There is no hope

[Anonymous No.17163626]

[Anonymous No.17163633]

oh nonononoono ahahaahaha what a freak. Of course he's a depressed fuck

[Anonymous No.17163644]

>>17163633
Show your face

[Anonymous No.17163650]

>>17163633
Jew?

[Anonymous No.17163697]

>>17163644
Lol.
>>17163650
Part of it, yes. But there's also a very common phenotypical facial features among nearly all depressed, nihilistic leftists. Weary eyes, low-T onions face. They always look like they're about to cry. Whenever I see that type of face, I already know that they're an ardent leftist nihilist, and this has never failed me so far.

[Anonymous No.17163710]

>>17163697
>sad people have sad faces
Genius

[Anonymous No.17163714]

>>17163697
leftists
stopped reading there, stupid poltard

[Anonymous No.17163719]

>>17163714

[Anonymous No.17163723]

>>17163626
Whats this book about? Will it teach me how to seduce people?

[Anonymous No.17163727]

>>17163626
There is an infinite amount of hope.
But nor for us.

[Anonymous No.17163734]

>>17163626
>killed himself cuz he couldnt take his mom bitching at him

kek

[Anonymous No.17163739]

>there is no hope

[Anonymous No.17163753]

>>17163697
>depressed nihilistic leftists
>low-T onions face
your head is up your autistic ass and it makes you boring

[Anonymous No.17163758]

>>17163753
Found the basedface

[Anonymous No.17163759]

>>17163753
When writing the post I already knew I'm also describing a significant portion of /lit/, so your response comes as no surprise.

[Anonymous No.17163761]

>>17163759
Show your face pussy

[Anonymous No.17163766]

>>17163761
Why would I? I'm not insecure about my face like you are.

[Anonymous No.17163775]

>>17163766
>n-n-n-no
Faggot

[Anonymous No.17163782]

>>17163775
Why would I post my face on 4chan? That makes no sense lol. Would you do it?

[Anonymous No.17163787]

The absolute state of the onionfaces, kek. The amount of cope is so high, its giving Ernest Becker a boner

[Anonymous No.17163792]

>>17163633
>>17163782
>>17163787
>Rejects ideas because of face
Go back to pol retards

[Anonymous No.17163806]

>>17163792
They're worst than women
>he's not cute so he's wrong!

[Anonymous No.17163816]

>>17163792
Lookism is been credited by your leftist academia
>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/abs/effects-of-physical-attractiveness-on-political-beliefs/D5214D0CAE37EE5947B7BF29762547EE

There's truly no hope

[Anonymous No.17163819]

>>17163806
>I didn't manage to step up to the objective beauty measures of this society
>Therefore I will break them down, and deny their existence

Understandable, but ultimately pointless

[Anonymous No.17163825]

>>17163792
It's just interesting to note how leftist, self-hating, life denying "philosophy" is so often accompanied by weak faggot onions-cuck facial features.

[Anonymous No.17163826]

>>17163819
I didn't deny objective beauty you retard
Thats not the subject of this thread
Go somewhere else you cancer
>he's ugly kek so he's wrong
Fuckin retard

[Anonymous No.17163835]

>>17163826
Its Ok Anon, I know you didn't choose to be ugly. But it is not acceptable for boys to expose their sanded vaginas out in the open for other men to see. Cover it, cry in silence, grow up and stop being triggered by things not in your control.

[Anonymous No.17163848]

>>17163835
Kys

[Anonymous No.17163854]

>>17163848
You think about suicide a lot, don't you?

[Anonymous No.17163856]

>>17163854
Yes

[Anonymous No.17163866]

>>17163856
I'm not surprised. I think you should hit the gym. Your T levels will increase and as a consequence suicidal ideation will disappear.

[Anonymous No.17163868]

if he was alive today he would be frequenting incel forums and post wojacks on 4chan, maybe pull a elliot

anyway is his book worth reading for someone not into philosphy?

[Anonymous No.17163871]

>>17163866
Not enough willpower

[Anonymous No.17163877]

>>17163856
Take Zinc, Vit D, Magnesium, Sleep properly, hit the gym, get conservative friends and leave your nihilistic echo chambers. Come to our side, self improvement is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.17163878]

>>17163835
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.17163885]

>>17163877
I will try

[Anonymous No.17163886]

>>17163854
Honest question, who doesnt?

[Anonymous No.17163890]

>>17163885
Fuck yeah, make Nihilism your little slut.

[Anonymous No.17163903]

>>17163886
>>17163885
More people need to take the Scott Adams pill. Dude's a genius. There's an extreme disconnect between how you view the world and what the world actually is. The world is way more interesting than anyone can even imagine. Nihilism is an awful filter to apply on life because it makes you blind to all the interesting stuff and essentially transforms you into a lifeless vegetable. To get out of it you need to first realize that nihilism is just a filter on life, and that you can change it. There are many ways to change the filter, countless books have been written about it. You can become much happier, life becomes much more interesting, you can even change what you think are fundamental aspects of your personality like confidence, anxiety etc.

[Anonymous No.17163906]

>>17163903
This. I used to be suicidal until it hit me. I cannot remember what made me realise it, but it changed things for me

[Anonymous No.17163909]

>>17163903
He also talks how taking psychedelics can help you realize this point on a more deeper level and transform your life. I have not taken psychedelics and will not take it because I already understand it and don't think the risk is worth it, but if things are really bad to the point where you're genuinely considering suicide I think trying psychedelics is definitely worth it.

[Anonymous No.17163912]

>>17163903
>scott adams

the guy who created dilbert?

[Anonymous No.17163920]

>>17163626
The problem with nihilism is congruence. If you are powerful and rich, nihilism is fine. If you are a wage slave trying to find meaning outside your soul crushing job, nihilism is bad.

[Anonymous No.17163935]

>>17163903
>>17163909
I also think if you suffer from nihilism you should look into quantum mechanics. A lot of nihilists I've interacted with hold materialist beliefs about the universe that are explicitly contradicted by science.
Watch these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_xEraQWvgM
A lot of people are unaware of how fucking crazy the universe actually is and the philosophical implications of it. The videos are by a christian youtuber but he doesn't discuss christian philosophy in them (although he does in other videos), but I came across them in a blog by a non-christian who was surprised how accurate a christian was with science as opposed to a lot of materialist atheist who claim to know how the universe works but whose dogma are explicitly contradicted by modern science.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2015/08/can-christians-be-better-at-quantum.html
I myself am not religious but I highly recommend watching the videos, they are a great resource to understand what's going on, and if you weren't already aware of this stuff it will definitely change how you view the world by a lot.

[Anonymous No.17163939]

>>17163912
Yes.

[Anonymous No.17163942]

>>17163935
Forgot to mention that this guy Lubos Motl is also an extremely talented theoretical physicist, so he knows his shit.

[Anonymous No.17163949]

>>17163633
That's a very normal human bean

[Anonymous No.17163951]

>>17163935
I found IP arguments weak

[Anonymous No.17163961]

>>17163951
Ok? Be more specific. He made a lot of arguments.

[Anonymous No.17163968]

>>17163871
Willpower doesnt exist anon

[Anonymous No.17163976]

>>17163961
I mostly watched his series on philosophy of mind and he has a lot of weak arguments and a bibliography that is very dated and not at all up to date. For example when he says that in the physicalist frame we wouldn't expect to have the "richer" experiences we have with mushrooms since the brain is less active overall. This is not true because not only 1) the big psychedelic experiences are not richer, maybe more intense but they are simplified 2) it is perfectly explainable in a physicalist frame that if the brain's activity drops we pass to a more summary level of consciousness and therefore from a world of multiple objects to a world of shapes, colors, etc.
I pass over his horrible videos where he tries to defend the historicity of the genesis, we are in full pseudo-science mode.

[Anonymous No.17163981]

>>17163968
For me yes

[Anonymous No.17163986]

>>17163976
You might be right, I haven't watched those videos. Watch the videos I linked on quantum mechanics. They're good and Motl-approved.

[Anonymous No.17164003]

>>17163986
I will, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.17164136]

we had a good thread about this book the other day because it wasn't the usual schizo OP spamming it, it was just someone posting about it intelligently and a conversation started organically

all this faggot OP does is post the cover and say "Read this." one of the lowest forms of life on /lit/, the shill who is also lazy and doesn't even have anything to say about what he shills.

[Anonymous No.17164167]

>>17164136
>we had a good thread about this book the other day because it wasn't the usual schizo OP spamming it, it was just someone posting about it intelligently and a conversation started organically
Link?

[Anonymous No.17164344]

>>17163935
Why should anyone care about the reality in-itself?
Our concern should be how we experience reality. And the experience for the most part is pretty brutal. The immense scale of suffering plague every part of this planet.
If we are really going for empirical data then science confirms the Buddhist doctrine of no-self. Nothing exist outside of our bodies and almost every neuroscientist agree with this thesis but 80% of the people still believe in metaphysical claims.
Everything prey on everything.
I don't know how some ethical can believe that this nature/universe is based on love.

[Anonymous No.17164405]

>>17164344
>Nothing exist outside of our bodies and almost every neuroscientist agree with this thesis but 80% of the people still believe in metaphysical claims
What you stated is a textbook example of a metaphysical claim.

[Anonymous No.17164467]

>>17164405
Metaphysical claim about souls or spirit.

[Anonymous No.17164522]

>>17164136
>>17164167
I was the one posting links/quotes in that thread, it died off rather quickly, there are way too many shit threads constantly there really ought to be better moderation or some sort of ability to sticky the few threads that contain any semblance of intelligent discussion. I don´t know why OP can´t just write intelligently about this topic. But I´d be happy to answer any intelligent questions regarding Michelstaedter (once I didn´t already address in the previous thread), I´m really starved for intelligent discussion given how abysmally low-brow my courses have been. I´m not sure OP really understands Michelstaedter given that he seems to be trying to portray him as some some sort of antinatalist which I´m really not seeing, I think ultimately he had a great love of life and of nature

[Anonymous No.17164540]

>>17164522
If his philosophy wasn't in the tradition of Schopenhauerian antinatalistic pessimism then why did he off himself?

[Anonymous No.17164572]

>>17164522
Based effortposter

[Anonymous No.17164581]

>>17164522
why would i have questions about some nigga that offed himself at 23? you really gonna say some cringy shit like "he came at the end of his philosophical reasoning" or some gay shit? kid was just some depressed retard just like all the other people who off themselves at a young age, shame but life goes on

[Anonymous No.17164609]

>>17164522
>But I´d be happy to answer any intelligent questions regarding Michelstaedter
Do u know buddhism? It strikes me so hard how Michaelstaedter's philosophy is so close to buddhism. Especially on the dukkha side of things. Too bad he didn't know buddhism very well, maybe he would have know the answer to samvega/dukkha and wouldnt have kill himself.

[Anonymous No.17164615]

>>17164540
Good question. You´re right in that he does belong to the current of Lebensphilosophie (and he actually wanted to translate Schopenhauer into Italian and wrote to Benedetto Croce about potentially doing this but it never came to fruition), and the question of philosophy/suicide is central to studies of Michelstaedter, but I´ll be back replying to this in an hour or two, gotta dig up a few quotes related to this. And I wouldn´t claim to be an expert or anything but I´ll provide easily verifiable sources
>>17164581
yes

[Anonymous No.17164670]

>>17164615
Based fucking sincere anon

[Anonymous No.17164917]

>>17163759
i'm not saying you're wrong because i don't know that. i'm saying you seem like you can only think in buzzwords you read on this site infested with masturbating retards and it's probably the only way you're able to sincerely discuss politics with anybody

[Anonymous No.17165153]

Next year is going to be better than the last. Take Bob Marley pill, everything is going to be alright.
„He тepяйтe нaдeжды и coвecти, нe впaдaйтe в гpeх yныния, нe cклaдывaйтe opyжия, нe oпycкaйтe pyк. Хвaтит зaживo гнить в cвoих yютных кaпкaнaх. Пoкиньтe cвoи пыльныe, зaтхлыe зaкoyлки — выйдитe нa cвeт бeзбoжный, вдoхнитe пoлнoй гpyдью. Poдинa ждёт вac — бeзнaдёжнo-мoлoдых, oтчaянных и нeпoкopных. Tpeбyйтe и дocтигaйтe нeвoзмoжнoгo! Hacтyпитe нa гopлo cвoeй тocкe, aпaтии, лeни. Кaзнитe cвoй cтpaх. Дeйcтвyйтe тaк, чтoбы Cмepть бeжaлa oт вac в yжace. Mиp дepжитcя — пoкa eщё дepжитcя! — нa кaждoм из нac — живoм и нeпoбeдимoм. И пycть нac мaлo — нac и вceгдa былo нeмнoгo — нo имeннo мы двигaли и движeм иcтopию, гoним eё впepeд пo cияющeй cпиpaли. Tyдa, гдe вpeмeни нe былo, нeт и нe бyдeт. B вeчнocть. Taк нe пoзopьтe жe ceбя и cвoё бyдyщee. Bcтaньтe!“

[Anonymous No.17165178]

>>17164540
I guess my image of the antinatalist is more of a caricature of a life-hating recluse ("there is no hope" gave me that impression at least), antinatalism never interested me as a philosophy but maybe in a literal sense he is one; but I have not really thought about it when reading (about) him. Daniela Bini (Carlo Michelstaedter and the failure of language) doesn´t even mention the term afaik. I know Ligotti mentions him in Conspiracy, in the chapter on Zapffe.
His suicide doesn´t really interest me that much to be honest, nor does suicide as a problem in general nor do I believe in mental illness, but it´s reasonable to try to connect his philosophy with his thought. But he does argue against suicide in a letter to his friend "He who in order to flee from pain thinks of death does not measure its implications, just as he was unable to measure the implications of life. He deludes himself that his reasoning is sound by falsely attributing a consciousness to death; the consciousness of the end of suffering" (Bini p.263). In "Dialogho della salute" he repeats a similar critique.
But I don´t think the question will ever be conclusively settled. Comparing him with Mainländer, Weininger and even Mishima is tempting. The philosophy in Persuasion and Rhetoric is a self-refuting failure and I can´t imagine Michelstaedter was unaware of this, and given his obsession with the unachievable ideal of persuasion and authenticity then you could argue his suicide is the syllogism of all this.
"It is rhetoric, and rhetoric alone, that makes Michelstaedter believe that his Parmenidean concepts of being, identity, and permanence have possible correlates in the historical world. It is rhetoric that seduces him into believing in persuasion. How lucid Michelstaedter might be about this paradox is hard to say. But it is clear to most of his readers that in his withering critique of rhetoric even the concept of persuasion is destroyed. Once one has understood that identity is an empty concept, or an illusion produced by historical and linguistic form, then the being and the self that one tries to distinguish from illusions also fall."(Harrison 1910 the emancipation of dissonance p.160).
In 1906 he meets Russian divorcee Nina Baraden, whom he grows very fond of; she kills herself March 1907 which put Michelstaedter into a state of chronic depression; his brother Gino committed suicide in February 1909. This is surely part of the explanation. Interesting to note also that there was a spike of suicides during the years surrounding 1910, I think psychoanalysts (Freudians?) were occupied in trying to analyse this.

[Anonymous No.17165184]

>>17164609
My knowledge of Buddhism is rather primitive desu. But Bini (Carlo Michelstaedter and the failure of language) writes (p.124) "Yet, the only text on Buddhism we know for certain Michelstaedter read was a German edition of Buddhist maxims and aphorisms, entitled Indische Sprüche".
He mentions Buddha once in Persuasion and Rhetoric, together with Christ (whom he greatly admired). In Claudio Magris´ novel Un altro mare (A different sea), which is based on the life of Michelstaedter´s great friend Enrico Mreule, Michelstaedter is mentioned as the Buddha of the West, Carlo (of the West) and Buddha (of the East) as being the two awakened.

[Anonymous No.17165185]

>>17163697
>Weary eyes, low-T onions face. They always look like they're about to cry.
that's true

[Anonymous No.17165206]

>>17165178
kek another retard that killed himself because of a girl

cant blame him i guess

[Anonymous No.17165222]

>>17164917
Cool opinion bro.

[Anonymous No.17165234]

>>17165178
these people are all the same, just like jordan peterson that goes around people telling them what to do and we see how misareble he turned out, this guy went on a high horse saying how suicide is dumb yet kills himself later

this guy cant in a million years come close to the likes of mishima, dont compare a grandmaster in fiction to some random incel

[Anonymous No.17165237]

>>17164136
>we had a good thread about this book the other day
>>17164167
>Link?
>>17164522
>I was the one posting links/quotes in that thread

here it is
>>17135916

[Anonymous No.17165240]

>>17165153
Ктo aвтop цитaты?

[Anonymous No.17165257]

>>17165240
Eгop Лeтoв

[Anonymous No.17165271]

>>17165184
Yeah, evola says the same I think (little buddha of the west). Because he (Michel.) makes the same observation as the Buddha on dukkha/samvega. Except that the Buddha proposed a solution, where Michel. saw only suicide as a way out. It's a pity that Buddhist texts were not really available in his time.

[Anonymous No.17165286]

>>17165271
the guy liked a girl that killed himself, his brother killed himself and at home he had an argument with his mom and then went off to kill himself while arguing apparently that suicide is dumb

why do you guys still like to think that his suicide was a part of his philosophical reasoning? its literally out there in the open, you can literally see why he killed himself lol

is this some kind of way to cope with having wasted your time reading some incels book and you want to make it bigger thn it is?

[Anonymous No.17165290]

>>17165271
For me, Michel. is a fusion of the Ecclesiastes and the Buddha. A magnificent thinker of dukkha, of the dissatisfaction-suffering inherent in the phenomenal world, but for a solution to dukkha one must look at Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17165298]

>>17165234
this is probably bait but it´s ironic how you criticize Michelstaedter when your mind is just operating on memes. Michelstaedter´s philosophy is not far from Bushido and he has a lot of common ground with Mishima

[Anonymous No.17165297]

>>17165286
Please go back to pol

[Anonymous No.17165331]

>>17165286
He offered no solutions

[Anonymous No.17165343]

>>17165298
i dont know anything about michelstaedter, im criticizing the anons here who like him, the facts are that he argued suicide is dumb, his brother and a girl he liked killed himself so he went to off himself, maybe if he would have been a fag like mishima he wouldnt have offed himself, true. just look at how jordan became a druggie that cant clean his own room. its better carlo killed himself so early so a 100 years later some retards can talk about him on a vietnamese basketwaving forum shitposting about buddhism while he quiet literally killed himself cause of a girl kek.

>>17165331
yeah and he also said suicide is dumb

[Anonymous No.17165354]

>>17165271
>>17165290
He does propose some sort of enduring attitude towards life, I forget where exactly, but yeah I don´t think he ever really managed to systematize his thought properly, given his short life it´s not so surprising. I read once about Evola, something about the "absolute individual" found in Michelstaedter (and Stirner?) and how this inspired his own ideas about magical idealism.

[Anonymous No.17165570]

Can someone explain to me why he saw Socrates and Jesus as persuaded individuals? From my reading, it seems that to be at least partially persuaded is to live in the present as best as possible and to almost not think at all to avoid rhetoric. The Leopardi poem "Il passero solitario" and how he is envious of the crow is what I see this idea as. I don't really get how Jesus and Socrates are examples of this, but I am probably missing something. I do think his philosophy is self defeating and it is basically impossible to be self reliant. I think his metaphors of the atoms and the human as a hanging weight are ways in which to show that life is ultimately about being connected and how the will is essential to all things.

[Anonymous No.17165575]

>papyrus font

[Anonymous No.17165580]

>>17165343
Dude who cares about Peterson, are all your reference points derived from Chan-culture? We have established you don´t know anything about him yet you´re confident you can dismiss him based on a few biographical notes. Michelstaedter is an "incel" who doesn´t reach the dizzying heights of a Japanese homosexual that had his first orgasm witnessing a painting depicting a guy with arrows sticking into his bare torso, a man who fucked traps and roleplayed as a samurai with his personal incel army

[Anonymous No.17165631]

>>17165580
can i not dismiss the claims that anons here act like he is some kind of god that came to the end of his thought process while its extremely obvious he purely killed himself because of circumstances surrounding the suicide of the girl he liked and his brother? a weak moment and he offed himself, happens to the best of us, why that so hard to accept? i also thought of suicide alot when the girl of my dreams went away, so what? does it also not devalue his own personal thoughts while he himself argued against suicide yet kills himself later, likely as he did not have functioning emotional development and could not handle it all at once? why are the comparisons to peterson unfair while he himself is some life help guru and his life turned out to be a huge dumpster fire.

is it really that unfair to make fun of you anons for this? i dont think so, maybe you guys should explain his thoughts in a better manner? maybe explain better what he thought? not my fault you fellas are lacking mate

[Anonymous No.17165758]

>>17165570
Yeah he definitely sees that at the heart of existence there is suffering/strife/will/desire or whatever you want to call it. There are different interpretations of Michelstaedter, even Marxist ones. One is to interpret him as proponent of a philosophia perennis, he writes that what he says is nothing new and something that has been repeated throughout history, manifesting itself in figures like Christ, Socrates etc. He writes in the preface of his dissertation "Socrates said it, but they constructed four systems on him." "Christ said it, but they built a church upon it." Their persuasion becomes rhetoric through systems and institutions built upon their message.
I think there might be a better explanation regarding Socrates in his Appendici critiche, in which he is supposed to actually try to explain rhetoric and persuasion in Plato and Aristotle.
I think he´s not prepared to give up dualism and rationalism fully, unlike Schopenhauer he wasn´t prepared to accept the primacy of will over intellect

[Anonymous No.17165831]

>>17165178
Correction: misremembered the name of the Russian woman which is Nadia Baraden, not Nina.

>>17165631
Do you really think you are justified in dismissing him in such a manner? I don´t know that anyone here is deifying him, I even stated I don´t really care about his suicide. Seems you are projecting. I did try explaining his thought to an anon in this thread
>>17135916

[Anonymous No.17165837]

>>17165831
why dont you care about his suicide while he himself said suicide is dumb?

[Anonymous No.17166241]

>>17163903
>take the Scott Adams pill. Dude's a genius.

[Anonymous No.17166338]

>>17166241
He is.

[Anonymous No.17166377]

>>17163886
me

[Anonymous No.17166434]

>>17163903
What exactly is your understanding of nihilism? Mind you, not in a pointed tone but out of pure interest.
If it's simply to see no value or even no existence in the world, you're basically already equating it to a depressed state, of course it's going to be an awful filter. If you're just talking about depression, this awful filter, your post just reads like rehashed esoteric self-help. How is physics like >>17163935 help if I'm depressed?
Full disclosure though I'm not watching the videos as no matter the intention I think it's no little than stormfags drowning anons in supposed statistics and vids about smokestacks and doors or whatever.

[Anonymous No.17166468]

>>17166434
>What exactly is your understanding of nihilism?
Belief that everything is pointless, the world is boring etc. It often comes from wrong philosophical presuppositions of consciousness being an illusion, the whole of existence just atoms moving around according to predetermined physical laws, denial of any higher metaphysical properties. With a worldview like that it's much easier to get depressed.
> How is physics like >>17163935 (You) help if I'm depressed?
I already explained in my previous post. It disproves the philosophical presuppositions that depressed nihilist commonly believe in.
> I think it's no little than stormfags drowning anons in supposed statistics and vids about smokestacks and doors or whatever.
I don't understand what the fuck that means. Try reformulating the sentence in a way that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.17166523]

>>17166468
Think he's saying it's all nonsense like holocaust denial videos or something

[Anonymous No.17166666]

>>17166523
Well if he isn't willing to properly look at the evidence and evaluate it for himself, that's his own problem then.

[Anonymous No.17167773]

>>17165837
I don´t know exactly why but his suicide and suicide in general just does not interest me, not that I never thought about it myself but I don´t think I ever genuinely contemplated going through with it. Michelstaedter´s suicide is a question without conclusive evidence, which academics could quibble about for millennia; I prefer to stay skeptical and keep to what can be reasonably asserted and let the rest be unsaid.
As for suicide I´m inclined to just see it at a sign of decadence and alienation from instincts, don´t really have an elaborate stance on it as of yet.

[Anonymous No.17167813]

>>17163626
If you think the conclusion of this book is “there is no hope” then you simply did not read the book.

[Anonymous No.17167819]

>>17163868
>his book worth reading for someone not into philosphy?
No, you will be filtered almost immediately.

[Anonymous No.17167833]

>>17167813
there is no hope one can be what he defines as persuaded it seems

[Anonymous No.17167869]

>>17167833
Wrong. Have you read the book? His suicide is possibly the result of failing to manifest as act the implication of his philosophy but it can’t be said that his suicide is definitively the natural conclusion of his philosophy. There’s not reason to think that persuasion is somehow not achievable.

[Anonymous No.17167897]

>>17165271
>where Michel. saw only suicide as a way out
Totally disagree. His suicide was not “a way out” so much as a failure to escape his “valley without exit”. That does not mean there is no exit, only they did not find it.

>>17164522
> I´m not sure OP really understands Michelstaedter given that he seems to be trying to portray him as some some sort of antinatalist which I´m really not seeing, I think ultimately he had a great love of life and of nature
I totally agree with this. Sure, it’s a radically pessimistic sort of book in a way but it comes with implication of something radically optimistic, which is persuasion. Persuasion can be achieved in relation to the wholeness (and acceptance) of one’s rhetoric and his will in light of that.

Have you read any Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.17167911]

>>17167869
Yes I have, but not recently. What would a persuaded individual look like to you? From what I remember it was someone who embraces the present moment, someone who doesn't look to the future for completeness and is complete on his own, free from rhetoric. I guess a form of ascetism; desire causes one to flee the present by looking to the future. I think that is very hard to achieve, and the weight analogy suggests humans were defined by this tension, and therefore something you just have to accept. There is probably more to the concept, but that is what i mainly took from my reading.

[Anonymous No.17168042]

>>17167911
You might be interested to read Julius Evola’s short essay on Carlo Michelstäedter. He actually gives a very good reading of Michelstäedter, probably because he influenced him so much. You don’t have to appreciate his other writings to appreciate his take on Michelstäedter either but you’ll find affinities between those Carlo Michelstäedter, Julius Evola, and Martin Heidegger. The latter 2 put the implications of his philosophy into words much better than I ever could here, one purposely the other purpose incidentally (I have no idea if Heidegger had read Michelstäedter).

Essentially, the rhetorical man becomes persuaded in relation to his rhetoric and redeems life via the will, creation, autarchy, and perfect possession of the act with austerity, denial, or asceticism actually being the neutral point between persuasion and rhetoric (and thus the first step). If rhetoric is the development of dependency and the necessary act, then persuasion is the development of autarchy and the self possessed act.

[Anonymous No.17168053]

>>17168042
evola is a retard that genuinly believed in magic

[Anonymous No.17168063]

>>17168053
Why do you come here if you won’t actually read authors, engage with things seriously, or give credit where credit is due? This comment is simply worthless in every possible respect.

[Anonymous No.17168065]

>poltard

[Anonymous No.17168074]

>>17168063
evola is a literal meme lol

[Anonymous No.17168075]

>>17167897
I find it tempting to read him as an exponent of some sort of philosophia perennis. If you see as central his historical examples of persuaded individuals then it becomes almost like a virtue ethics, with these individuals being its embodiment.The one film I think of as illustrating persuasione aesthetically is Luis Bunuel´s underrated masterpiece Nazarin, one of Tarkovsky´s favourite films.
And I think nature as ideal is something that´s often there in the background in the writings of most profound pessimists. I seem to recall him writing about persuasione in the animal kingdom with something about them not always being persuaded.

No I have not read Heidegger yet, but it´s a priority on my reading list; comparing Michelstaedter with existentialism seems the most plausible way of categorizing him, also illustrates his precocity.
You might be interested in this article, reviewing a work investigating Heidegger´s potential reading of Michelstaedter. Seems to be a tad far-fetched, I think it´s based on the fact that Heidegger had read Evola who had written about Michelstaedter, but not in the work that Heidegger is proven to have read.

https://www.vitapensata.eu/2020/05/21/heidegger-the-plagiarist-looking-for-sein-und-zeit-in-gorizia/

[Anonymous No.17168077]

>>17168042
I should add that it’s important then to extrapolate this logic of the dependent act vs the ascetic non-act (or the ascetic focused act, which is a different topic) vs the self possessed act beyond the mere act and into a way of life.

[Anonymous No.17168091]

>>17168074
It really sounds like you’re the meme since you’re getting filtered so hard. I even mentioned that you don’t have to appreciate his other writings to appreciate his essay on Michelstäedter. If you don’t understand these things or have no interest or are dismissive of them, why on earth would you even enter this thread let alone comment in it specially to my explanation?

There’s a sort of meta irony here...

[Anonymous No.17168098]

>>17168091
>muh getting filtered so hard
>oh yeah btw i dont undertand anything myself and i read 10 percent but yeah you should read it bro :)

alright bud

[Anonymous No.17168122]

>>17168075
>I find it tempting to read him as an exponent of some sort of philosophia perennis.
Michelstäedter? I don’t. I see why you say that but I think there’s a layer of nuance that basically dismisses that, or at the very least differentiates from it.

>Nazarin
I’ve never seen it but I will check it out. I don’t really agree with your point about nature as being ideal though. I don’t really get exactly that out of Michelstäedter or Heidegger.

It’s weird how many affinities the two had. You see seeds of the same conclusions in Michelstäedter and Heidegger, I think. Evola as well although in a different way.

I’ve gotten a lot out of the 3. Heidegger is a challenge for me though I admit. I don’t know either German or Italian, though I wish I did.

[Anonymous No.17168136]

>>17168098
> I’m not filtered
Why didn’t you contribute anything if value then? You’re just throwing around as hominem about authors you clearly haven’t read (and me too apparently) and not even bothering to engage with the ideas themselves. What’s the point? What even motivates you? You’ve gotten nothing out of this and neither has anyone gotten anything from you.

[Anonymous No.17168141]

>>17168136
i got alot out of this ;)

[Anonymous No.17168694]

>>17168122
Wait, my bad about philosophia perennis. I didn´t realize it strictly pertained to religion but thought it could mean a "teaching" as well; I swear I´ve read someone touting him as such though, but I think he was pretty hostile to religion in the end. What I mean is he could be seen as talking about a general message or teaching about life that is manifested throughout the ages in people like Christ, Socrates Ibsen etc, but which is largely ignored by the people. He explicitly states somewhere that he knows that he isn´t saying anything that has not been said before. Though just as an aspect of his thought and not something axiomatic, if there even is such a thing. My reading of him is quite heavily influenced by Daniela Bini´s and Thomas Harrison´s work on him; Bini portraying his philosophical project as an ethical one and Harrison situating him in the context of expressionism in Mitteleuropa around 1910

[Anonymous No.17168847]

>>17168694
>I swear I´ve read someone touting him as such though, but I think he was pretty hostile to religion in the end.
No, he wasn’t hostile to religion at all. At least not to my knowledge. Almost the opposite. I mean, you’re not way way off base with the Sophia perennials thing but he doesn’t espouse a perennialist philosophy. Maybe it’s because of his comparisons to Evola and Buddhism but that doesn’t make him perennialist. Honestly, Evola wasn’t even really a perennialist. They just happen to have ideas that have parallels in Christianity or Buddhism. So yeah, what you said here. I also read Bini’s book and liked it. The thing is, he’s one of those authors that a lot of writers, academics get wrong or have an incomplete picture of, I think. I’ve spent a lot of time reading and studying Michelstäedter. The book influenced me quite along as a young adult. Bini’s book is good but to date, Evola has the only really good analysis of his book that I’ve ever read.

[Anonymous No.17169503]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17169933]

>>17163697
physiognomy begins and ends with morality, not ideology, leftists may be deluded but not inherently immoral.