The book of our time?

[Anonymous No.14726558]

Conservative NYT columnist Ross Douthat explains our modern state of decadence through four aspects: stagnation (technological and economic mediocrity), sterility (declining birth rates), sclerosis (institutional failure), and repetition (cultural exhaustion). The work weighs in on the concept of the "end of history," a la Fukuyama, Kojeve, Hegel, etc.

Some quotes:

>Decadence refers to economic stagnation, institutional decay, and cultural and intellectual exhaustion at a high level of material prosperity and technological development. It describes a situation in which repetition is more the norm than innovation; in which sclerosis afflicts public institutions and private enterprises alike; in which intellectual life seems to go in circles; in which new developments in science, new exploratory projects, underdeliver compared with what people recently expected. And crucially, the stagnation and decay are often a direct consequence of previous development: the decadent society is, by definition, a victim of its own significant success.

>If you want to feel like the West is convulsing, there's an app for that, a convincing simulation waiting. But in the real world, it's possible that Western society is really leaning back in an easy chair, hooked up to a drip of something soothing, playing and replaying an ideological greatest-hits tape from its wild and crazy youth, all riled up in its own imagination and yet, in reality, comfortably numb.

>The boomers were the last rebellious generation to come of age not only with various traditional edifices still standing but also with a sense, in the Eisenhower fifties, that those edifices had actually been strengthened by the experiences of the Depression and World War II. This gave the rebel culture of the sixties a real adversary to struggle against: the old bourgeois norms refreshed by suburbanization and prosperity; a Christianity that had just experienced a sustained revival; a patriotic narrative of history that had been burnished by victory in the Second World War; a common culture that had become more binding through the influence of radio, television, mass-market periodicals, and movies.

[Anonymous No.14726572]

https://theweek.com/articles/895167?utm_source=links&tum_medium=website&utm_campaign=twitter

>We still manage to achieve economic growth, but at anemic rates and without more sustainable gains in productivity. We still reproduce, but not enough to replace ourselves. We recognize our problems but can't seem to launch political efforts of reform that might actually solve them. We use wondrous technical skills to create breathtaking works of popular entertainment, but they are testaments to nostalgia trapped in a feedback loop of sequels, samples, and reboots. We wage ferocious cultural battles, but they make no headway and merely recapitulate past conflicts in endless repetition.

>Drawing on the work of French theorist Jean Baudrillard, Douthat argues that those of us who spend much of our lives taking part in public life through the medium of our smart phones are immersed in a simulacrum of political radicalism instead of the real thing. Rather than edging toward a real-world civil war, "our battles are sound and fury signifying relatively little." Their very unreality is what makes them so "ferocious … performative and empty," with our "online rage" acting more like "a safety valve" than real-life political provocation.

>Interestingly, one way to describe the populist insurgencies taking place around us is to say that they're a rebellion against the decadence of the post-Cold War world — the sense that history came to an end in 1989, with all significant ideological disputes resolved and politics reduced to the fine-tuning of liberal democratic government. Francis Fukuyama's own high-level punditry on the subject was actually far more ambivalent than it's usually credited with being. Although Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy triumphed over communism because it was more capable of fulfilling humanity's material and spiritual needs than any other political and economic system, he also worried with uncanny prescience that a world in which liberal democracy was the only available option could be marked by boredom, repetition, and sterility — and that the intolerable character of such decadence could inspire anti-liberal movements that aimed to restart history once again.

[Anonymous No.14726794]

The NYT has conservative columnists?

[Anonymous No.14727241]

>>14726794
Yes, nigger. Now, instead of asking such an inane question, why don't you contribute to the thread?

[Anonymous No.14727254]

>>14726558
>four aspects: stagnation (technological and economic mediocrity), sterility (declining birth rates), sclerosis (institutional failure), and repetition (cultural exhaustion).
What about artistic and moral decline?

[Anonymous No.14727256]

>>14726794
yeah they think having a few token shitty safe mainstream conservative/neocon writers in addition to their usual neoliberal fare gives them a well-rounded set of views

[Anonymous No.14727851]

>>14726794
They do...but not really.

[Anonymous No.14727856]

No one cares about Big Newspaper columnist #456 or all their innocuous opinions. Moving on

[Anonymous No.14727859]

>>14726794
In the same way Massachusetts has a Republican governor

[Anonymous No.14727865]

>>14726558
The undercurrent of the Four Failures Douthat enumerates here is egalitarianism (and liberalism to a lesser degree). A technological society isn't compatible with the principles of equality, autonomy, etc. that we've valued for the past 200 years or so.

[Anonymous No.14727883]

>>14726558
A lot of fags say a lot of shit because they aren't polymaths.
>Uploading files from your IP range has been blocked due to abuse.
>"For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution." —Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

[Anonymous No.14727887]

>>14727856
You cared enough to post something about it.

[Anonymous No.14727895]

this is not very good writing

if you're interested in the notion of decadence as a descriptor of our era, i'd suggest jacques barzun's from dawn to decadence. it is a survey of the past 500 years of western culture. i think you'd get much more out of that than anything douthat has to say.

[Anonymous No.14727900]

>>14727887
No I didn't. I didn't even read the green text hehe

[Anonymous No.14727901]

Douthat is actually super interesting because he hangs out on the fringes of a lot of weird social and philosophical circles but he still somehow manages to keep his job at the NYTimes.

[Anonymous No.14727917]

>>14726558
It is the power of civilization which creates so many decadents. It is the false conception of society, a baseless conception, which creates the idea of "decadent society".

[Anonymous No.14727922]

>>14727900
Hehehe

[Anonymous No.14727924]

>>14727917
Elaborate desu

[Anonymous No.14727938]

>>14726558
>The work weighs in on the concept of the "end of history," a la Fukuyama, Kojeve, Hegel, etc.

No it doesn't, it regurgitates Fukiyama's outdated Op-Ed (and uninformed) inept take on Kojeve only. Kojeve's concept of the end of history is man's return to some uncultured, unkowing (as we wouldn't have the subject/object distinction required for speculative knowledge), materially unproductive state of nature (and that's man's ultimate eschaton).

I wonder if this middle American windbag chuckles at making bank off pseudointellectual bullshit or if he just unthinkingly is pseudointellectual bullshit. In the latter case, he's his own problem with America, ironically.

[Anonymous No.14727944]

>>14727865
Neocons for the life of them are incapable of pinpointing the origin of modern decadence and Douthat like every neocon social critic before him, still misses the point. Patrick Deneen and Christopher Lasch provide much better insights when it comes to modern decadence. Hell, even esoterists like Guenon and Evola are closer than this hack.

[Anonymous No.14727948]

I find parallels to my own thinking on the subject. Rather than attributing it to cultural decadence, however, I assign the cause to a more abstract quantitative factor. 100 billion people have existed. Each of their lives exhausts a little of human possibility, subtracting from the sum total potential of genetic combinatorics, thinking thoughts and taking actions long before future generations get around to it.Western civilization, having achieved the technologies of mass production in both material and informational domains, has only accelerated this process of exhaustion and ensures repeats.

The longer human history goes on, the harder it is to be original; the easier it is to be derivative.

[Anonymous No.14727954]

>>14727924
The conception of society, along with the conception of "we", allows people to speak and equate with that which lays outside them. So, for instance, on the cover of the book, it says "How WE became the victims of our own success", equating the success of everyone (we) to something "we" are victim to. This is merely his attempt at subjugating others under his will.
Whenever you encounter an author saying "We", change it to "I". All crafty mirages will be instantly destroyed.
So, for instance, the aforementioned cover now reads "I'm a decadent: How I became the victim of my own success". This reveals everything. And I didn't even need to open the book to figure that out. Nevermind "don't judge a book by it's cover", I just exposed the author from the cover of the book!

[Anonymous No.14727960]

>>14727948
>The longer human history goes on, the harder it is to be original; the easier it is to be derivative.
Originality is a delusion. It has never really existed. There is only derivation.

[Anonymous No.14727981]

>>14727948
You might say there is a flaw in my logic. As the technical means of humanity have increased so have the possibilities available. A caveman could only do so much and know so much. A modern person inherits all the cultural apparatus of the past and is enhanced by this prior accumulated structure. At the same time however, the *rate* at which possibilities are used up has increased exponentially with the increase of computing power.

[Anonymous No.14727984]

>>14727256
Wake me when he names the Jew.

[Anonymous No.14727988]

>>14727960
There is innovation. Taking prior concepts and combining or extending them in a novel way. If this weren't the case nothing would ever change.

[Anonymous No.14727991]

>>14727954
Yes, I agree, it's annoying that fags will use language like "Why X is great (yes, really)" "Why we love Y—and you should too" "Reddit just discovered gay men have AIDS—and the Internet isn't having it", but what you said in the other post suggested something else than what you tried elaborating on, that is, that the concept of "society" is completely baseless and thus the concept of a "decadent society". Also, what did you mean by "It is the power of civilization which creates so many decadents."?

[Anonymous No.14727995]

The vapid musings of newspaper hacks are not literature.

[Anonymous No.14728003]

>>14727981
>At the same time however, the *rate* at which possibilities are used up has increased exponentially with the increase of computing power.
It is not rate. It is range. As culture/civilization/technology complexifies, it's range of implementation increases, that is, it's range of helpfulness and harmfulness. This is why so much decadence is prevalent in advanced democratized capitalist civilization: the purchase of advanced objects by the mediocre and stupid leave them even more botched in the end, precisely because of this multifariousness of implementation, whereas it leaves the healthy and smart even stronger, who can apply such technology to stunning effect. The former desires a destruction of civilization, the latter it's advancement.

[Anonymous No.14728005]

>>14727991
I think he means that decadence is a sign of a civilizations strength.

[Anonymous No.14728007]

>>14727991
see >>14728003
also this >>14728005

[Anonymous No.14728014]

>>14727938
Most American academics, let alone journalists, can't appreciate the healthy dose of irony in Kojeve, it should be added. If anything Kojeve was begging to be taken up by theologians not by neocon windbags... perhaps why he had such productive dialogue with the premier (legitimately) Catholic philosopher of the 20th century, Gaston Fessard

[Anonymous No.14728017]

>>14726558
Notice how the author calls the advancement of civilization and technology "our success". But what has this faggot ever done to advance civilization?
>>14727954
>"I'm a decadent: How I became the victim of my own success"
This is still not right. It should read: "I'm a decadent: how I became a victim of the success of others". Makes it even more pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14728139]

>>14727948
>>14727960
>>14727988
>>14727981
>>14728003
>>14728007
You people are fucking idiots. No doubt a caveman would be much more useful to "civilization" than any one of you.

[Anonymous No.14728149]

>>14728007
That doesn't answer me at all.
>>14728005
That is fucking retarded. Decadence is defined as "moral or cultural decline as characterized by excessive indulgence in pleasure or luxury." or "luxurious self-indulgence.". None of these can prove beneficial to either the average and dumb nor the educated and wise.

[Anonymous No.14728242]

>>14726558
based

[Anonymous No.14728252]

>>14727254
I imagine moral decline would be a failure of instutions to impart morals to the next generation and artistic decline being cultural exhaustion.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14728289]

>>14728242
Paste.

[Anonymous No.14728299]

>>14726558
Douthat is the only good conservative writer under 70 years old.

[Anonymous No.14729099]

>>14727895
Seems like Douthat is continuing Barzun’s line of thought:

>Following in the footsteps of the great cultural critic Jacques Barzun, we can say that decadence refers to economic stagnation, institutional decay and cultural and intellectual exhaustion at a high level of material prosperity and technological development. Under decadence, Barzun wrote, “The forms of art as of life seem exhausted, the stages of development have been run through. Institutions function painfully. Repetition and frustration are the intolerable result.” He added, “When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent.” And crucially, the stagnation is often a consequence of previous development: The decadent society is, by definition, a victim of its own success.

>Note that this definition does not imply a definitive moral or aesthetic judgment. (“The term is not a slur,” Barzun wrote. “It is a technical label.”) A society that generates a lot of bad movies need not be decadent; a society that makes the same movies over and over again might be. A society run by the cruel and arrogant might not be decadent; a society where even the wise and good can’t legislate might be. A crime-ridden society isn’t necessarily decadent; a peaceable, aging, childless society beset by flares of nihilistic violence looks closer to our definition.

[Anonymous No.14729107]

>>14726558
it's called the bible

[Anonymous No.14729144]

>>14726558
Tangentially related, but are there any books about the societal wide for collapse just bubbling under the surface that talks about how the destrudo has far outweighed the libido in modern times?

[Anonymous No.14729151]

>>14726558
It's the fault of the brown people. No need for this masturbatory schlock. Without a real Volk there can only be decadence.

[Anonymous No.14729161]

>>14729151
The brown people are a symptom, not a cause

[Anonymous No.14729164]

Tangentially related, but are there any books about the societal wide desire for collapse just bubbling under the surface that talks about how the destrudo has far outweighed the libido in modern times?

[Anonymous No.14729194]

>>14729161
Some palliative care is in order.

[Anonymous No.14729209]

>>14726794
douthat just copies steve sailer and waters him down so severely that he never has to cite sailer and nyt editors will actually print it.

[Anonymous No.14729228]

>>14726572
>draws off Baudrillard
>Ideas are just diluted Baudrillard

Can't beat the master

[Anonymous No.14729230]

>>14729151
>>14729161
>>14729194
brown countries don’t have these problems, especially not without the intervention of Atlantic powers. Great Britain is responsible for the export of liberalism across the world, and America has been destroying and threatening to destroy illiberal dictatorships for years. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, North Korea—alongside states like Apartheid South Africa and Russia, these are not the perpetrators of globohomo. Go suck yourself off

[Anonymous No.14729268]

>>14729230
It's not even that they're brown, the symptom is just the importation of foreigners. Prioritizing the interest of the individual and the collective should be in balance - something which even liberal Britain managed to do, for a time - but it's currently tilted excessively towards the former

[Anonymous No.14729275]

>>14729230
>Great Britain is responsible

[Anonymous No.14729300]

>>14726558
>NYT columnist
dropped

[Anonymous No.14729323]

>>14729230
the same countries that are "Bringing Globohomo (tm)" are the same ones that brought those third-world countries Christianity which is why they're opposing it in the first place.

>We weep for you Britain. You brought us Jesus. Now you bring us sodomy.
t. Ugandan preacher

[Anonymous No.14729577]

>>14726794
>Weiss has been described as conservative by Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot and Business Insider
they also have bari weiss ;)

[Anonymous No.14729612]

>no one talking about the Peter Thiel review

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/03/back-to-the-future

[Anonymous No.14729637]

>>14726558
Someone buy the kindle version and upload? Not gonna waste money with a book published in literally current year

[Anonymous No.14730095]

>>14727865
>A technological society isn't compatible with the principles of equality, autonomy, etc. that we've valued for the past 200 years or so.
Interesting point, I'd like to hear more on it. Are you a Luddite? Heideggerian? Kaczynskian, even?

>>14728014
>perhaps why he had such productive dialogue with the premier (legitimately) Catholic philosopher of the 20th century, Gaston Fessard
quick rundown?

[Anonymous No.14730859]

How to reverse this process?

[Anonymous No.14730901]

>>14730095
No, quite the opposite. It's not a complex position - modern genetics reveals to us that the idea of "equality" on a biological level is not tenable. That's okay, but we keep operating as if it's true, which leads to a lot of the problems we see today. There's nothing wrong with some pepole being less intelligent than others, less strong than others, but we need a certain degree of restructuring so that we can get people into the right positions in society.

Similarly, the 20th century did nothing if not disprove the idea of personal autonomy. Modern propaganda outlets can convince people of literally anything. If that's true, why don't we convince people of ideas that aren't harmful or retarded, such as "Don't cut your penis off?". This idea is of course an outgrowth of the idea of equality and is in a way a highly evolved form of antiracism.

[Anonymous No.14731086]

>>14730859
Work on big problems.
Teenagers created the biggest PayPal competitor (Stripe). A teenager created nets that remove plastic from the ocean (forgot his name but he’s been on Rogan twice, including very recently).

You can likely work on computer vision tools with little to zero programming knowledge, and teach it to spot cars at a traffic light. All traffic lights seemingly work on a timer, or at best, a shitty sensor traffic lights running on computer vision would essentially be ‘smart traffic lights’ and greatly reduced traffic in highly populated areas.

Sensors all over buildings would mean that we could get flying cars within years as opposed to decades. You can do a lot of this virtually in simulations.

You can definitely find a big problem to work on, and make big progress working on it if you’re willing to dedicate time.

[Anonymous No.14731127]

>>14727948
There is plenty left to do and discover, so that makes little sense.