/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6739980]

Traditionalism is the most /lit/ ideology

[Anonymous No.6740038]

Traditionalism is modernist garbage, appealing to things like "enlightened absolutism" or, in your case, an ontology of violence tracing back to Hobbes, the original liberal.

[Anonymous No.6740074]

>>6740038
>tfw when I am not sure if I really want to go back to the genesis of Kultur instead of the exact moment before Zivilization begins, where the Kultur is already just in the era of Taste

How do I solve this. I think living at the era before the transition is best, since you could actually reflect on the happened historical dialectic, but that would already be a dumbed down almost estranged era compared to the origin of Kultur.

[Anonymous No.6740083]

>>6740038
>both de Maistre and (more especially) de Bonald already understood their social theories as strictly scientific, although they also regarded them as theological. One has to approach these writers as still working in the tradition of what Funkenstein calls ‘secular theology’, namely a discourse which collapses together empirical discussion of finite realities and invocation of the transcendent. As Funkenstein says, such a discourse is an heir to the Scotist doctrine of univocity of meaning between finite and infinite being. It becomes possible within this perspective to apply terms like ‘cause’ and ‘power’ without equivocation to both human and divine agents, and so to discover ‘evidence’ for God and to invoke the divine presence as an immediate explanatory cause.

>It is also misleading simply to dub these thinkers as ‘Counter-Enlightenment’. In a way, they belong more to a ‘hyper’ or ‘post’ Enlightenment, which even anticipates elements in the thought of Nietzsche. De Maistre at least (who had Masonic connections) can scarcely be considered an orthodox Catholic, and his thought exhibits a ‘mystical materialism’ which feeds into secular positivism in a more direct manner than has often been supposed. Like the materialist Thomas Hobbes, de Bonald and de Maistre associate God with the operation of arbitrary and material power. Where they differ from Hobbes (or perhaps place a different emphasis) and from liberal discourse in general, is in focusing on the arbitrary itself, rather than on the formalistic manipulations of the arbitrary which is liberalism’s very essence. The post- Enlightenment case, in a nutshell, is that while, from a formal point of view, any old mythos of power will do, in practice what holds societies together is not a formal ordering of the arbitrary, but rather the content of the arbitrary, or devotion to a particular mythos. Hence de Maistre’s famous denial that one can legislate for public festivals; confronted with the revolutionary religion of reason, the people remain eccentrically attached to the commemoration of the half-forgotten deeds of local saints. No longer then, is it possible, as for liberalism, to found and legitimate arbitrary power in terms of the formal property deeds of prior ownership and self-possession; instead, all power in its real, factual occurrence is entirely self-founded – it has no legitimation whatsoever outside its own self-establishment through mythical inscription.

[Anonymous No.6740088]

>>6740074
Stop subscribing to pagan gibberish about cyclical time.

>>6740083
>Whereas liberalism prevaricated about the arbitrary, and so was able to claim a universal, secular rights-theory based on ‘reason’ which could eventually emancipate itself from religion, the post-Enlightenment thinkers elaborate a much more naked power-theory, which declares that mythos or religion is indispensable, because it is the all-essential content of the arbitrary. Hence, at times, de Maistre just sounds Machiavellian: ‘if you wish to conserve everything, dedicate everything’; ‘religion . . . true or false . . . is the basis of all durable institutions’. Violent seizure of power must be concealed, and cities endure in proportion to the hiddenness and mysteriousness of their origins. However, because the formal considerations about power point to the primacy of a mystifying content, Machiavellianism passes over into a kind of self-negation, such that one chooses to believe that at different stages of history a divine power really has willed a certain positive content for religion, which is the true foundation for any possible social order.

[Anonymous No.6740098]

>>6739980
Deliberately subscribing to an ideology is for people who don't think so good.

[Anonymous No.6740108]

>>6740088
>Stop subscribing to pagan gibberish about cyclical time.
Honestly, how isn't the history of a Particular Volkgeist cyclical. I agree that the whole world enjoys a linear(not progressive, just linear) History, but the experiences of my social construct known as a Nation don't adhere to it. I'd image if someone can spin it so that races and not particular ethnicies advance in linear History it would be OK, but there is no race that actually works as a single entity apart from a brief period in the 19th century, where whites could have been said to have toned down their perpertual civil war.

[Anonymous No.6740116]

>>6740108
I think you mean Volksgeist

[Anonymous No.6740128]

>>6740098
Tradition in an entity before Ideology. It's older than modern notions of religion actually.

>>6740083
From which book is this? I've actually just been reading Against Rouseau(fucking writing his name is English) by de Maistre and it certainly shows that there's some odd pragmatism in him, with all the hate against the philosophes, who are apparently doing metaphysical magic, as opposed to the work of the priesthood and theologians who seem to do things that mater in the material realm.

[Anonymous No.6740131]

>>6740108
The very idea of a Volksgeist is modernist as hell and contingent upon nationalism.

[Anonymous No.6740136]

>traditionalism

The single most fedora ideology, only megetow can compete

[Anonymous No.6740137]

>>6740108
>Honestly, how isn't the history of a Particular Volkgeist cyclical
Different anon here, it doesn't seem like it can be linear. There would have to be an Event at the end of some cycle that differentiated a particular Volksgeist from all others. Arguably this could only happen once, and arguably that's the point of the Christian rupture with Judaism.

[Anonymous No.6740139]

>>6740128
Traditionalism, however, is not synonymous with tradition anymore than liberalism, since traditionalism has extremely nontraditional politics, ontology and justification.

>From which book is this?
Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason

[Anonymous No.6740140]

>>6740128
>Tradition in an entity before Ideology. It's older than modern notions of religion actually.
Unconscious ideology is still ideology. That said, I know what you mean, in the sense that tradition precedes concious notions of ideology.

Traditionalism, note the -ism, is however a modern constructed worldview made up by a handful of reactionaries who wish to make things as they were before, which is per definition an impossibility.

[Anonymous No.6740143]

>>6740140

[Anonymous No.6740227]

>>6740143
was strangling his wife and getting away with it an act of ideology?

[Anonymous No.6740233]

>>6740143
Althusser was a psychotic fraud who didn't contribute anything to any meaningful discourse and also didn't do anything for the political movement he killed his wife for

[Anonymous No.6740241]

>>6740233
The notion that ideology also refers to unconcious ideas is worthwhile and perfectly reasonable though.

[Anonymous No.6740242]

>>6740233
Althusser didn't kill his wife for any political movement, he killed her because she made him angry but he couldn't quite tell why

[Anonymous No.6740251]

>I'm a traditionalist

[Anonymous No.6740253]

>>6740242
patrish tbh

[Anonymous No.6740254]

>>6740241
It's so reasonable as to be obvious enough that it doesn't make sense to attribute any significance at all to the guy that pointed it out.
>>6740242
I stand corrected.

[Anonymous No.6740262]

>>6740254
>It's so reasonable as to be obvious enough that it doesn't make sense to attribute any significance at all to the guy that pointed it out.
People constantly seem to forget about it though.

[Anonymous No.6740272]

>>6740262
Who? To be honest, discourses where 'ideology' gets thrown around a lot seem to be discourses in which people just remind each other about what the elements and principles of ideology are and don't ever move beyond reminding each other about them, even if those reminders bring out new ways of defining the elements and principles their words denote. Marx's writings about commodity fetishism seem to already point to a necessary connection between ideology and psychology.

[Anonymous No.6740287]

>>6740272
>Not that guy, but there are some obvious examples where ideology has already colored the question.

Like when people ask what something is "good for", but they are implying how it makes money, or fits into industry. That's cleanly a discussion where talking about capitalist ideology is not avoidable if you want a real answer at all.

That all being said, you can "use" ideological principles temporarily, and It makes me laugh when someone calls a none-committed ideological principle a "spook" because its precisely not that and they have taken the ideology meme and turned it into an ideology.

[Anonymous No.6740310]

>>6740287
>Like when people ask what something is "good for", but they are implying how it makes money, or fits into industry. That's cleanly a discussion where talking about capitalist ideology is not avoidable if you want a real answer at all.
I don't see your point. What are you trying to say, that psychological questions can't be answered without reference to economic conditions, or that economic questions are always asked from psychological positions overdetermined by economic conditions? Either way, this seems to be a basic part of my position, not a negation of anything I've said.

>you can "use" ideological principles temporarily, and It makes me laugh when someone calls a none-committed ideological principle a "spook" because its precisely not that and they have taken the ideology meme and turned it into an ideology.
I don't think you understand what I mean by 'elements and principles of ideology.' I mean, basically, the same thing Euclid meant in the title of Elements of Geometry. People in these discourses like to remind each other 'Oh, but you've forgotten about this essential part of the way ideology works' at every opportunity they get. You're doing it right now. It's largely a result of your misunderstanding of the terms I've chosen to bring to this language game, which is also what seems to usually be the case in these discourses.

[Anonymous No.6740320]

Communism is the most /lit/ ideology because a Communist society will only ever exist in books.

[Anonymous No.6740331]

>>6740320
HOW
DARE
YOU

[Anonymous No.6740387]

>>6740272
>Who?
People who say things like "Tradition in an entity before Ideology".

[Anonymous No.6740398]

>>6740387
All right, but simplifying tradition to a facet of ideology is basically just trying to turn tradition as an object of study into a facet of another object of study. My greater point is that, even though you're right that tradition is a part of ideology, simply pointing this out doesn't do anything for anyone.

[Anonymous No.6741121]

The most /lit/ ideology is probably Epistemologism, because all men are stuck in small dark rooms by law and only communicate by means of books.

[Anonymous No.6741164]

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU CARE WHAT A BAHRAIN CLAYMATION MESSAGE BOARD'S IDEOLOGY IS FUCKING FAGGOT SPERG

[Anonymous No.6741177]

Has /lit/ ever read Dugin or other Russian traditionalists like Aleksandr Panarin?