Kant, Marx, Guenon, Spengler

[Anonymous No.14849702]

All refuted in a single section.

"In both of the previous generations, one paid great attention to the relationship we have to values. If one can trust the multiple and careful inventories of our fortune, which this time has brought forth, then our historical rank might have to be set quite low. The critique of this time has gained in sharpness and maliciousness and one cannot claim that we are brought up to overestimate our achievements.

We are more inclined to afford criticism a rank which appears rather precarious. It does indeed have its limits, and there is no criticism capable of extracting itself from the overall view of its time and making judgements from a higher position. Where this nevertheless happens, one must establish what certainties and what criteria form the basis of such judgement.
Obviously, one seeks to secure such criteria through comparison. In fact, the method is that such critique seeks to carve out for itself a foundation of historical achievements, and then proceed from them to approach the present. This method seems plausible; it is, however, dependent upon the presupposition of a linear unfolding of time as a unitary phenomenon; in other words, a certain past corresponds to a certain present – otherwise a unitary, consistent measure is unthinkable.

One must, however, know that the merciless assessments to which this time is subjected, and which we find confirmed in so many minute details, are both accurate and inaccurate. This is because the uniform division of time into past, present and future, whilst it may be adequate for astronomical time, it is not for the time of life, or the time of destiny. There is one astronomical time, but simultaneously a multitude of life times whose rhythm ticks like the pendulum swings of innumerable clocks next to each another.
So there isn’t a single time, the time, but a multiplicity of times, which raise their claim upon man. Thus it is to be explained that a generation is at the same time older and younger than that of the fathers, that it belongs therefore to two different times. Now, it depends a great deal on the perspective from which one is capable of seeing time. One stands upon it as if upon a carpet and sees that the old pattern is woven right up to the edges. Or one sees that the fabric builds itself up to entirely new and different figures. Both perspectives are valid, and so it can be that one and the same phenomenon appears both as the symbol of the end and of the beginning. In the sphere of death everything becomes the symbol of death, and, in turn, death is the element which nourishes life.

[Anonymous No.14849708]

"Thus if the criticism of the time identifies complete decline and fills it with symbols, then this finding is accepted without contestation. This judgement can, however, claim validity only for that time to which that criticism itself belongs. Its task is the description of the immense death process to which we bear witness. This death pertains to the bourgeois world and the values which it has administered. It extends beyond the bourgeois world insofar as the bourgeois is himself only an heir and nothing but an heir, and with his decline displays the consummation of a very ancient heritage. The deep incision which threatens life in our time not only separates two generations, two centuries, but it announces the end of a thousand years of a system of relationships.
There is no question that the present is unable to be productive in the spirit of ancient symbols. But it is a question whether this is even desirable at all. The ancient symbols are the replica of a force whose archetype, whose form has dwindled away. They are nothing but measures of the rank which life in general is capable of reaching. In all domains of life, we encounter still a kind of effort which is oriented not by rank but by the quality of those replicas, without participating in the original archetype. This museal activity is characteristic for our time; the great and mysterious changes are veiled by it as if by a formal shroud. It weighs down accomplishments with leaden weights, and less and less can the mask of a presumed freedom keep up the deception that the premise of any freedom – namely, a true, original bond, hence a true, original responsibility – is missing today. The criticism which tests its full sharpness here faces an all too easy game, but the question must be whether one can carry on with this game.

More important for us than the comparison with replicas of long gone times and spaces, is the question whether we do not stand in a new and peculiar originary relation whose phenomenal reality has still not found any expression. It is the question of knowing whether we are not in the possession of a freedom whose manner of use is yet to be learned but which, nevertheless, is already on its way, so to speak. Here criticism stops, because one must rely on insights of another kind."

[Anonymous No.14849714]

>>14849702
>I am; therefore I can't.
lmao what a brainlet

[Anonymous No.14849731]

>>14849714
What?

[Anonymous No.14849755]

>Thus if the criticism of the time identifies complete decline and fills it with symbols, then this finding is accepted without contestation. This judgement can, however, claim validity only for that time to which that criticism itself belongs.
Brainlet take, you can learn about different values from different ages

[Anonymous No.14849794]

>>14849755
>missing the point this badly

[Anonymous No.14849906]

junger wrote in such an obnoxious drawn out way. he could've said this in two sentences really. anyways he was never able to grasp the point of destiny or technics, don't know why righties like this faggot so much.

[Anonymous No.14850139]

>>14849906
Perhaps you can rewrite his point in two sentences for us.
Also, his philosophy of technology and how to really grasp the point of destiny/technics would be great.

[Anonymous No.14850768]

>>14849906
Let's hear it.

[Anonymous No.14850829]

>>14849702
>>14849708
You missed the point of Guenon and Spengler badly if you think they advocated for
>replicas of long gone times and spaces
And
> It is the question of knowing whether we are not in the possession of a freedom whose manner of use is yet to be learned but which, nevertheless, is already on its way, so to speak. Here criticism stops, because one must rely on insights of another kind."
Has been refuted by subsequent development of the modern world and said “freedom” into full globo homo plutocracy

[Anonymous No.14850958]

>>14850829
>the point of Guenon and Spengler
What did they want then? Not that such a superficial reading should be ignored either, you didn't read the sentence correctly.
>refuted
Once again missing the point. Does anyone here actually read?

[Anonymous No.14851372]

Which author are you quoting here?

[Anonymous No.14851396]

>>14849702
>>14849708
Not sure about the others, but explain to me how this refutes Kant.
>One must, however, know that the merciless assessments to which this time is subjected, and which we find confirmed in so many minute details, are both accurate and inaccurate. This is because the uniform division of time into past, present and future, whilst it may be adequate for astronomical time, it is not for the time of life, or the time of destiny. There is one astronomical time, but simultaneously a multitude of life times whose rhythm ticks like the pendulum swings of innumerable clocks next to each another.
So there isn’t a single time, the time, but a multiplicity of times, which raise their claim upon man. Thus it is to be explained that a generation is at the same time older and younger than that of the fathers, that it belongs therefore to two different times. Now, it depends a great deal on the perspective from which one is capable of seeing time. One stands upon it as if upon a carpet and sees that the old pattern is woven right up to the edges. Or one sees that the fabric builds itself up to entirely new and different figures. Both perspectives are valid, and so it can be that one and the same phenomenon appears both as the symbol of the end and of the beginning. In the sphere of death everything becomes the symbol of death, and, in turn, death is the element which nourishes life.

Is more or less in line with Kant, whereas time is experienced relative to the Subject

Not really sure how the second post follows from this, or how it forms a cogent point at all, really.

[Anonymous No.14851999]

>>14851396
>more or less in line with Kant, whereas time is experienced relative to the Subject
It can't be more or less. Either it is or it isn't, especially with a philosophy as rigid as Kant's.
And time here is certainly not experienced relative to the subject. It is rather a force that exerts itself through the instincts of men. This is a time inherent in things which can overwhelm the experience of time, even defeating its representative qualities, as in the case of the son who is also older.
The perfection of time in being overwhelms its representations, even makes them unknowable things.

[Anonymous No.14852090]

>>14851396
The overall section regards the relation of time, critique, values, and the freedom of acting in the world. The second part is mostly in regards to returning to freedom and action.
Of course this wouldn't make sense to a Kantian, because acting in the world is ethically and ontologically impossible. The very domain of metaphysical laws must be reduced to vanity.

[Anonymous No.14853246]

Guenon refuted that.

[Anonymous No.14853967]

>>14853246
I will make this into a tshirt so that any annoying and confused hylics on my way think twice before even preaching their false gospel to me.

[Anonymous No.14855009]

>>14853246
Okay, how?

[Anonymous No.14855030]

>>14849702
This is incredibly badly written, and is almost entirely nonsense. Disregarded.

[Anonymous No.14855185]

>>14855030
>incredibly badly
Nice job idiot.
Which cult do you follow?

[Anonymous No.14855186]

>>14855030
this but unironically.

[Anonymous No.14855289]

>>14855186
Yet no one here has understood what he said.

[Anonymous No.14855290]

>>14855185
‘Incredibly badly’ is grammatically correct you retarded ESL gimp. I follow the cult of being diametrically opposed to whatever you think is correct.

[Anonymous No.14855300]

>>14855290
>grammatically correct

[Anonymous No.14855333]

>>14855185
Probably the guenonfags. Worst posters on the board.

[Anonymous No.14855343]

>>14855300
>is on the Epstein flightlogs
Being a pedo-worshipper isn’t a great look, anon.

[Anonymous No.14855366]

>>14855343
So THIS is the power of the primordial tradition.

[Anonymous No.14855395]

>>14855366
You’re embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.14855438]

>>14855395
No you're embarrissing Guenon, who was a decent thinker.

[Anonymous No.14855538]

you really can just put words in any order, huh

[Anonymous No.14855594]

>>14855538
Why are there so many low-level readers on lit?

[Anonymous No.14855601]

For all the pseuds. Heidegger spent years studying this book, so your downvotes don't mean anything.

[Anonymous No.14855623]

>>14855438
I hate Guenon, what on Earth are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.14855629]

>>14855601
You mean the same Heidegger that was an avowed members of the Nazi Party? Yeah, I think I’ll pass..

[Anonymous No.14855639]

>>14855594
>xd i will make an incomprehensible mumble jumble, anyone who cant understand is just stupid, its not my obscurantism at all

[Anonymous No.14855640]

>>14855623
So who are you defending with your shitslinging?

[Anonymous No.14855645]

>>14855601
People spend years watching youtube too

[Anonymous No.14855648]

>>14855639
It's a literal translation from the German.
No doubt very difficult, but claims that it is mumble jumble just show that you've never read anything difficult.

[Anonymous No.14855664]

>>14855648
I don't read overly verbose texts because they're a waste of energy. If he has a point to convey, he can do so in a direct and clear manner.
>inb4 lol you can't read it
I can and I have, but my point still stands.

[Anonymous No.14855667]

>>14855629
That doesn't refute his ideas tankie.

[Anonymous No.14855671]

>>14855640
I’m not defending anyone, I just think the extract from OP is indecipherable waffle.
>>14855648
I have no trouble reading most stuff, but this is just terribly translated. It makes Phenemology of Spirit look practically easy in comparison.

[Anonymous No.14855678]

>>14855664
>incomprehensible
>now verbose
>please state your terms in the language of your enemy so that they do not have to kill the messenger themselves
Nice cope retard.

[Anonymous No.14855722]

>>14855671
What have you read? And what philosophy do you subscribe to? It is likely just too difficult for you, you have not read very much philosophy, or it is just a completely other way of thinking to your own.
It certainly is not indecipherable, nor waffle. Quite the opposite, it is written simply in relation to the complexity of the ideas, and there is an incredible density to what is said.

[Anonymous No.14855730]

>>14855722
If it’s such a simple idea, explain it.

[Anonymous No.14855742]

>>14855730
Give me some time and I will try later. Have to have lunch and walk my dog.

[Anonymous No.14855779]

>>14855722
>subscribe to someone's thoughts
Why are philoniggers such NPCs?

[Anonymous No.14856303]

>>14849755
Spengler also already addressed this point, so OP is dilettante and a retard. A self aware society is one in decay, and can only negatively self reflect.

[Anonymous No.14856358]

>>14856303
What did he say?
And if Spengler really did address it then why did he remain trapped in his criticism and incapable of seeing anything beyond it?
Very easy to attack from a defensive position, the mark of an ultraphilistine.

[Anonymous No.14856403]

>>14856358
>Even if an investigator puts on one side every hypothesis that he knows as such, as soon as he sets his thought to work on the supposedly clear task, he is not controlling but being controlled by the unconscious form of it, for in living activity he is always a man of his Culture, of his age, of his school and of his tradition.
He did see beyond, into all culture forms and what he saw was analogous cycles of rise and fall (i.e. the four seasons of a culture-soul). Because he happened to realise the decline had set in since 1750. How could he help this given he could not choose when to be born?

[Anonymous No.14856409]

>>14855779
Most people are incapable of having their own thoughts, which has been made clear in this thread. So the first intelligent decision would be to accept a master. The NPC is someone who doesn't even know this, abstract negation.

[Anonymous No.14856449]

>>14856409
I used to think that everyone is capable of thinking, but time and time again I've been proven wrong

[Anonymous No.14856536]

>>14856403
They aren't saying the same thing, retard.
So he could see some vague connections of cultures from the past, but nothing about his own society apart from the same 'decline' he superficially critiqued? Thanks for proving my point, and that you can't read.

[Anonymous No.14856639]

Spengler's comments should also be seen in their proper context. The 1910s and 1920s were a time of great potential for Germany, despite the turmoil and even great losses.
Roughly equivalent to groypers or Qtard trolls in our time. Being a miseryguts character was perhaps its own stab-in-the-back...

[Anonymous No.14856780]

>>14856536
Holy fuck are you a midwit. There is no vague connexion, but a prime-symbol of birth-life-death. He has properly foreseen mass transit, communication, money markets, and the transition of democracy to plutocratic Caesarianism. I honestly think you need to read it for your own erudition and not just to win some pointless internet squabble.

[Anonymous No.14856814]

>>14856780
>mass transit
already before his time
>communication
same
>money markets
same
WHAT A PROFIT!
>caesarism
Never happened, likely never will.

You're a fake. A bullshitter. A clown. And here you are calling people names to win some pointless internet squabble.

[Anonymous No.14856896]

>>14856780
>public transit first proposed by a Catholic theologian and instituted by the monarchy
How's that for decline, subwit.

[Anonymous No.14856969]

>>14856536
Spengler would have saved so much confusion because of retards who never read him by using the word "Perfection" instead of "Decline". Spengler is talking about the PERFECTION of the West, it has been PERFECTED and cannot get any better. He doesn't speak of decline at all, which is a word he foolishly used for sensational purposes. You would know this if you read him.

[Anonymous No.14857126]

>>14856969
So his comments on democracy and modern man have nothing to do with decline?
Come on, this is just cope. And you're prodding to find weaknesses or any kind of gotcha rather than saying anything substantial.
Try reading something besides memes.

[Anonymous No.14858053]

Still not a single argument?