/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14705320]

Thoughts on Might is Right?

[Anonymous No.14705341]

Highly entertaining.

[Anonymous No.14705385]

Right is might. Might is right.
Truth = Strength

[Anonymous No.14705394]

I've been wanting to read a book about egotism. Is this good or do I go with Stirner's meme book?

[Anonymous No.14705417]

I'm going to shoot you faggot

[Anonymous No.14705471]

>>14705320
Only a fucking moron would agree to this as a governing concept, because they'd spend most of their life in an inferior position--that's even if they were one of the rare few able to claw their way to the top for a brief instant.

[Anonymous No.14705550]

>>14705471
>most people would spend their lives following stronger people
That's kinda the point

[Anonymous No.14705632]

>>14705550
There would be too much discontinuity between whom those strong people would be, and the defining feature of their brief rise (might) would offer nothing in terms of actual governance--and any ideas besides 'might' that any flash in the pan leader might have would be shortly overturned by the next dominant force. People create an abstract might in the form of iterated institutions vested with abstract ideals of a civilizing nature to avoid this inane problem.

[Anonymous No.14705657]

He got refuted by Christianity

[Anonymous No.14706099]

>>14705320
I forget most of it, agree with what he said about the jews from what I recall but anti-civilization stuff is always cringe.
Correct way to apply the principle of Might makes right - Rome
Wrong way to apply the principle of Might makes right - Barbarians

[Anonymous No.14706199]

>>14705471
>because they'd spend most of their life in an inferior position
It's funny how this implies you think this isn't the case already.

[Anonymous No.14706529]

>>14705320
The best edition

[Anonymous No.14706620]

Good book, though the author over-emphasizes the importance of his concept in the real world. Might is right only considers hard power but forgets about soft power, as well as human tendency towards peace rather than conflict, if such choice may be present.
Not only that but the author applies animalistic, natural principles into the human context while dismissing the other side of the coin being spiritualism and how even great leaders and warriors of the ancient times embraced it. Many used as a tool for controlling the masses, true, but the author is being a bit too absolutist with his claims in regards to the matter.
This book would be perfect in a post-apocalyptic scenario, beyond that it's principles, though brutally honest, wouldn't always be applicable.

[Anonymous No.14706893]

>>14705320
>Hah I just destoryed your pagan site! Theres your might is right philosophy now!!!!

Normies dont understand that this is just accepting what is true without trying to making some shark jumping philosophy where actually your right.

[Anonymous No.14706924]

>>14705320
It is the dumb man’s Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.14706987]

>>14706893
>Hah, I destroyed your site to the mother goddess! Worship Dyeus Pater!
>Hah, I destroyed your site to Odin! Worship Yahweh!
>Hah, I destroyed your site to Yahweh! Worship Yahweh the way -I- say to!
>Hah, I destroyed your site to Yahweh! Worship Yahweh the way -I- say to, which involves him not being real!
>Hah, I destroyed your site to Yahweh! Worship Yahweh the way -I- say to, which involves you doing so in Arabic!
Literally none of this disproves the thesis.

I don't get why people keep ignoring the fact that the author states that there's nothing wrong with submitting to an authority in return for not getting clubbed over the head. Could it be, perhaps, that they... haven't read the book?

[Anonymous No.14707272]

>>14705320
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

[Anonymous No.14707851]

>>14705320
Poisonous.