I just wanted to thank the Anon from that Junger thread last month

[Anonymous No.15323312]

So there was this amazing Junger thread here last month where this anon came in and gave an impromptu shitpost lecture concerning Junger, and even tipped his hat to the Arcades Project. Before reading this Anon's posts I had not been made aware of Junger's concept of the Anarch, but I had of my own volition come to exceedingly similar ideas. I am now only several chapters into Eumeswil and I am convinced this may be one of the greatest works of literature ever produced by the human mind. Once again, thank you Based Junger Anon, you are the hero that /lit/ deserves, but not the one it needs right now, so they'll call you a schizo-poster, sick the wojak posters on you, because you're not our hero, you're a salient Anarch, a dutiful soldier, a based and redpilled Junger poster.

[Anonymous No.15323354]

>>15323312
I've read some Jünger but I haven't touched his later stuff yet except for Aladdin's Problem which I didn't really get. Can you link to the archived thread? How is the Anarch different from the Forest Rebel?

[Anonymous No.15323407]

>>15323312

No but seriously. I've seen that picture a few times. So what happens? Does the large cube-thingy lower itself onto the small ground cube thingy and they become a complete cube? What happens next? No, I don't want to read the book, you tell me. It had better be some straightforward fantasy/sci-fi thing which literally describes what is shown and not some metaphor.

[Anonymous No.15323682]

>>15323312
based. currently reading through the Jünger diaries myself; if you like Eumeswil read Heliopolis and the forest passage too. If you're reading a translation, would you tell me how you like the style? I'm a native german speaker and I've come to think that Jünger would be extremely hard to translate properly.

[Anonymous No.15323718]

>>15323354
They're pretty similar, though, as Jünger notes, "the forest fleer has been expelled from society, while the anarch has expelled society from himself."

[Anonymous No.15323728]

>>15323407
I don't think it's meant to be anything really, a lot of German cover art from that era tend to be abstract shit like pic related.

[Anonymous No.15323916]

I don’t think I’m the poster you’re talking about but I do remember that thread and explaining the Anarch in it. His stuff is great and goes much deeper than people realize.

[Anonymous No.15324148]

I've read Storm of Steel and loved it. Can you get any other of his work in print in English or am I put of luck? I hate reading on screens so PDFs are out of the question for me

[Anonymous No.15324165]

>>15324148
At least On the Marble Cliffs should be available in English. A marvelous book.

[Anonymous No.15324183]

>>15324165

Out of print sadly, can't find it for cheaper than £40

[Anonymous No.15324209]

>>15324148
Telos Press has (re)published some of his works, like the Forest Passage and Eumeswil

[Anonymous No.15324217]

I've read the bulk of Junger's fiction translated into English, but an English translation of The Worker, a foundation of Junger's worldview, is hard to find for a reasonable price, and it's impossible to find online. He deserves to be more widely known and more widely read, desu.

[Anonymous No.15324281]

>>15324217
>impossible to find online.
Here's a pdf if you need it: https://hortense.memoryoftheworld.org/Ernst%20Junger/The%20Worker,%20Dominon%20and%20Form%20(8190)/The%20Worker,%20Dominon%20and%20Form%20-%20Ernst%20Junger.pdf

[Anonymous No.15324356]

what thread?

[Anonymous No.15324429]

>>15324281
Very much appreciated.

[Anonymous No.15324685]

What'd he say about the Arcades?
I've been meaning to get deeper into Junger, but so it happens, I'm actually in the middle of rereading Benjamin's work.

[Anonymous No.15324929]

>>15324183
There’s a free pdf floating around

[Anonymous No.15324939]

>>15324209

Thanks mate will have a look

[Anonymous No.15324943]

>>15324929

See >>15324148

[Anonymous No.15324969]

>mfw the local antifa had my uni purge Junger from the library.

[Anonymous No.15324979]

>>15324969
Sounds like bullshit. Storm of Steel is on most college reading lists.

[Anonymous No.15325093]

His books are very popular in Russia. This is the Russian edition of Eumeswil.

[Anonymous No.15325105]

[Anonymous No.15325121]

[Anonymous No.15325139]

[Anonymous No.15325193]

You should also read Siebzig verweht to better understand Eumeswil.

[Anonymous No.15325211]

[Anonymous No.15325250]

>>15325093
>>15325105
very nice

telos press are assholes who keep his books underpublished and overly expensive...french edition of eumeswil is out of print and rare but generally they are better when it comes to keeping junger in print

[Anonymous No.15325259]

[Anonymous No.15325272]

Der Waldgang (The Forest Passage)

[Anonymous No.15325277]

Auf den Marmorklippen (On the Marble Cliffs)

[Anonymous No.15325316]

>>15323312
can you link it in the archive?

[Anonymous No.15325471]

>>15325316
>>/lit/thread/S15071624

[Anonymous No.15326610]

>>15323728
Well that's disappointing.

[Anonymous No.15326672]

No problem, anon. I'm glad you were able to get something from it and that you're enjoying Junger's work. Were you the one asking about thoughts on criminality and recommendations? I still haven't gotten to A Dangerous Encounter yet as I've been working on some things.

>>15324685
I just mentioned in passing that a leftist could not write anything like the Arcades Project in our time. Some of the reasons for this are obvious, and a void of dominion begins to appear when we investigate the places in which we live. A similar problem faces the old leftism as it does the primitivists, the remarks of Vaneigem or Camatte would be impossible today as they approach fascism or at least an open discussion of the metaphysical aspects of their worldview. For instance, in that the bare technical destruction of liberalism is an even worse form of violence than what the fascists were accused of. There is perhaps something like the Liberal Personality that causes the thinking of the Frankfurt School or the theory of deterritorialisation: dialectical materialism enters into substance theory and is deterritorialised itself. A mass abstraction which causes marxist thinkers to follow the same territory as liberalism, this is necessary to relieve themselves of their part in the brutal order of being. The schizophrenic organisation defends its opposition through the ego. Although I don't intend this literally, it is the wrong way of understanding the world.

At a deeper level, one could say that a detailed analysis of our situation, even an analysis limited to the material world, would reveal too much. This is related to the turn away from pure materialism, where the left relies on something like a corrupt theology or mysticism. Then there is the problem of maintaining influence and the mass of the organisation - the ideology must keep pace with cultural ambivalence towards the real brutality beneath the surface. Technical organisation acts like the abutment of a dam, the more bodies that are to be pulled in to the organisation requires greater counteracting forces to be built into each side of the river. This explains the seeming impossibility of radical politics.

Otherwise, the absolute violence that rules over us is almost completely immaterial, or at least devastates our being at a deeper level than material destruction - may even cause to follow as a form of erosion. Materialist dialectics can never reconcile with this problem, and so its adherents, both on the left and right, must attempt to conform the invisible forces to material laws in order to maintain their organisational will. It is similar to Kantianism, occasionalism, and the political form of romanticism.

[Anonymous No.15327309]

>>15323354
Found it lad:

>>/lit/thread/S15071624

[Anonymous No.15327456]

>>15323682
That's one of the things I'm so impressed by as well, I don't speak/read German but the fluidity of consciousness, and even the utilization of re-constructed rhyme scheme have a very real and understandable poetic and logical beauty. (I'm reading the version by Joachim Neugroschel) Will look at your recommendations next, thanks.

>>15326672
Ah glad you got a chance to see my thread. I actually didn't ask that question last time, I was just lurking through that thread. Still need to read more before I can offer any contributions to these threads.

[Anonymous No.15327458]

>>15325093

Its beautiful.

[Anonymous No.15327770]

So what's everyone's favorite Junger? I liked Heliopolis a lot. Cool, almost vaporwave atmosphere. The Glass Bees was the one that got me hooked. On the Marble Cliffs makes me seriously want to consider horticulture as a career.

[Anonymous No.15328151]

>>15327770

on the marble cliffs resonated deeply with me. glass bees was also a great read. made me look at people like musk, zuckerberg etc with even more scepticism.

[Anonymous No.15328667]

Posting my Junger books.

[Anonymous No.15328710]

>>15324979
>Storm of Steel is on most college reading lists.
lol no it’s not. Name a single one.

[Anonymous No.15329577]

>>15328667
do you like the worker?

[Anonymous No.15329613]

>>15323312
Anyone know what the artwork is?

[Anonymous No.15329667]

The wise man reads what others consign to the rubbish heap.

[Anonymous No.15329859]

>>15323682

Not a German speaker but the Telos Press translation of Eumeswil feels pretty good. It reads quite detached and cold though - unsure if this was authorial intent though contextually makes sense. I didn't get this impression from Storm of Steel though. It does at times run into a problem I've noticed with other German translations where you've got really large sentences that when translated become quite unwieldy and feels at times forcibly strung together.

[Anonymous No.15329941]

>>15323312
Anything about his conversion to Catholicism?

[Anonymous No.15329952]

>>15329941

he bet God he wouldn't live past 100 else he'd convert to Catholicism. He died age 102.

[Anonymous No.15329966]

>>15326672
>>15324685
Where do I start with the Arcades Project? Any specific version to look for

[Anonymous No.15329980]

>>15328710
Reed, St John's, Chicago, off the top of my head for basic humanities courses. You almost certainly read it in any class about World War 1 literature, as well as in most German studies courses. It's an essential text. I don't even like Junger that much and I think that claim is bullshit.
It's like claiming Mishima or Heidegger got banned.

[Anonymous No.15330127]

>>15326672
This is an interesting general thought, though I have some particular problems about applying it to the birth of the Arcades, which I think can't be replicated due primarily due to the massive transitions that European cities and capitalism were seeing at the time. Mass consumer culture was finally emerging en masse, particularly in Weimar, which led Benjamin in part to his notions of commodities and their potential inward nature. There are various other things like this that make up Benjamin's eccentricities that make up the Arcades: social democracy, his fixation on Baudelaire, Proust, France, Flaneur, historiography, an unique view of Marxism, Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis, etc. It can't be replicated because it's not something that could ever be replicated, it's just too unique, personal, not to mentioned unfinished.

>>15329966
Frankly I don't think anyone not versed in Benjamin would get very much out of a casual reading. Assuming you've already read "The Work of Art in the age of mechanical Reproducibility", pick up the recently collected "Writer of modern Life" Baudelaire essays of his compiled by Michael Jennings (be sure you've read "The Flowers of Evil" by Baudelaire beforehand). Then I'd suggest reading "The Storyteller" (NYRB just put out a good collection of it and related essays), then "One Way Street"*, which is in a way a kind of prototype for the Arcades. Lastly I'd make sure to read "Edward Fuchs: Historian and Collector", before finally tackling his "Theses on the Philosophy of History", then dig into the Arcades. Read Jennings' essay at the back of the Arcades on approaches to reading/navigating.

It sounds like a lot of work, but there is hardly a writer as thoroughly engaging and fulfilling as Benjamin. He will change how you think critically, guaranteed.

Suggested (but not essential) background knowledge before digging in:
Proust
Nietzsche
Kierkegaard's "Repetition"
Some basic Freud

Heavily recommended background:
Lukac's "History and Class Consciousness"
Marx, particularly Commodity Fetishism (though you should know this already) and the 18th Brumaire
Baudelaire's Flowers of Evil and the "Painter of Modern Life"

*Do not get the compilation of "One Way Street and Other Essays", as it's only fragments of OWS, whereas the newer edition has the left out and early versions as well as Jennings' excellent introduction.

[Anonymous No.15330167]

>>15324356
>>15323312
bumping this, link thread retard

[Anonymous No.15330187]

>>15330127
>>15329966
Last note:
I'd also recommend reading the introduction to Benjamin's "Berlin Childhood Around 1900", which is this essay by Peter Szondi called "Hope in The Past", which cleared up a lot of Benjamin's positions on history/memory, as well as places his work in a larger historical/philosophical context, as well as talks about his strangely oblique influence on later theorists (particularly the situationists). Definitely worth a read.

And all English versions of the Arcades are exactly the same. It was translated in the 90s and that's the only one we have. Just try to get the hardback, it doesn't fall apart like the paperback.

[Anonymous No.15330204]

>>15329952
Source?

[Anonymous No.15330324]

>>15330167
was, ctrl-f is your friend.
>>15325471
>>15327309

[Anonymous No.15330326]

Benjamin is an overrated pothead. Junger had the good taste to know weed is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.15330672]

>>15330127
To clarify, since my first paragraph had a number of holes in it, I wasn't really speaking to Benjamin's intentions or the situation surrounding his project. My concern was basically a relation of the left and right to intellectual projects.
I don't know that it was really unique, there are many similar efforts throughout history, Pseudo-Apollodorus and the Encyclopedia of the Gods, for example. Not that I think being unique is all that important.
Someone who lacks confidence in their own writing could do something like this today, let's say for a region or even the whole of Europe. Collecting general quotes on the migrant crisis, political shifts, small-scale wars, economic decay, etc. may be quite useful within the general intellectual decline. As we know there are gems scattered across the internet, often by anonymous posters here, and in short articles, videos, etc. These could be compiled and sorted in a similar way to the Arcades Project, or let's say a right-wing/third positionist wikipedia that is much more focused on its intent.

There is something similar to the oral language in our time. There is a potential in this that academia has no access to, and compiling an image of our time through an encyclopedia would give character to this. It may even allow some of the lost voices and identities return to focus, enable them a sense of power, at least for the future.

[Anonymous No.15330766]

>>15330204

hearsay

[Anonymous No.15330931]

>>15330672
I mean what makes Benjamin's work unique is that it's attempting to forge, as well as demonstrate through the formal character of the work itself, a conception of history and a mode of analysis that were never completed, and therefore can't be imitated.
And while of course anyone can (and probably should) collect spurious notes, thoughts, and quotes to construct a kind of history or study, the other important part of the Arcades is that its form, as the literary montage, is consciously of its own time. That is, any new attempt ought to attempt to have some formal and theoretical correspondence with its own particular time and place, if you want to really follow what Benjamin was trying to get at.

[Anonymous No.15331264]

Bump

[Anonymous No.15331571]

>The “non-free will” is mythology; in real life it is only a question of STRONG and WEAK wills. — It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in himself, when a thinker, in every “causal-connection” and “psychological necessity,” manifests something of compulsion, indigence, obsequiousness, oppression, and non-freedom; it is suspicious to have such feelings — the person betrays himself.
Someone posted this Nietzsche quote, perhaps useful as a contrast to the Anarch.

[Anonymous No.15331580]

>>15330931
I see what you mean, although I don't agree with that philosophy of history.

[Anonymous No.15332401]

>>15325093
How'd he get so popular in Russia?

[Anonymous No.15332460]

Still looking for an epub of On the Marble Cliffs

[Anonymous No.15332700]

>>15330931
It has occurred to me that Benjamin's literary style is more or less a montage as a means to condense the historical record into something that is absorbed more through aesthetics than through an academic bibliography. In the Arcades project, history is both felt and understood, and in this way, embodies the notion of mystery traditions in antiquity. For this purpose, the Arcades Project was probably destined to remain unfinished from the start, with open ends for the next chapter of history being consciously left in place.

>>15330672
Part of my literary project is something that I would call a "Gamer's Arcades Project" Similar to how the Arcades were revived in Europe for modern commercial purposes, turning these archaic spaces habitable once again, and simultaneously taking advantaage of their nostalgic antiquity. I think another form of replication of the Arcades Project could come through the virtual space of gaming. This is also obviously a pun, considering that an "Arcade" is also the terminology used for places where quarter video game machines used to be housed just before the turn of the millenium and home gaming consoles and improved personal computers. I think that a "Gamer's Arcades Project" might provide for a revolutionary space for history to reassert itself, and I think this project is already asserting itself in various online social communities that are at least peripherally centered around gaming, including places like 4chan. The content of video games also serves this point, with games like Assassin's creed reconstructing the Library of Alexandria. The Gamer's Arcades Project could simultaneously serve as the new Mystery school of the future, a revival and replacement of the old oral languages and traditions, perhaps even serving as the precursor to a new civilizational and martial tradition in the modern world.

[Anonymous No.15333405]

>>15332460
theres a french epub

[Anonymous No.15333738]

>Jünger came from an atheist family and did not have any belief in God before his conversion to Roman Catholicism. A year before his death, Jünger was received into the Catholic Church and began to receive the Sacraments.

Did he write about his faith or God in any of his books or diaries?

[Anonymous No.15334045]

>>15333738

He speaks of his bible readings in the journals he wrote while stationed in France. He read the whole thing twice during the war.

[Anonymous No.15334221]

>>15333738
He was equally interested in Greek myth, Christianity, and folk tales. In an interview around his ninetieth birthday he said "I am no Christian" when discussing pessimism and introducing a quote from the Bible.
His most Christian work is almost certainly The Peace, and I'm noticing quite a few Bible references as I go through the WWII diaries. I think it was in the second war that he was reading from the Bible each night.
He said that the 21st century would be a return of the Olympian gods, although I think this is also mostly metaphorical. My own interpretation of his conversion to Catholicism would that it would be a relation to power.

He also says that religions are less capable of satisfying the religious instinct, although that particular writing' is not the place to discuss the matter'. So perhaps there's an essay where he discusses religious organisation and instincts in depth. If anyone knows of quotes or essays on this I would really appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.15334319]

>>15329941
Later in life he was fascinated by the figure of the “Great Mother”. Of course, while in the Christian tradition this figure is embodied by the Virgin Mary, her permutations descend deep into history. References to her are scattered throughout his writings. Another telling sign is the wooden statue of Mary that watches over the the doorway his wife’s bedroom in Wilflingen. It is not for no reason that his granddaughter played Charles Gounod’s Ave Maria at his funeral.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RNxz_sUEHLc

> ... one must bear in mind that we are participating in a global process of erosion of symbols. Very few powers will offer any resistance: perhaps only Mothers.

> We thus hearken back to the dawn of time, to pre-mythical times, to the power of metamorphosis of the Great Mother.

> Mystery itself, however, is unitary, just as Aphrodite remains one and the same, regardless of her constantly arising new manifestations. The chamber is still dark; the human being can have access to what is hidden with the symbol, with other people, in gatherings.

>The mother evokes Gaia, the ancient goddess, who is not always very reassuring. The domain of Mothers stretches across a vast horizon, from the furies to the Holy Virgin - and one always finds the serpent yet again.

[Anonymous No.15334402]

>>15333738
He often referred to the Bible and the Church Fathers.

[Anonymous No.15334418]

>>15334319
It's like Junger is the authentic version of what modern leftists try to be, reverence for the Divine Feminine, Suspicion of Authority, Disciplinarianism, Aesthetics, etc... The fact that he served in the 3rd Reich makes it all the more hilarious.

I suppose we can't even call the globo-homo ideology "leftist" in a true sense, but regardless, that a "literal nazi" seems to most perfectly embody the ideals of this faction is absolutely rich.

[Anonymous No.15334500]

>>15333738
>and did not have any belief in God before his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

false, as the other anons have said...he references Christianity a lot and is fascinated by it...I suspect Carl Schmitt did a lot to bring him closer to Christianity and ultimately to Catholicism

Junger loved Leon Bloy after all

[Anonymous No.15334702]

>>15334500
Schmitt abandoned Christianity and was basically exiled from the church.

[Anonymous No.15335388]

>>15334702
Incredibly wrong. Are you south american? You people have been tossing around terrible takes on /lit/ these past couple days.

[Anonymous No.15335554]

>>15333405
Where? Thank Christ my parents put me in French Immersion

[Anonymous No.15335596]

>>15335388
>main catholic discussion of his work is his excommunication
>wrong

[Anonymous No.15335699]

>>15331571
didn't nietzsche deny free will?

[Anonymous No.15336377]

>>15335596
dude got divorced and was out of the church for a couple years and got back in..onions use it as an excuse to distance schmitt from catholicism and why he needed to become a leninist

[Anonymous No.15336385]

>>15335554
its on b-ok...sur les falaises de marbre is the title

[Anonymous No.15336489]

>>15324979
Where do you live lmao? I've never heard anyone mention Junger irl, certainly not in college.

[Anonymous No.15336535]

>>15334221
>He said that the 21st century would be a return of the Olympian gods
source on this?

[Anonymous No.15336680]

>>15336535
It everywhere in his later work. Of course, this is not an actual return to literal paganism but the arrival of transcendental influences.

[Anonymous No.15336760]

>>15336680
Well yeah just by having read a couple of his books I'd be willing to bet it more means the return of the Classical pre-socratic worldview that people like Nietzsche sperged out over. Is this sort of thing covered in Eumeswil I assume? I've only read storm and marble cliffs

[Anonymous No.15336902]

>>15336489
I live in NYC now, but I took classes on German literature . It was also required reading in my humanities course. The same was the case for my friends at other schools. Storm of Steel isn't even that "problematic" as a book.

[Anonymous No.15336903]

>>15336535
sounds like Hölderlin

[Anonymous No.15337185]

>>15330127
lurking on /lit/ just gives me list of list to read before reading other list. and i have my wagie duties to do . F.
>>15327456
pic related

[Anonymous No.15337219]

>>15337185
Benjamin is an investment for sure. He's just such an idiosyncratic thinker it's not helpful to go in blind. You've gotta warm up to his particular writing style and philosophical approach. Sorry bro.

He's fun though, I promise you. He's like probably the only Marxist thinker next to Marcuse who I'd say is actually fun to read.

[Anonymous No.15337371]

>>15337219
wtf bro /pol/ bros told me frankfurt school is cringe.

in all seriousness, im at reading greeks and church fathers. probably will move on to french after that, and to germans after that, which will invariably lead me to frankfurt school after kant,hegel, and marx. what did you read in between greek/church fathers and kant/hegel/marx? i said french because i took some french courses and am hoping to pick it up again, but it seems like french is more for aesthetics, less for metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15337530]

>>15337371
I mean, it depends what you're interested in. As far as philosophy and politics go, Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Berkley, Spinoza, More, Hume.
>French is more for aesthetics
Yeah I mean Descartes wrote in Latin, as did all Philosophy before like the 1700s. 20th century on though the French are doing very heavy metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15337719]

>>15337371
>>15337530
On that note most of 20th-century French philosophy builds on German philosophy (Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Freud, Marx), so as for reading order...

[Anonymous No.15337836]

>>15337719
yeah was just mentioning chronological order. referring to french romanticists, like baudelaire etc, although they arent metaphyisical stuff, but still historically and chronologically relevant, i guess. (i also find french romanticism incredibly intersting, so)

[Anonymous No.15338367]

>>15323312
Anyone have a link to a Storm of Steel PDF?

[Anonymous No.15338413]

>>15337219
I can confirm. Benjamin redpilled me on translation and other subjects in his essays.

[Anonymous No.15338510]

>>15338413
>redpilled me on translation
?

[Anonymous No.15338518]

>>15338413
If you're interested here's this really strange and pretty good documentary on Benjamin's life and thought. I've unironically heard that the director of Home Alone was involved, somehow, for some reason.
https://youtu.be/CBduIAotme0

[Anonymous No.15338583]

>>15332401
1) Thanks to Dugin, a huge number of young people read about the Conservative Revolution. Then some of these people began to teach at universities or publish books. It turned out that Junger is interesting not only as an ideologist of German conservatism, but also as a writer.
2) Heidegger and Schmitt are extremely popular in Russia. Heidegger became famous thanks to Bibikhin (Dugin began to study Heidegger much later). Through Bibikhin, almost the entire intellectual world of Russia became interested in Heidegger. Schmitt became popular thanks to Filippov and Dugin. There was a period when many journalists said that Putin is a Schmittian. Junger was friends with Heidegger and Schmitt, so if someone was interested in them, then sooner or later he would find out about Junger.
3) Junger is interested in Russian culture. He has a lot of thoughts about Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, or other Russian writers. The link linking Junger with Russian culture is Walter Schubart.
4) Young people see a role model in Junger. He was a right-wing conservative, brave and independent patriot, traveler, stoner, he knew how to enjoy life and so on.
5) Also his writing style is very similar to the way Rozanov (maybe the most popular Russian philosopher now) writes.

[Anonymous No.15339097]

>>15338413
Peep Paul De Man's essay on Task of the Translator. It's very good.
Frankly any fan of Benjamin would enjoy De Man

[Anonymous No.15339324]

>>15334221
>In an interview around his ninetieth birthday
Source?

[Anonymous No.15339352]

>>15329980
I got to St. John's lmfao. Junger is not on our reading list. I love Junger, he's fairly widely read here, and we do have the occasional preceptorial on him but he's certainly not a standard author for any humanities course.

[Anonymous No.15339801]

>>1533935
You go to Annapolis or Santa Fe?
I swore my friend read him in Annapolis. Maybe it was just in one of his tutor's reading groups.

[Anonymous No.15339943]

>>15339801
Annapolis.
It was likely in a reading group, but he is popular and well read here. Just definitely not on the program, nor should he be desu.

I like him, but he's not exactly in the same category as Hegel.

[Anonymous No.15340138]

>>15336535
I looked as best I could for the quote, but only found general references, most of which saying that the age of the gods is over and that the age of the worker is the age of titans. There is a summary which states that the 21st century is the titanic age, and the gods follow in the next.
...
Just stumbled on one now.
"I am not much interested in the twenty-first century. It will still be the century of the Titans. But in the twenty-second century, the gods will return."
Although I swear I have seen what originally said. This interview was from when he was 99, so perhaps a little more pessimistic. An earlier interview, the same one from when he was 90, ends on an optimistic note where he says the gods always return after initially being defeated.

As for belief in the actual gods, he definitely believed to some extent, where he refers to it as the religious instinct or transcendence. He even discusses how Christianity had difficulty converting those who had direct contact with gods, and that religion's function is to serve in a way as to guide those who are incapable of seeing on their own.
As I noted above, he said that religions are incapable of accessing the 'religious instinct' today - either revealing or apprehending - and I suspect this would extend to even presocratic philosophy (although I'm not completely certain I read that). One could also make the argument that the being of the Olympian gods is similar to that of the Anarch figure, the religious instinct is one of sense rather than faith or meaning - this may have been picked up from his brother, or something they each learned in their discussions.

I'm currently trying to write something on Heidegger and Junger, their philosophies of being and technology, their different approaches to the problem of nihilism. Related is how Plato viewed the gods in a reserved manner, as a totality, whereas Cicero believed in the divine will and augury, which leads to a decisiveness before fate. I think in general that Junger's view of the gods would be closer to that of Cicero.

[Anonymous No.15340190]

>>15340138
Or I should say that the religious instinct is one of sense and force, and that the Anarch has mastered these forces in the same way as an Olympian god.
Although the other argument could be made that this is even more a titanic force, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Anonymous No.15340215]

>>15339943
Fair enough . Yeah I guess John's program is still a lot more philosophy based.

Have fun, stay sane, and try to live in the fucked up mansion where the landlord doesn't ask for rent and doesn't have heating, if you can. Annapolis sucks dick as a city, so you might as well lean into the strangeness

[Anonymous No.15340432]

>>15340138
>>15340190
I'm not sure I know enough about Greek mythology to know what the difference is between the Titans and Olympians in the context that he's using them. Are they really that different? I mean the Titans did to the Primordial Gods the same thing that the Olympians did to the Titans

[Anonymous No.15341714]

>>15340432
Very different, give me a bit and I'll try to give an general overview..

[Anonymous No.15341982]

>>15340432
There is a fair bit of debate over this in the 19th century, but I'll give you a very general understanding based on what I know.
The titans exist in a transitional territory, there is a force in them that is uncontrolled and anarchic, pure strength of character that can never be diminished. They are brutalizers in relation to strength, and unbound, as Holderlin says, they threaten the world of gods and men. The gods, in contrast are cunning and control a territory which is uncertain, developing into new regions of the cosmos. They are not as strong as the titans but they have mastered the forces within them, they exerting themselves through dominion and strategic control of territory.
Zeus, as leader of the gods, becomes the creator of the world. He achieves this through power alone, and his creation stands in opposition to other myths. He stands in the middle of the universe, uniting it. In returning sovereignty to worlds devastated by war he establishes himself as monarch of the heavens. And in this we may see the greatest difference between Greek myth and Christian religion, where God's failure in defending his creation causes a void of time - what is often referred to as historicism. There is a transitional period following this, where authority is tested and faces its limits - linear yet without form between its two poles, the Christian god abandons the own world.
The anarch would then be the figure who controls the immutable forces within the human, giving form to that which would otherwise overwhelm him. This is distinct from a domestication process. Exerting the will over such forces. Instead the anarch seeks the creation of dominion within the transitional phase, laying the ground for power which will be easily taken.
I think that's a decent relation of the idea through the myth. Although this creates a difficulty for me since I side with the Titans.

Hopefully this makes sense, I was out celebrating.

[Anonymous No.15342513]

>>15335699
don't think so.

[Anonymous No.15343411]

>>15325093
nice.

[Anonymous No.15343538]

>>15341982
Isn't the Anarch just Junger's coping mechanism for the fact that he knew he'd never see another opportunity to create something truly new in his lifetime like had existed in the interwar period? It almost seems like spengler's view of being the Roman guard at Pompeii, although obviously Junger is a bit more optimistic in the long term since rather than complete fatalism he still sees opportunity for someone else at some point in the far future to create something new (which I guess would be the Olympians).

[Anonymous No.15344997]

>>15343538
No. Even if that's all it was it wouldn't be a cope, just realistic to the time period and political situation.

[Anonymous No.15345017]

>>15344997
Abandoning your ideals to realistic grapple with a changed situation is literally the definition of cope

[Anonymous No.15345709]

>>15345017
What ideals did he abandon?

[Anonymous No.15345745]

>>15338583
Interesting, anon. I'll have to check out Rozanov, I really like the short essay format.
Do you have any thoughts on Platonov related to Junger? And is there anything good on the current politcal and cultural situation in Russia?

[Anonymous No.15345814]

>>15341982
>I side with the Titans
how so?

[Anonymous No.15346497]

>>15332700
interesting.

[Anonymous No.15347231]

>>15345709
The ideals on the interwar period where he published works like The Worker where he calls for the overthrow of liberalism. He was very active in far right circles during that period and was obviously very interested in exploring the possibilities that were afforded by the power vacuum of the Weimar regime. He explores alternatives to typical liberal values. In the post-war period his writing is much more tempered, it's all about technological dystopias and living as an individual in a world that's not what it should be.

[Anonymous No.15347640]

Is an Arch just an observant?

[Anonymous No.15347762]

Where can I find the pdf of the edition OP posted?

[Anonymous No.15347777]

>>15338583
Thank you

I am very suprised that Jünger is still being red in other countries, I would be interested in hearing where you guys are from and how you got to know about Jünger and what the perception on him is in your country?
Also, are you aware of sezession/Antaios or any of the current "followers" of Jünger and the KR in germany?

[Anonymous No.15347793]

>>15338518
I only knew about this Benjamin documentary. It's based mostly on his last days during his failed attempt to escape while he stayed in Spain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S3iT2iwDOQ

[Anonymous No.15347796]

>>15347762
I'm the OP, I'm reading the google books English translation right now, I don't think it's the same version as the image I posted, but I find the translation to be thoroughly engaging thus far.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxnYWRmbHlibG9nZ2VyfGd4OjNlNWM2OTE1ZWE2NjU3NjU

[Anonymous No.15347797]

>>15347762
https://b-ok.cc/s/eumeswil

[Anonymous No.15348476]

>>15345017
He didn't abandon his ideals. He understood that tilting at windmills is pointless. Revolution is a waste of time right now - lay the groundwork for that possibility when the liberal order ends instead. Deliberately banging your head against the wall isn't a sign of honour. The fact is, the Liberal order won and has enough power to compel obedience - that's the way it is. Refusing to accept that reality & adjust to that reality while retaining the inner core of your principles (and both contemporary Fascists and Communists refuse to accept that btw) is the ultimate cope.

[Anonymous No.15348507]

>>15347231
Yes. He's riding the tiger. If that's cope, to accept that your side lost, then so be it.

[Anonymous No.15348522]

>>15348476
Everything after your first sentence is right, what you're describing is the fact that he abandoned his ideals. Refusing to accept reality is literally the dictionary opposite of coping.

[Anonymous No.15348551]

>>15347796
So far this is better than Dune.

[Anonymous No.15348697]

>>15348522
How is accepting the reality that it's simply not your time & open warfare is pointless and quixotic equivalent to abandoning your ideals? Wait let me guess, you'll just keep repeating "cope" as if that's an argument & not simply your own projection.

[Anonymous No.15348719]

>>15348697
What do you think the definition of cope is?

[Anonymous No.15348781]

>>15348719
Oh, so now you're going to claim you were referring to the dictionary definition instead of its common usage as an imageboard meme? Whatevs fag, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.15348803]

>>15348781
That's literally all I've been doing you stupid nigger, go back and read my posts. I offhandedly used it in a sentence and you've been doing nothing but focusing on it trying to fit the wrong definition into it the entire thread when I was clearly using it as a real word. You're just fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.15349371]

>>15348476
>>15348522
Also keep in mind the scene in The Glass Bees with the 'strong man/man of honour'. He had sympathy for such positions of brutal loyalty, and he saw very clearly with Heidegger and Schmitt how difficult the post-war period was. Any conservative/old regime sympathies were dealt with harshly, and something like the social justice conditions we all faced here were enforced by government agencies in that time. It was a terrible situation, but one of fate and equal to Germany's failure to rise to the opportunity presented (and I don't say that to excuse what happened).
A Cato figure today tends to have the opposite of the intended effect, it confirms the other brutal loyalty, the politics of peace at any cost and the life that struggles only against death, what we often call liberalism. The effect of loyal and honourable acts tends towards a forgotten suicide, while also strengthening the 'liberal order of Last Men' and harming the memory of the old state. The right will continue to destroy itself until it is capable of seeing this new form of man. As Junger said, all wars of the nation-state in the 20th century were lost. The same is true of spiritual battles, the old man no longer has victories - Mishima's death gives insight to this.

The only possibility is suicide or a counter form of rearmament, preparing the ground where power may be able to take hold in the future. If that seems fatalistic it is only due to the reality of our situation, but this can also be understood as the test of a new world. Junger was trying to point this out.

[Anonymous No.15349518]

>>15334418
except he wasn't a nazi anon. He openly talked shit on the nazis and the Third Reich. I can't remember who, might have been Himmler, tried to such up to Junger and he deadass told him to fuck off and walked away. Junger was the one-in-a-million authentic human beings that come around only so often. Fucker lived to be 102 without going senile too.

[Anonymous No.15349644]

Can someone just give me a simple explanation of what the Anarch is? I understand that it's supposed to be an individual that although living in a declining civilization doesn't internalize it's values but what does that mean? Does it just mean living like everyone else but just not believing in the things they do?

[Anonymous No.15349653]

>>15349644
A contemplative person

[Anonymous No.15349670]

>>15349653
It really sounds to me that the Anarch's a lot like the Übermensch. Is that true or are they completely different. How much does the Anarch sacrifice to stay hidden in society?

[Anonymous No.15349679]

>>15349518
>He openly talked shit on the nazis and the Third Reich.

based.

[Anonymous No.15349725]

>>15323312
I've been reading everything Junger since 2013 and whenever I see him crop up here I'm terrified he's gonna get memed like Evola or Guenon. Just a flavour of the month mangled epic esoteric "im racist but not that kind of racist" writer. I think he's largely been protected from that treatment so far by the fact he doesn't lend himself easily to edgelordism in the online tradcath style way. His politics of aesthetics could very easily be adopted by computer chair aristocrats though so I'd give it 3 years before we start seeing fat dudes flashing up roman salutes saying heil junger. I'm currently reading his Paris diaries for the first time in English and in parts they're almost Boswellian. Really gives an insight into a louche European-ness which in the English speaking world we kind of disdain even in the tinder age lmao

[Anonymous No.15349743]

>>15349725
/pol/ has already tried to meme him

[Anonymous No.15349757]

>>15349743
yeah storm of steel junger can be pretty easily twisted to those ends. Post-WW2 Junger can be a new wave "ride le tiger" and his anti-hitler line a lazy cover

[Anonymous No.15349808]

>>15349743
What's worse is /pol/ doesn't know how to read so they miss all the subtext of Junger talking shit about people exactly like them.

[Anonymous No.15349837]

Has anyone read his Paris diaries yet? Wonder if I should buy it.

[Anonymous No.15349857]

>>15349808
>/pol doesn't read
lmao no one here does either

[Anonymous No.15349939]

Why did he always dream about snakes though?

[Anonymous No.15349946]

>>15349837

It's really good. Reading it right now.

[Anonymous No.15350030]

>>15349939
I have only had one dream about snakes before and it was so intense and frightening i think it was a supernatural event

[Anonymous No.15350053]

>>15349644
Did you read the other thread? These quotes are good:
>>/lit/thread/S15071624#p15072309
>>/lit/thread/S15071624#p15082857
>>/lit/thread/S15071624#p15085588
And the Nietzsche quote here >>15331571

Your questions are mostly answered there. It's not quite the Ubermensch, and the difference comes down to two interpretations of nihilism and what the response must be.
Junger's three figures are almost like theological forms. This cannot be understood in the sense of concepts, nor if one follows the usual misinterpretation of Plato's forms. The Worker is not a class figure, he is not a proletarian, instead he is Man forged of the world foundry, the species in its total work-character. He is a titanic being. Think of a hammer's pounding and how this reverberates through an anvil and even into the ground, humanity is overwhelmed by subterranean forces in this way. Dominion acts as a totality of this.
The Anarch is similar, it is the character of sovereignty and freedom which persists in Man, the earth forces which overwhelm him as a deluge. The individual cannot release his power prematurely, as this threatens not only his position but that of all men. It is effectively a counter to the transitional state, a storing up of armaments to be used once political power can be taken, rather than individualist warfare which leaves all men standing alone, victorious only in a romantic sense. In political decision the Anarch follows the methods of the true monarch, free of doctrine. A form of discipline that retains an anarchist character.
I suppose this could be seen as the individual deciding when the state of exception is to be enacted from outside the political body. Hence the danger of the line, and the common misunderstanding that indecision is a weakness. Holderlin's "had I only never acted" as something beyond the will to power.

[Anonymous No.15350113]

>>15349725
I'm similar. There was a quote of his I read recently, something to the effect of 'better to be forgotten than misread.' But unfortunately I didn't save it.

[Anonymous No.15350245]

>>15340138
>>15340190
>>15340432
>>15341714
>>15341982
This is all very interesting, and coincides with a well known pool of knowledge that most would accept upon- however, that said. There is something in this that seems entirely almost self-deceptive, in that it is pretending as it were that it is not Greek paganism where it is, or they believe themselves both the former only for it to be not because of this late Christian philosophically interpreting revisionism marks a complete difference. It is as it were a way of thinking, archetypal, more than a sincere "religion" or religious drive. I find it very foreign, I do not even know the train of thought in which he would arrive at these systematic ideas to such an ideological detail. Of course many around that time wrote similar things (Nietzsche, Heidegger), but had if you will allow me to say, reasons behind it. Junger's reasons seem more so the self awareness and aesthetic desiring of an artist than the earnestness of a philosopher. And the archetypal characters of Titan and Olympian are evidently present, but perhaps more self-sufficient, more unconscious and in no more content than what is was in ancient days. This almost satirically Hegelian character of historical necessity with a Nietzschean poetry but complete modern ideological affronting is artificial to me. It bears no similarity to any sincerity before it. No great-man, no hero of history has said these words before.

And lastly, I think this is shown best in your description of these Graeco relation to Christianity. It would be a far worse thing if your misunderstanding of Christianity was not rather a neglection to look at it. You have displaced without care in this framework -which I am not even sure is Junger's or your own- Christ, and his influence on the human heart, and his still bearing presence in the world: albeit you may say decaying. I think it is dishonest, to say the world is nothing but a battle between Dionysian unboundedness and Apollonian given-ness, when presupposing a Dionysian absoluteness (a contradiction).

[Anonymous No.15350610]

>>15345814
I think to some degree that the Olympian gods took over in the religion once it began its decline. The myth cannot be understood in its parts, as the rule of a single age, at that point one begins to turn the gods into symbols for a doctrine.
As I stated before, one must see the myth as both Plato and Cicero did. There is a whole, one has to try to see that which unifies all of the gods, but in another sense it becomes necessary to say that here in this situation a single god rules, this is his dominion. The judgment of Paris illustrates this, the hubris of indecision and stupidity are often of a single being. The Athens founding myth as well, one must decide which god is sovereign over a territory, but also be able to reconcile with all of the gods, even those who are opposed in spirit, or who may be set on destroying you.

It is commonly understood that a return of the old gods would be a cataclysm, but this ignores that the Titans ruled in the Golden Age, as well as the fact that certain titans were never expelled to Tartarus. And of course, Prometheus, who freed humanity from the wrath of Zeus.
There is an undiminished character to the titans, even in their absence, and with all of the ages of gods in place there is a positive risk involved, a provisional territory where both danger and power are increased. This is similar to the early Greek state, or the laws of Rome which allowed for the freeing of criminals through the intervention of fate. We may overcome our enemies but then be destroyed when the void of their laws overwhelms us. It is a question of totality, where even enemies raise one another to a higher level. There is a non-Christian form of mercy in the old laws of honour, giving way so that the overall dominion increases in strength.

At a more primitive level, they are the gods who I sense rule over me, but also our era. The return of old gods may be vengeful, but there is also the possibility that they will return a form of rule that is not dependent on religion.
It is better to see the gods in continuous struggle, with neither the gods nor titans gaining a permanent victory. Each provide new possibilities, limits, and ways of being. Although in our time there may be nothing more important than reconciling with titanic forces. When we descend into war it is necessary to maintain that sense of peace of the idyllic world. The titans are transitional in a different way from the gods, and rule at the limits of time. They are that which exists beyond force, and their dominion is formed between the primordial, the earth, the underworld, and the heavens.

[Anonymous No.15350618]

>>15350610
It should be remembered that even when Olympus rules each of the gods still retains their sovereignty. The center of power should act in an autochtonous manner, as if rising out of necessity to elevate the entirety of its dominion. Our understanding of the titans should be like this, or as in the sovereign's release of prisoners and criminals for war, its most dangerous elements but those who are its greatest fighters and who increase power through freedom. The gods retain a sense of this, but it tends to be in the realm of law and order, curse and punishment rather than the strength of becoming.
One might also say that the titans are to the divine world what Germany is to Europe - in its relation of law and totality.

Hopefully that makes sense, it can be hard to explain in a small space.

[Anonymous No.15351636]

>>15350245
>>15350245
Can you expand on this? What do you find foreign about this thinking? And the misunderstanding of the Christian?

I said above that Junger's comments are mostly metaphorical, as did another poster. He is attempting to outline, to reveal an image of that which lies outside the specific words he uses. An example he gives is that of latticework and how the form and image are revealed by the structure, yet what is revealed remains an empty space, it is not captured by the structure itself. This may be contrasted with the noumena or the image created in abstract art: in one there is a completely empty space, a form without any enframing, the emptiness of a box without the box; in the other, a total enframing with nothing inside, or the utter chaos of the tiniest object. This is, in effect, a religious form of thinking in a secular world.

I will maintain that he did believe, as I said in relation to the religious instincts. As for my own beliefs, I follow my own understanding of the myths, based on Theogony and what would be considered a pre-cultic religion, similar to that of the oracles. This should be made clear as I don't want to be seen as misrepresenting Junger, nor cause anyone to have a misreading of him because of my own beliefs. The first two posts were my analysis of Junger's own thought, I only took liberties with the comments on Cicero and Plato, but as I said it was speculation. The other two posts are my own understanding of gods and titans in the myths, and I explained my own interpretation of the Anarch from there.

For Junger, I don't think anyone could say he misunderstood Christianity. I'm no expert on his Christian views as its not really my focus, but from what I have read he had a deep understanding of the Christian - and certainly 'Christ's relation to the human heart.' For example, in choosing his wife over another woman he explains this in terms of the Judgment of Solomon. And as I suggested before, The Peace is certainly heavily influenced by his readings of the Bible and is likely more Christian than anything the Church has done the past two centuries.

[Anonymous No.15351647]

>>15351636
contd
As for being an earnest philosopher, I will suggest the difference between thinkers and philosophers. Nietzsche being the 'archetypal example' of a thinker. Junger is somewhere in between while still closer to Nietzsche on the line, and much closer to ancient thinkers and philosophers than anyone else in the modern era. Perhaps you can give examples of these earnest philosophers, and what modern ones do a better job. If it comes down to Nietzsche and Heidegger I will say that both are riddled with contradictions and mistakes and do not approach the depth of Junger. For this one need only look at Heidegger's study of The Worker and FG Junger's philosophy of technology. He spent more than ten years studying these ideas and failed to grasp them in the end. Junger's figures are also much more useful than something like Nietzsche's Ubermensch, while perhaps revealing more.

For my part, I do not know what you mean by sincerity. Where is the sincere Christian today? One who has survived without struggling with the problem of the Death of God is most certainly a rarity. The problem of religion in our time is, without a doubt, related to the problem of nihilism. That is a banality now, so obvious that it should not even need to be stated. But for some reason Christians have a hard time grasping this and instead wish to drive their religion into the ground, and everyone else with them. Strangely, this is a Kantian problem and it seems that Christians are blind to it because of their proximity to his thinking. There is only the will of god, and this is all a matter of the heart. The relation to humanism in this should be obvious, but also a worldly weakness that cannot compare to the distinction of Titans and Olympians.

As a contrast, one can point to the humility in the old myths, where Hesiod speaks only through the teachings of the oracle. In Christianity it is very different, there is a certainty that these writings are the words of God himself. This is important because it gives the words power, yet there is something of a Kantian turning of the cosmos in it - to some extent the Jews see God as a servant, as if he has witnessed a cosmological horror in the human and must pray for it. This is a powerful turn, but does it have anything to do with the truth? Where the religion is increased the instinct is weakened. The Christian religion is reduced to a position of revealing, it can no longer apprehend the religious instincts and in this there is already a fall into the order of historicity. This is the hidden meaning of the Katechon, its worldly mystery and nihilism.

[Anonymous No.15351650]

>>15351647
3
The problem of religion is similar to the martial debate in Simplicissimus, in which the problem of soldier leadership comes down to the strong tradition of military structure against the ability of peasant soldiers to rise through the ranks. We must have a strong belief in tradition and the certainty of its hidden order, in terms of religion this seems to come down to a certainty that the word is either revealed to us in the myths, or the myths apprehend us due to what lies beyond them. In Christianity the answer is obvious: tradition must hold as law, God is certain within these words and must be revealed through them. The peasant soldiers must not rise through the ranks. There is a paradox in this however, and it takes hold almost immediately as Christianity descends into countless sects and political oppositions. The reasons for this are not obvious.

The Greek religion was not exactly opposite to this in its structure, only in its ends. Tradition was not necessary so long as what was behind the myths apprehended followers and strengthened the total instinct towards the gods. It is in this that we can see the paradox of the One and the multiplicity of the gods, an ability to follow an even minor god without betraying the law of Zeus. Peasant soldiers are written into the order as a second tradition, given their own cult as a means of increasing the totality. It is the fasces opposed to the iron rod, or the city of cults opposed to the city of a single church. There is an incredible strength necessitating that the end of the religious instinct could only come through total destruction, if the Titans, Giants, or Zeus himself ended humanity.

Two thousand years later and the truth of the Greek myths has not weakened. The religion may be gone but this was never the object to begin with, only one of the effects. The focus on truth allowed the Greek myths to survive even in death, much like the gods. Can the same be said of Christianity? I will not say that the religion is without truths, but they are certainly weak in character compared to the Greek myths - again, the Olympians and Titans against the Human and God. The Greek myths already have this, and in a form that is neither dependent on revealing nor meaning. The tales of heroes, which are not simply a reconciliation of grief with the injustices of a god of mercy.

[Anonymous No.15351656]

>>15351650
4

This is not to say that Christianity is without value, nor without power. Opposite to Nietzsche I would say that Christianity holds a deep power, only of the wrong type. And it is this that lies behind its disintegration as a religion.

But apart from this, can it be said that Christianity holds an answer to nihilism? Can it reconcile with its death and return as a religion? I would say that its reliance on a specific type of moralism limits it in time, that will never return, and its reliance on the force of moral laws guaranteed that once they fell the weakness of its truths would collapse with it. The Christian religion is deathless, but only to the extent that it retains qualities present in the secular world. No one follows the religion anymore, they only hold to what remains of its political shell.

What Nietzsche said of the Death of God was already present in Simplicissimus, if only in an inverted form. In Grimmelhausen's story it is the soldiers in the commons who tell Simplicius, the Christian Fool, that God is dead - not directly through their words, but their actions and curses. And Simplicius in turn tells the pastor that God is Dead, in the religious sense. Where is the Christian sincerity in the soldier's jokes about the Holy Fuckrament? There are no wise men in this situation, the wise man can only solve problems that are long past: the fool can only increase his moralism through the vices of the wicked, and the pastor understands that the soldiers too are Christian so long as God has mercy on them. This is, I think, the more interesting question, to what extent does Christianity continue on in the nihilistic age, and even contribute to it? The problem is similar to that of the Titans and Olympians, only here it is the harrowed who take over the religious laws of the earth. Can Christianity light a path from this position, lead people to its god? It appears less likely with each step.

There never was a collapse of Christian values, as these events are precisely the result of Christian myth - but they must be denied for their contradiction with Christian doctrine and law. And there is no dealing with this situation, from the standpoint of its religious law it would be siding with the devil simply to acknowledge the problem. The Katechon and Eschaton are the only reality, Christianity's Kantian limits which deny all time in between. The Christian abandons all worldly dominion while insisting that the church is its only rightful order. This is a contradiction very similar to the one at the heart of humanist law. And it is no mistake that the mechanical clock rises along with Calvinist ideas of time, just as rationalism forms from within occasionalism.

[Anonymous No.15351659]

>>15351656
5

"Only in duration does time approach the irrational abyss that brings forth the cosmic event out of itself." The entire telluric/technical conflict rises from the Christian political form of duration, one which it cannot reconcile with. And with each moment that passes Christian law loses its weight, must retreat deeper into an irrational abyss of faith, as the Katechon seems to take hold again of its own volition - even preventing the return of Christ. The opposite problem of Zeus presents itself, Christianity can only die if the cataclysm fails to materialise. The religion destroys its own pretenses, yet relies on them for its sense of truth. This is the result of a misunderstanding of contradiction, paradox, and the ineffable - the religious instinct is expelled in order to formalize the religion. Faith in itself replaces god, just as its lack of truth must be upheld by a sprawling body of knowledge. Simplicius is born in a home blessed by Arachne.

You can say that this is a misunderstanding of Christianity all you like, but this is just an old secular trick that no one pays attention to any more. As for great men, few get to that position by repeating what everyone else has said, although that does not mean originality is significant. I don't subscribe to the Dionysian/Apollonian distinction, I'm not really sure where you got that from, I think it is a secular concept and one proven false with Schmitt's discussion of romanticism. To some extent Junger's Anarch is an attempt to surpass such a distinction in another way, the olympians and titans are not the same as the apollonian and dionysian.

[Anonymous No.15351897]

>>15349939
Snakes symbolise ruthless transformation and change in your thought process. I've only had one I recall.

[Anonymous No.15352074]

>>15351897
I think he generally had a positive view of snakes though.

[Anonymous No.15353003]

>>15349743

[Anonymous No.15353815]

>>15338413
did he finally win?

[Anonymous No.15353981]

>>15350618
>Hopefully that makes sense
it doesn't

[Anonymous No.15354047]

it's just a shame that jünger threads are always hijacked by abstruse skitzo ramblings

[Anonymous No.15354545]

>>15353981
What doesn't make sense?

[Anonymous No.15354678]

>>15353003
>Putting Linkola, Junger and Evola in with Hitler and James Mason

Nazis shouldn't be allowed internet access

[Anonymous No.15354734]

>>15353003
>that whole "ride the tiger" block
>in context of this shitshow
whoever made that abomination should gas himself

[Anonymous No.15354848]

>>15338583
where does Jünger discuss Dostoevsky?

[Anonymous No.15355625]

>>15354848
Not the anon you're replying to, but he references him several times in his first paris diary at least

[Anonymous No.15355650]

>>15351897
>>15350030
I had a dream of a snake devouring me a couple years ago, what did it mean?

[Anonymous No.15356138]

>>15325139
now that is actually quite nice to look at

[Anonymous No.15356148]

Why this thread suddenly got attacked by a schizo?

[Anonymous No.15356309]

>>15352074
I guess my word 'ruthless' could be interpreted as a negative. I just mean change no matter what.

[Anonymous No.15356921]

>>15353003
I dunno how Nazis can go around thinking that they'll bring peace and glory to mankind wholesome simultaneously making ISIS-type propaganda. Like look at this shit.

[Anonymous No.15358144]

bump

[Anonymous No.15358732]

>>15324148
Be warned, Junger's philosophical writings are of a different beast. On Pain is a good intro.

[Anonymous No.15360007]

>>15351659
>You can say that this is a misunderstanding of Christianity all you like,
Again, you have personally thrown asunder Christianity. Even if we were to ignore, ignore the fact that you have so completely first rejected and overstated, complexified, reducted and unfoundedly misunderstood Christianity, you still have a shameful error in the history of it. Who are the Schiller's and the Goethe's, who speak of Christianity in the upheaval of Kantian Law? Who are the Wagner's - a man Nietzsche new greater than himself - whom speak of Christianity as connected to an innermost state of the world, to be called a root-essence, as it were by Wagner not only to life, but to God also. In which aim above all is the turning of a misguided will, "Love which of innermost denial of the world has born the affirmation of redemption." A Wagner which knew not Jehovah, and a Goethe which knew not Christ. Though the idea of the secular has been led through so many countless adulterous thefts, would this not count as secular? By all means necessarily within this honest standards.

But you have said this all, and it has at best - saving some interesting pieces on Junger - as I have said, an aesthetic self-affirmation. It could not be anything else, when one thinks his way through not as a philosopher, or not even as a thinker yet still approaches a usual philosophical complexity. You spent so long on technicality, you almost said nothing at all. But I do not mean to insult you, and I do greatly appreciate that you took the time to write this, and truthfully have valued reading it. But there is so much which goes un-harboured, the reason of thought for so much of what you have said has seemingly not even entered your brain, it has just been a prediction of a cracking egg. A fantasy not without value, but what no one would call true. It has so well gone along with you it is history. I should know you understand what I am saying, for I do not understand what you are saying, there is comprehension of it of course and in that manner I understand but I believe that I cannot see a disingenuous thing genuine. That this has been the result of true thought, rational and calm. Or finally, Moral. Which you must understand is a real thing, even if you were to reject morality, the moral feelings remain in human nature. The pity for the innocent; which has always trumped the strong over the weak. Even so in Nietzsche's case, it seems, in that fateful meeting with the horse.

And in regards to dionysus and apollo, I was not claiming apparently a duality, but those two modes of understanding. Similarly how Heidegger adapts Nietzsche's unification of it in The Will to Power and Holderlin.

[Anonymous No.15360021]

>>15356921
Love how the Nazi obsession with Junger is still a thing even though he wasn't antisemitic and consistently turned them down. Makes me think that Siegetards haven't even looked into his political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15360036]

>>15351659
>>15360007

>But that picture of Raphael's shews us the final consummation of the miracle, the virgin mother transfigured and ascending with the new-born son: here we are taken by a beauty which the ancient world, for all its gifts, could not so much as dream of; for here is not the ice of chastity that made an Artemis seem unapproachable, but Love divine beyond all knowledge of unchastity, Love which of innermost denial of the world has born the affirmation of redemption. And this unspeakable wonder we see with our eyes, distinct and tangible, in sweetest concord with the noblest truths of our own inner being, yet lifted high above conceivable experience. If the Greek statue held to Nature her unattained ideal, the painter now unveiled the unseizable and therefore indefinable mystery of the religious dogmas, no longer to the plodding reason, but to enraptured sight.

A quote which has lasted with me, by Wagner in his essay Religion and Art. Though be warned that the only translation in English was done in the 1890's, and furthermore the majority of Wagner's ideas are not to be found in his essays, but his dramas.

[Anonymous No.15360151]

Where should I start with Jünger? Can I go straight into Eumeswil or should I read something else first?

[Anonymous No.15360167]

>>15360151
Storm of Steel is the most normie tier, and a good account of the war. On Pain is the easiest to get into with his philosophy. It's nice and short.

[Anonymous No.15360378]

I wonder what Junger though of Mishima. He must of been aware of him.

Could Mishima be considered an Anarch? An aesthetic figure in service of history while riding far beyond it? Ritual suicide as retreat to the forest?

[Anonymous No.15361195]

what did they talk about?

[Anonymous No.15361465]

>>15360007
You seem insistent that I am in no way a thinker and that in all those words I said nothing. So what is your reason for responding? And why were you unable to answer the basic questions I asked?
If I have said nothing related to philosophy or true thought then that is certainly a problem, I agree, but nowhere do you explain this. If I am so lowly, then what are you? You should begin by explaining what true thought is and where it is that I have failed in this. Of course, we are just having a discussion and the depth of our questions can vary. Is this something you recognise? What you said are mostly banalities and claims regarding my thought that are without substance. You yourself have said little about Christianity, apart from it being a deep matter of the heart, and implying that it too can create great men. Is this all it comes down to? There is little to grasp in that, and much of it is a defense against your enemies.

This, I think, stems from a misunderstanding of what our discussion is about. First we were discussing the anarch, and part of the significance of this figure is its relation to nihilism, and in turn religion and the religious instinct. So when it comes to any particular religion it is only natural that within this discussion the arguments should surround the religion's strength in apprehending, or at least revealing, the religious instinct. Do you not agree with this? In either case, please clarify your understanding of philosophy and the purpose of religion.

As for rationalism and technical analysis, it is not my usual method. My writing tends to get me called a schizo, and there is perhaps a Narcissus quality to it (not in the sense of how that myth is normally interpreted). However, I'm not really opposed to rationalism, it is to some extent a necessity and indeed a gift of Prometheus - as I stated above, Schmitt's commentary basically eliminates any distinction between the rational and sensual. There is something beyond which suffuses itself within their force and character. This is what Nietzsche had misunderstood in the Apollonian and Dionysian, it remains a matter of technique, only in romantic terms. The idyllic appears differently to an outsider. Hephaestus reverses the distinction, he could destroy Apollo and Dionysus at any time.

[Anonymous No.15361477]

>>15361465
2
The One has a fragmentary quality. It is a matter of degrees, as it only approaches completion when it is suffused throughout an entire territory - and in return it may destroy itself. Even a god does not necessarily return to heaven. There is Void and there is Chaos, two forms of the One.

If we are to speak of religion and the religious instinct then we must do so at this level. The Christian accuses from his vision of Mercy, but does he ever apprehend that of which he speaks? The heavens are an unmerciful place, as is the world. The danger in only seeing Mercy is that all things become an occasion of it, and the Christian becomes lost to his own mercy - he reveals it and is in turn revealed by it. Where the Angels are driven out of Heaven the human must take their place, for it is the only Mercy. One must love the equalisation of forces, and the Christian does not struggle with Mercy but only its enemy in Wrath. But he who only knows Wrath becomes it, and his struggle is nothing more than a lament. The Merciful and his enemy are One, and he who is not seized by this will become lost to his revealing. The harrowed state is not opposed to Christianity, it is its very nature.

The Greeks also knew this, as the unity of Mercy and Wrath is well known to anyone who has ever lived. But they are themselves minor figures, as gods they appear as minor spirits or demons - the ruling gods elevate them to a higher power. What is significant is how the two are held together, resolved rather than opposed. In the Greek and Christian religions we see something akin to the scientific relation to atoms: what is joined together may destroy, while that which is set furthest apart may be united. There is a collapse in materialist distinction which leads to such thoughts, and the destructive capacities of Christianity leading to the apollonian world calls the distinction into question. An even greater form of destruction is possible in this unity, a world of devastation.

The rational is not our enemy, it is rather a specific quality of communication and being that is always present. It can have telluric or gigantic qualities, as in the case of Archimedes. There is something which lies deeper, that which suffuses the force - the rational and sensual are equally responsible in the taking of right and wrong turns. This is clear in the general misinterpretation of myths, the Socratic return to Dionysus, the Fall of Rome, Christianity's paradoxical faith in rationality. The failure of rationality is what results from the gigantic sight, the looking backwards to Chaos, but this is not the failure in itself. The rational and sensual are only means, fate can intervene even against truth.

[Anonymous No.15361489]

>>15361477
3
This is perhaps where Christianity falls away from the religious instinct, the reduction of fate to a mechanism - and the Carmina Burana its reaction, the turning back to its primordial form. Although there is certainly a greater depth in the Dialogue of Water and Wine than John Stuart Mill's commentary one cannot say that rationalist commentary is without value. The scientific approach to local lakes, for instance, allows one to return to nature with a greater appreciation. The tragic and the rational have the same intent - what unites them or turns them to enemies is what lies on the horizon. In some sense the rational approach is a necessity of communication within a declining political state, in another it is simply the diplomacy of opposed characters.

Rationality tends towards the tehnical, haste and stasis, the brutalizing of the earth forces, political law; the poetic tends towards intuition, wildness and risk, relinquishment to the earth forces, the sense of justice. Each is a measure reaching out towards the immeasurable, and either its strengths or weaknesses may lead it astray. I approach religion in the same way, what unites is that which lies beyond, the totalizing force on the horizon.

The weakness of Christianity, neither as political nor human weakness, rests in the contradiction of its horizon - of faith and reason. It holds to faith and the force of its words, the certain law of god, but its god is all too human. This becomes clear in the manner which Christians speak of the One true God - he who is one, and yet mysteriously incapable of reconciliation with his own creation, let alone the capability to resolve its conflicts. Is this not the result of a fragmentary nature in the reduced sense, that which is incapable of totality? I do not mean this in the mechanical sense that the political law of mercy causes a fall of world weakness, but instead the fragmentary nature in which the world is cut away from itself, halved. What Cronus does to his father the Christian God does to his creation. This is an opposed cosmological order, and is myth may even be self-destroying - the creation as merely technical formaility as God falls to the civil war of the world.

[Anonymous No.15361498]

>>15361489
This is also clear in your comments on beauty. Can anyone seriously say that artistic beauty is entirely Christian when their interpretation emerged, almost autochtonously, from the ruins of the Greeks? Opposed to the Virgin Mary one need only say the word, Aphrodite. What is human mercy before god's pain compared to the foundation of the world rising from the blood of the primordial war? An entirely human affair, one hardly worth mentioning until the human has fallen to his mercy, attained hubris through faith to the extent that he can compare his own piety to the love of the gods.

There is wealth and power in the Christian cosmology, but not as Christianity has revealed it. And as a religion it has proved incapable of apprehending its own instincts, let alone the dominion behind world forces.

https://youtu.be/_Ra9ibe3lB0

[Anonymous No.15362377]

>>15361465
>>15361477
>>15361489
>>15361498
This is why I keep coming back.
Top quality.

[Anonymous No.15362383]

Should I read Junger if prowar type boomers and their boomer ideals make me cringe?

[Anonymous No.15362397]

>>15362383

Even when Junger seems to glory in war, he doesn't shy away from the horror of it. His is a unique perspective, , and he resists assimilation into any current of modernity.

[Anonymous No.15363451]

>>15362383
Probably not.

[Anonymous No.15363953]

>>15360167
Thanks lad

>>15360378
If Mishima was really an Anarch, he would of not committed suicide and embraced modern Japan.

[Anonymous No.15364309]

>>15349670
People have said that Junger was the only true successor to Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15365478]

>>15364309
Not just anyone, Heidegger said that

[Anonymous No.15366089]

>>15362383
Absolutely, Junger has very unique perspective. He also wasn't a chickenhawk like these boomers, he was a very decorated infantry officer, who was wounded and killed on multiple occasions.

[Anonymous No.15367097]

>>15363953
Why?

[Anonymous No.15367142]

>>15363953
>>15367097
Suicide has a different context in Japan, hard to apply Western ideals 1:1 there.

[Anonymous No.15367882]

>>15361465
>You seem insistent that I am in no way a thinker and that in all those words I said nothing.
That is not what I said. I had intended to reply once and no more, what I said was of course a reflection on a literal technically thought of yours, just in the same way feeling is also thought. But I think you know I did not mean that.

>So what is your reason for responding?
Compassion.


But I have discovered that I very much like this Narcissus quality of yours, you have a myth of your own, and you are logical, though of course, that word in a descriptive sense and not a definition opposing some other function of the mind like a Jungian typology. I understand you now, and it is no longer foreign. But this, again, does not mean you are not wrong.

Religion is too large a thing to define, and we can see the derogatory effect of a scientific mindset approaching it, anthropology or "cultural studies" and so on. And so I will take something of a typical Carlylian approach common to Anglo-Protestant thought: that the belief in religion is from both a sincere relation to ones environment, or as Heidegger would say being in the world, as well as that same yearning in form of a need for fulfilment and the various psychological complexities. The religious yearning. And it achieves this through the symbolic, because apprehension in its innermost is symbolic. And one of the distinctive characters of Christianity I find, among things, to be world-overcoming, and to support no truer a connection to this world, though great the Grace of the Grecian religion, or intellectual development of the Hindu. That is to say, "Only the love that springs from pity, and carries its compassion to the utmost breaking of self-will, is the redeeming Christian Love." This is not to ignore the necessity of suffering either, for something like compassion at all to develop there must be suffering, and compassion itself is a kind of suffering. And I have not at all mentioned anything above what you so mostly considered the true test of a religion: the secular, so the question on God can wait. And man can extract a character true from religion without God as it were. The reasons for such an approach I think can be explained well enough by Heidegger's distinction between the dialetical and phenomenological, problems though it may have. I apologise for the poor writing, I always end up getting back to you before I sleep. And I would also like to point out, that that painting of Botticelli's which you post has not the faintest trace of what one would call uniquely pagan, but everywhere in it is Christian.

[Anonymous No.15367885]

>>15361477
>The One has a fragmentary quality. It is a matter of degrees, as it only approaches completion when it is suffused throughout an entire territory - and in return it may destroy itself. Even a god does not necessarily return to heaven.
This is something, within a phenomenological-poetic sphere, that I could agree with and goes very familiarly with Heidegger.

>There is Void and there is Chaos, two forms of the One.
This is something however that I find unfounded. By what system do you assure this? Nietzsche's Will to Power seems to do this better than yourself(not an insult but of course one cannot write a whole book in 4chan posts), yet you seem to deny an influence by Heidegger and Nietzsche when they are so clearly similar to you, or do you get the seed for these thoughts from Junger's consumption of them?

>>15361477
>If we are to speak of religion and the religious instinct then we must do so at this level. The Christian accuses from his vision of Mercy, but does he ever apprehend that of which he speaks? The heavens are an unmerciful place, as is the world.
A unique take on heaven.

>The danger in only seeing Mercy is that all things become an occasion of it, and the Christian becomes lost to his own mercy - he reveals it and is in turn revealed by it.
Where would sin find its place here? Where mercy can mean death too, where compassion is more things than in suffering, or to individual. I believe values can hold a place indefinitely in a man, without corrupting him, that is, becoming a conscious idea.

>The weakness of Christianity, neither as political nor human weakness, rests in the contradiction of its horizon - of faith and reason. It holds to faith and the force of its words, the certain law of god, but its god is all too human. This becomes clear in the manner which Christians speak of the One true God - he who is one, and yet mysteriously incapable of reconciliation with his own creation, let alone the capability to resolve its conflicts.
That is wrong, as has the history of Christian mysticism shown, as well as the poet and philosophers always belief in the revealing of an "innermost essence", or truest truth within it. Greatness of affirmation and such in what is true. Greatness always rests on creativity, and because of this there is always an evil pervertive possible consummation of greatness in destruction, this is prevalent in the story Satan and God. What greater possible good can there be in greatness and yet self-denial? He is not himself, he connects to something higher, he is the redeeming redeemer, life is redeemed by its redemption of other. Here is not a dying Nietzsche which must rest on another shoulders vampirically and painfully, whereof I shall speak no more; but life in its purely human sense, it is a comprehension of Being.

[Anonymous No.15368004]

>>15361498
>"The last sunset flush of artistic idealising of the Christian dogma had been kissed by the morning glow of the reviving Grecian art-ideal: but what could now be borrowed from the ancient world, was no longer that unity of Greek art with Antique religion whereby alone had the former blossomed and attained fruition. We have only to compare an antique statue of the goddess Venus with an Italian painting of the women chosen to impersonate this Venus, to perceive the difference between religious ideal and worldly reality."

I never said artistic beauty was entirely Christian or particularly Christian at all, but no doubt I do believe the development of painting and music under Christianity was by its unique spirit. Where Wagner himself says "the only art that fully corresponds with the Christian belief is Music."
>"Speaking strictly, the only art that fully corresponds with the Christian belief is Music; even as the only music which, now at least, we can place on the same footing as the other arts, is an exclusive product of Christianity. In its development, alone among the fine arts, no share was borne by re-awaking Antique Art, whose tone-effects have almost passed beyond our ken: wherefore also we regard it as the youngest of the arts, and the most capable of endless evolution and appliance. With its past and future evolution, however, we here are not concerned, since our immediate object is to consider its affinity to Religion. In this sense, having seen the Lyric compelled to resolve the form of words to a shape of tones, we must recognise that Music reveals the inmost essence of the Christian religion with definition unapproached; wherefore we may figure it as bearing the same relation to Religion which that picture of Raphael's has shewn us borne by the Child-of-god to the virgin Mother: for, as pure Form of a divine Content freed from all abstractions, we may regard it as a world-redeeming incarnation of the divine dogma of the nullity of the phenomenal world itself."

[Anonymous No.15368016]

>>15361498
>What is human mercy before god's pain compared to the foundation of the world rising from the blood of the primordial war?
It is not Gods pain, but a connection to the suffering of the world, and a redemption of it therefrom of sin also. What is "primordial war"(which I believe is also a wrong categorisation of the splendour of the world-ruler, Zeus; since we are not speaking of creation story's) to him who is always in connection to the character of war, to the presentness of necessity and suffering, and thereby redeemer of it? Him who overcomes the world in its phenomenal state, and ephemeral valuelessness. We can always use buzzwords.

I don't think the Church of Christianity has always been perfect, but I do also believe that it was ripe to reveal the "wealth and power" in which you speak of. The Christian ideal, the European medieval age, I believe shows this. Also I do like Harald Foss, Stamford bru is good, but I do not think he compares to Wagner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQizi3-pINo
I also find that when I expunge too much on a given subject my talking becomes uninterested, and I cannot talk where I am not interested. The "unconscious"(you can call it) creative development becomes a ghost to some other place and I must follow. There is no where to stand in this argument, on either side, and as a result it is ephemeral. We both know our own views, we shall get nothing better from that, but neither can learn from the either. Because both "myths" call from different areas, and they will never meet because of this, an aesthetic to the other(presupposing a lenient similarity between the two which may be wrong in contrast to my first thoughts). Again, lightning is flashing in other places; but I would like to learn from you, would you consider a protonmail?

[Anonymous No.15369390]

[Anonymous No.15370512]

>>15368016
If you have a throwaway email we can discuss this further.
I'll try a response sometime today.