTTERCUNT IS THE REAL ONE
WHO IS KEYZER "them bitches love" SOSA

[Anonymous No.14519250]

The terms left and right have deviated from what they meant before and have incorporated a lot of shit into themselves. The whole debate went from a difficult economical debate to an easy and increasingly meaningless moral debate. Since everyone is overwhelmed by the abundance of information and the collision between different worlds then it's only natural that they look backwards, whether it be for conservative values, or for nostalgia of an old left, or even when the most progressive ideas hides a need for security and stability found in one's possibility of identifying themselves and reaffirming themselves.

So from them on, little groups started getting bigger, because all groups found a place to express themselves with the internet. Since the internet gives you more of what you already have, mankind has lost itself in the swirling of their own ideas. When you are too deep into it, but at the same time in a shallow way, with no firendly dialogue with people who think differently, then it's hard to admit its flaws and it's hard to envision some value coming from the other side.

The battle is set and they'll claim to themselves whatever is "good" and attribute to the others all that is "bad". The subject they are talking about in itself doesn't matter, they just claim it. If someone doesn't care either way and haven't been much interested about, say, the environmental debate, they'll now deny it or embrace it based on whether they consider themselves right or left. This produces a legion of idiots that don't know what they are talking about and they'll back it up with anything they see.

My pic is illustrative of this effect. It's the same word with two different meanings, each character talking to their own crowd, but potentially producing more rejection on the other crowd. That's why leftists accuse other leftists of being closeted rightwings "sell outs" and the right accuse each other of being commies.

[Anonymous No.14519337]

>>14518625
is that how youre supposed to hold a gavel?

[Anonymous No.14519422]

Right wingers are morons. They think Dave Chappelle and the boondocks were meant for them

[Anonymous No.14519447]

>>14518625
Some of it boils down to ignorant but well-meaning ideologues seeing truth and assuming that it confirms their worldview because it affirms their own conviction of being on the side of good. If the philosophy in question is seeking to affirm goodness without being ideological then it should appeal to well-meaning people of any ideology.

[Anonymous No.14519449]

>>14518821
i can imagine nietzsche's anger and disgust at encountering such a fucking infantile and shallow interpretation of his lifelong project

[Anonymous No.14519472]

>>14519449
>i can imagine nietzsche's anger and disgust
Is there a record of how he responded to brainlet critique during his own time?

[Anonymous No.14519488]

>>14519124
>when confronted with technology.
What's bad before the internet and mobile phones came into use is still bad. How is the addition of technology even relevant ?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14519532]

>>14519449
I have funny ideas of what leftism is. I didn’t call him a socialist, I specifically said he wasn’t Marxist. And here you are, advertising for your home site. How much they pay you?

>>14519226
Kaufmann’s excerpts of Genealogy are scant, I just reread them, so I’ll have to read my full length book of it sometime.
All I’m seeing is about finding meaning through suffering/struggling and master morality vs slave morality

—oI3er5KKetj

[Anonymous No.14519581]

>>14519532
>Kaufmann
Same anon you're responding to btw. In English, the translation of Genealogy by Carol Diethe is more recent and much better than Kaufmann, and as close to a literal translation as one can get I believe in English. No other book I've read explains the concept of master and slave morality, or his views on history (especially prehistory) philology and etc. as clearly as Genealogy. It's a very quick read as well, especially for Neech. No except or opinion of it can do it justice. You do yourself a great disservice by not reading it as a person who likes to think about these sorts of things.

[Anonymous No.14519587]

>>14519581
>except
excerpt

[Anonymous No.14519590]

Because until recently, people were not put into boxes like ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ :3

[Anonymous No.14519620]

>>14519532
>he was a leftist but wasn't a centrist but was beyond left and right but definitely not right did i mention left and right also let's mention marx for no reason
like honestly why would someone fling such nothings into the wind and claim any authority on the matter?
>I have funny ideas of what leftism is.
>>/reddit/
>so I’ll have to read my full length book of it sometime.
aka never actually read nietzsche but post takes on nietzsche anyway

[Anonymous No.14519643]

>>14519590
The terminology dates back to the French revolution.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14519648]

>>14519581
My copy is translated bu someone named Golffing. Maybe I’ll try DLing Diethe

>>14519620
Reading comprehension troubles. Re**it sure turns out the dumb-dumbs

[Anonymous No.14519664]

>>14519648
cope, your takes on nietzsche are embarrassingly shallow
>Re**it
nice reddit meme you retarded faggot

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14519692]

>>14519664
They were brief posts, yes.
Now stop advertising, ya damn shill.

[Anonymous No.14519702]

>>14519643
It’s no coincidence: the French Revolution was the beginning of a long series of violent political instability which did not result beneficially for your average working individual. :3

[Anonymous No.14519710]

>>14518625
Make way for this avatar of destruction.

[Anonymous No.14519711]

>>14519692
t. totally out of place on this site with nowhere to go but /lit/ (but not for long) and r/chapo since 8ch got nuked
you will never pass newfag

[Anonymous No.14519712]

>>14518791
Khazra milkers?

[Anonymous No.14519729]

>>14519702
i would say that the primacy of popular government has helped the average working individual.

[Anonymous No.14519744]

>>14519729
>i would say that the primacy of popular government has helped the average working individual.
Why is that a good thing though? Like why should that be the aim?
But even though in what way? The average "worker" has less dignity he would in serfdom.
In fact I'd make the claim that our society has not helped the average working individual but simply created the idea of the "worker" and then tried to sell the cure to that ailment. It made life simply about work.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14519745]

>>14519711
>He thinks I’m new

>>14519712
I’m not Jewish

[Anonymous No.14519791]

>>14519643
Regardless of the age of the terminology, it does not fit well with most political paradigms.

[Anonymous No.14520023]

>>14518625
Why do those holding a mechanical worldview see the world mechanically?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.14520046]

because the author is dead. imagine thinking otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14520052]

>>14518685
Based

[Anonymous No.14520053]

MUH LEFT MUH RIGHT

[Anonymous No.14520633]

>>14518625
Projection. They believe in ideology not truth, so they see it everywhere.

[Anonymous No.14521267]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14521287]

is that one of those tiny, wee hammers that judges use in court. I didn't realise he was so small

[Anonymous No.14521305]

>>14518821
Think of ideologies as idols with their own saints. You don't want to emancipate yourself, your class or anything like that, you want the whole world to worship communism and thank Marx, its prophet for all eternity.
You want to emancipate communism.

[Anonymous No.14521377]

this motherfuckers so short

[Anonymous No.14521420]

>>14518689
Yeah pretty much this. Neech was pretty well rounded middle path. Parts of his Philosophy can be appropriated by both Leftist (Deleuzian) and Right (Traditionalists)
But Neither of them are actually "Orthodox" Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.14521431]

>>14518625
Because modern ‘left and right’ ideologues are all, at their core, liberals (ideology from 18th century, not just modern leftism before any illiterate retards misinterpret what liberalism is) and so are influenced from mostly the same sources, neither side truly wants to fundamentally change society because they both like democracy, individualism and (whether or not they admit it) capitalist consumerism. The left vs right thing is ridiculous reductivism anyway with no interest in actual intelligent political discussion to solve issues, it’s just points scoring, for example the way that people (Ben Shapiro included) argue about whether the nazis were left or right wing from a modern perspective when the nazis would not like the modern left (degen fags) or right (shabbos goys); they argue about this because they want to make the other side appear responsible for atrocities committed by the nazis and so pretend they’ve won all their debates by defaming the other side as in the modern world we associate the nazis with evil and so each side wants to paint the other side as the same evil.
Other anons in this thread have also mentioned the fact that “left vs right discussion” is just moralising rather than actually debating economics (as left and right are typically thought of).
>>14519250
Very B&R
>>14520053
Based

[Anonymous No.14521440]

Ban Americans from posting.

[Anonymous No.14521449]

>>14518821
Giving a name to Nietzsches "Ideology", like left/right is the most anti-Nietzsche thing you can do.

[Anonymous No.14521496]

>>14519744
>Why is that a good thing though? Like why should that be the aim?
i was simply using the terminology of "average worker" because our good friend :3 poster did. but, as the average worker constitutes almost the entire population, i still think it holds true. As the question, why is it good that the majority of the population benefits from a political establishment? and why this should be the aim of politics? this is a question that drills to the core of the question of politics, and is quite difficult to answer satisfactorily, owing to the problem with validating first-principles that, by their nature, cannot be reasoned to, only from. but anyway, it has often been posited that the most important principle for organizing politics is justice. the argument for this generally goes something along the lines of 'justice, being the principle concerned with the fair dealings between men, naturally forms the core of politics, which is the management of the many as it concerns their common interests'. whatever you make of that argument, people tend to hold justice and it's subsidiaries (equality, fairness, privilege, etc.) as highly important guides to social action and direction. but, even if you are to grant that justice is the guiding light of politics, this far from settles the debate, as there have been countless and vastly differing accounts of what it entails. but generally there has been a concordance in the idea that the principles of justice ought to apply to all who are considered a part of the political community—note, this is not synonymous with political franchise. by popular government, i mean the mode of government that draws its legitimacy from the people. this contrasts from non-popular government, in which legitimacy is derived either from an individual or a higher power. so, democracy is a form of popular government, while divine right monarchy is not (as the king derives his legitimacy from God); however, it should also be noted that fascism is a form of popular government, as it at least claims to derive its legitimacy and act in the name of the people.
So with all that out of the way, back to the question: i would say that it is an imperative of justice that all within a political community be bettered by its establishment.
why is the justice of a popular government superior to that of a non-popular government? rather than simply say more people=more justice, and more justice=better, as i think that misses the point. in truth, i'm having a hard time coming up with a positive argument for it, but i'll throw up something like this:
>(P1) justice exists within and is a product of the interaction of intelligent beings (premise)
>(P2) justice concerns the fair dealings between individuals (premise)
>(P3) as far as one's actions involve another intelligent being, that interaction involves some relation of justice (P1, P2)
>(P4) politics involves the direction of a population within a certain area (premise)

[Anonymous No.14521505]

>>14521496
>(P5) that population is composed of intelligent beings (P4, premise)
>(P6) direction is a form of interaction (P4, premise)
>(P7) all actions of politics involve a relation of justice with all its actions affects (P1, P3, P4, P5, P6)
>(P8) all actions of politics involve the fair dealings between all its actions affects (P2, P7)
>(P9) the most important principle of politics is justice (premise)
>(P10) a form of government which considers the fair dealings of all it affects is greater than that which does not, as it includes the most important principle of politics (P8, P9)
>(P11) popular government considers the fair dealings of all it affects (premise)
>(P12) non-popular government does not consider the fair dealings of all it affects (premise)
>(PC) popular government is greater than non-popular government (P10, P11, P12)
i'm not sure if this is either sound or valid, but that's all i can be bothered to come up with. now, if you'll grant that popular government is preferable to non-popular government, and that the betterment of each individual is at least a consideration of justice, then i think we have the "why it should be the aim": because politics is concerned with justice, and popular politics facilitates that aim better than non-popular government. as for why justice a good thing, well... for that, i have no answer.
>But even though in what way? The average "worker" has less dignity he would in serfdom.
dignity relies at least partially on mutual recognition of your worth by your peers. non-popular forms of government are more often than not based upon an idea of a metaphysical superiority of the ruling class over the ruled. this sense of metaphysical superiority entails the belief that the non-ruling class are of lesser worth, and their considerations of lesser to no worth. under feudalism, the serf was the property of the master, to be controlled, bartered, and sold at will, irrespective of their own will or preferences. when your worth is drawn and measured by your instrumental value to your master, you have no more dignity than a tool or beast of burden. Under popular government there is a recognition of each member as a metaphysical and moral equal, which, regardless of the effective freedom of choice that he possess in he choice of work, grants him far more dignity than a serf, in that his will is recognized of equal worth by those around him. the freeman has peers, whereas the serf has only a master. beyond dignity, as popular governments entails the extension of fair dealings to all members of the polity, the average worker, now being a subject of consideration by the government, has his interests represented in government. it has only been popular forms of government which have actively worked towards the betterment of workers, and there is in fact a form of popular government—communism—which explicitly seeks to improve the lot of workers.
i don't really like my posts, but i'm too far in now