Jünger on equality

[Anonymous No.17998471]

>[Tyranny’s political authority] rests on equality, to which tyranny sacrifices freedom. Tyranny is intent on overall leveling, which makes it akin to rule by the people. Both structures produce similar forms. They share a distaste for elites that nurture their own language and recognize themselves in it; poets are even hated. (63)
>The further the state expands, the more it depends on equality; this occurs at the expense of substance.
>Freedom was consumed for the sake of equality. The tyrant is the equalizer; everyone recognizes himself in him.
His friend Carl Schmitt, earlier in the 20th century, touched on a similar point in The Crisis of Parliamentary democracy, observing that dictatorship is more democratic in spirit than organizationally "democratic" forms of government.

[Anonymous No.17998480]

>>17998471
Another dead white man. Read Pamela Sneed where she debunks this.

[Anonymous No.17998487]

>>17998471
this is a realization the powers that be have worked very, very hard to suppress and memory hole.

[Anonymous No.17998492]

>>17998480
Formerly Pamela Chuck

[Anonymous No.17998590]

This is literally the most basic, trite point against egalitarianism ever. If your first time encountering it was reading this dude then I can't imagine what your political and cultural trajectory was like.

[Anonymous No.17998612]

>>17998590
It's also one of the best points against it.

[Anonymous No.17998676]

>>17998590
Do you actually have a refutation against it or is just bullshit handwaving?

[Anonymous No.17998756]

>>17998471
>freedom as a virtue
I was going to read junger but now i changed my mind
>>17998612
>>17998676
FREEDOM IS A RETARDED SLAVE VIRTUE.

[Anonymous No.17998769]

>>17998756
>FREEDOM IS A RETARDED SLAVE VIRTUE.

[Anonymous No.17998772]

>>17998756
>freedom
>slave virtue
?

[Anonymous No.17998778]

>>17998471

This is pretty fucking dumb.

> "In a tyranny everyone is equally powerless, so tyranny is REALLY the most equal form of government."

[Anonymous No.17998785]

>>17998769
>freedom from something instead of power OVER something
so you're a slave trying to run away lmao
>>17998772
it's the inverse of domination and the weaker value at that

[Anonymous No.17998795]

>>17998590
Why is there always a seething lefty in this threads posting the same "duhhhh its so obvious stfu OP" crap in every thread?
Like the 4chan equivalent of replying to a Facebook comment with a laugh emoji.

[Anonymous No.17998808]

>>17998785
>>freedom from something instead of power OVER something
You can't have power over something without being free. Freedom for something and freedom in general is a quintessential virtue of masters, which you'd know if you had the slightest understanding of Nietzsche. There is no master who would valorize being unfree.

[Anonymous No.17998814]

>>17998769
>>17998785
Don't you mean equality is a slave virtue? It makes a lot more sense since it simultaneously pulls them up while dragging down the elites imo.

[Anonymous No.17998821]

>>17998778
that's not dumb at all. if all the power is at the very top, that saps away the political power the upper class traditionally have. sure, they have the resources to appeal to the Tyrant, but they're in a position where they have to barter for his attention rather than just purchasing it.

there's a reason Plato said all democracies eventually devolve into plutocracy

[Anonymous No.17998823]

>>17998471
Source of the quotes?

[Anonymous No.17998825]

Iit's pretty much only the eastern philosophers who truly understand the idiocy of the the concept of "freedom"

[Anonymous No.17998830]

>>17998778
It’s not though. Look at ancient Egypt or the USSR

[Anonymous No.17998840]

>>17998825
Taoism is the most freedom endorsing philosophy there is lmao.

[Anonymous No.17998846]

>>17998808
>You can't have power over something without being free
so you're a slave?
>Freedom for something and freedom in general is a quintessential virtue of masters, which you'd know if you had the slightest understanding of Nietzsche.
I understand that Nietzsche was WRONG.
>There is no master who would valorize being unfree.
Masters don't think about being free, they are too busy dominating their slaves. Did anyone in ancient greeks philosophize about "muh freedumbs" or put "liberty" as the foundation of their states?

[Anonymous No.17998851]

>>17998814
see
>>17998846

[Anonymous No.17998856]

>>17998846
they did when they were threatened by the Persians. "freedom", as the Greeks understood it, was essentially political autonomy. They would openly invite Tyrants to come and rule them in the hopes of good government.

[Anonymous No.17998896]

>>17998846
>so you're a slave?
What?
>Masters don't think about being free, they are too busy dominating their slaves.
What?
>Did anyone in ancient greeks philosophize about "muh freedumbs" or put "liberty"
Yes, it was called Stoicism. It was very different to the modernist conception of liberty, though, because it was centered around the individual person and not society or state (which is the more slavish kind).

[Anonymous No.17998921]

>>17998856
>they did when they were threatened by the Persians.
>"freedom", as the Greeks understood it, was essentially political autonomy.
they wanted to DOMINATE over the persians as opposed to merely getting away from them
the freedom to vote is superfluous when you can dominate instead, men don't actually vote
>>17998896
>Yes, it was called Stoicism
it's a life denying sect

[Anonymous No.17998931]

>>17998921
>it's a life denying sect
nope, it's probably the only life-affirming philosophical sect of the ancient world.

[Anonymous No.17998936]

>>17998921
>it's a life denying sect
No it's not. There's a distinct difference between living in the world and being of the world. You're beginning to sound like butterfly who can't understand nuance.

[Anonymous No.17998941]

>>17998931
>happiness as a virtue
life denying.

[Anonymous No.17998942]

>>17998830
>Egypbooks on this?

[Anonymous No.17998948]

>>17998936
>There's a distinct difference between living in the world and being of the world.
what is the difference

[Anonymous No.17998949]

>>17998942
Fuck.
>Egypt
Books on this?
Guess I'll clarify- books on ancient Egyptian society and it's different iterations/evolutions

[Anonymous No.17998961]

>>17998921
>they wanted to DOMINATE over the persians as opposed to merely getting away from them
No they didn't. I can see you're going through puberty and these things seem deep to you, but you should read primary sources and stop talking out your ass. These are people who went to war because they didn't want one city maintaining walls or having the power to dominate other greeks. The idea of any Greek Polis being powerful enough to conquer Persia terrified any most Greeks and it caused endless scandals and accusations of tyranny when Alexander actually did it.
Your obsession with DOMINATION is an offshoot of the old colonial Public Schools and their homoerotic obsession with child abuse and colonialism.

[Anonymous No.17998967]

>>17998948
One lives in the world and enjoys everything it has to offer but remains detached because he has no other need, while the other satisfies his passions and desires.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!7gsughV+aB7 No.17998976]

>>17998961
This was a good post until that last sentence

[Anonymous No.17998977]

>>17998941
The Stoics do not have "happiness" as a virtue. Virtue is to them self-possession and realization, which results in "eudemonia", which is a mere "good." This is why Stoics were always fundamentally opposed to the Epicureans. Kant stated the difference reasonably well in 2nd Critique; Epicureans value happiness, Stoics value "virtue" (which could entail physical pain or joy, ie not mere "happiness"). Kant thought that the latter was self-contradictory because he didn't quite understand the doctrine through his lens.

[Anonymous No.17999000]

>>17998808
Being a master IS being unfree according to Nietzsche. Retard.

[Anonymous No.17999010]

>>17999000
Nope

[Anonymous No.17999028]

>>17999010
So you didn't read the Greeks. Neither did you Nietzsche. Teens on /lit/ gonna be teens lmao

[Anonymous No.17999045]

>>17999028
I've read both. You're making up nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17999058]

>>17998590
>>17998756
filtered

[Anonymous No.17999060]

>>17998961
>The idea of any Greek Polis being powerful enough to conquer Persia terrified any most Greeks
>Alexander actually did it.
Here plain as day is the difference between two kinds of people.
>Your obsession with DOMINATION is an offshoot of the old colonial Public Schools and their homoerotic obsession with child abuse and colonialism.
being free is not much of an achievement. your aversion to domination is just your aversion to achievement.
>>17998977
sorry that was my mistake, to them it was virtue which LEAD to happiness so happiness was still a goal, and happiness is a death drive, and thus life denying.
stoicism encourages you to ignore your feelings and desires, which is essentially denying yourself from achieving your goals

[Anonymous No.17999071]

>>17999060
>to them it was virtue which LEAD to happiness so happiness was still a goal
No, that is not Stoicism. "Virtue" WAS the aim of Stoicism. It was said that happiness flowed from virtue (which they could never theoretically explain; Kant spoke about this too), but not that happiness was to be desired.
>stoicism encourages you to ignore your feelings and desires
No it doesn't. It teaches you to understand them and deal with them appropriately. Stoicism is not a celibate, ascetic order.

[Anonymous No.17999084]

>>17998795
does autism require a genuine refute

[Anonymous No.17999086]

>>17999060
not that anon; but you need to read Herodotus and the other Greeks to really understand how they understood "freedom" and "tyranny".

Greeks did not want to be ruled over by non-Greeks, period. They were OK as long as their tyrant-elite was one of their own. Yes, some of the Greeks preferred the hands-off approach of the far-off Persian satraps, but they were a minority compared to Hellas.

[Anonymous No.17999150]

>>17999071
>No it doesn't. It teaches you to understand them and deal with them appropriately. Stoicism is not a celibate, ascetic order.


>The faculty of desire purports to aim at securing what you want…If you fail in your desire, you are unfortunate, if you experience what you would rather avoid you are unhappy…For desire, suspend it completely for now. Because if you desire something outside your control, you are bound to be disappointed; and even things we do control, which under other circumstances would be deserving of our desire, are not yet within our power to attain. Restrict yourself to choice and refusal; and exercise them carefully, within discipline and detachment.
—Epictetus, Enchiridion, 2.1-2
>Freedom isn’t secured by filling up on your heart’s desire but by removing your desire
—Epictetus, Discourses, 2.1-2, 4.1.175

[Anonymous No.17999207]

>>17998590
Seething democratic liberal tard dabbed on by based junger