Straussianism and Traditionalism

[Anonymous No.18588961]

Is there any interesting dovetailing between the Traditionalist school and Straussian political philosophy? Is that combination what's necessary to save the West?

[Anonymous No.18589150]

>>18588961
Look up Michael Millerman (on Youtube) and also his book "Beginning with Heidegger"

[Anonymous No.18590179]

bump

[Anonymous No.18590228]

>>18588961
Throw out Strauss and just go directly to Schmitt. Strauss is just a giant Jewish cope over the fact that Heidegger and Schmitt joined the Nazis.

[Anonymous No.18590261]

>>18590228
The Straussians are becoming Nazis now lol. Well, not really, but American identitarians that's for sure. That's why I'm interested in them. I want to know why they thought they could fight back against reality for so long. What kinds of stupid fucking debates did the intellect and the soul of the right have that allowed us to slide into this mess today?

I know there's a big debate between various schools of Straussian thought, and then Strauss vs. Gottfried and the paleoconservatives, and I wonder where Traditionalism fits into all of this.

I'm only a dilettante, unfortunately. I like to ask questions. Not very good at answering them.

[Anonymous No.18590354]

>>18590261
Well if you want a history of the American right you won't figure it out by reading Strauss lol. American Straussianism split between the West Coast and the East Coast. East Coast Straussians were literally just Jewish relativists and nihilists like Allan Bloom and no longer really exist. West Coasters descend ideologically from Henry Jaffa and center around the Claremont Institute as the only socially acceptable right wing strain still around in America. Not sure what you mean by where Traditionalism fits in with this, few people in America ever really took people like Evola or Guenon seriously. The French Nouvelle Droite likes Evola though and Gottfried is associated with their think tank GRECE so maybe you'll find what you're looking for through him.

[Anonymous No.18590381]

>>18590354
>East Coast Straussians were literally just Jewish relativists and nihilists like Allan Bloom and no longer really exist.
Is it really fair to call Allan Bloom a "nihilist" after he published "Closing of the American Mind"? I personally never understood this.

>Not sure what you mean by where Traditionalism fits in with this, few people in America ever really took people like Evola or Guenon seriously. The French Nouvelle Droite likes Evola though and Gottfried is associated with their think tank GRECE so maybe you'll find what you're looking for through him.
I'm interested in seeing what the prospects are like for refounding the American nation on solid foundations, without the baggage of the Enlightenment and Modernity.

Like I said before, I think the Straussians are starting to realize that the Gottfrieds were right. And if so, what next?

[Anonymous No.18590419]

>>18590381
>And if so, what next?
Honestly the only thing the American right can really do at this point is try to amplify Christopher Caldwell's views on the Civil Rights legislation and hope that one day Republicans simultaneously are able to both retake control of Congress and the Presidency and grow enough of a spine to repeal what needs to be repealed.

[Anonymous No.18590541]

>>18590228
No he isn't. Schmitt didn't join the Nazis, either.
>>18590261
>The Straussians are becoming Nazis now lol. Well, not really, but American identitarians that's for sure.
Michael Anton does not represent anyone other than himself. Do not confuse him with the students of Leo Strauss.
>I know there's a big debate between various schools of Straussian thought
You are referring to the split between West Coasters and East Coasters. If you're the guy who started the other thread, then read the recommendations I gave you.
>Strauss vs. Gottfried and the paleoconservatives
Gottfried took issue with Strauss, but I have never heard of Strauss caring about paleoconservatives.
>and I wonder where Traditionalism fits into all of this
It doesn't. "Traditionalism" is about the restoration of a particular way of organizing society. Strauss had nothing to say about such things.
>>18590354
>East Coast Straussians were literally just Jewish relativists and nihilists like Allan Bloom and no longer really exist
Arthur Melzer, Harvey Mansfield, and Steven B. Smith are all alive and well.
>>18590381
>Is it really fair to call Allan Bloom a "nihilist" after he published "Closing of the American Mind"? I personally never understood this.
It makes no sense. Don't waste time on people who hurl out words like "nihilist" so easily. If the whole point of Straussianism is that it is possible to have fruitful debate over right and wrong, then how could Bloom have been a "nihilist?"

[Anonymous No.18590571]

>>18590228
All materialism is gay and liberal. Political materialism being the most liberal. Friend-enemy politics on power dynamics Or in regards of morality isn’t materialist. Fundamentally rooted in HMvL or HLvM which is fundamentally moralistic. Political materialism is how we got Hobbes with his contact theory. Literally the birth of liberalism and can be traced to Machiavelli. Leo Strauss spent his entire career trying to refute this autism because it goes against moralism. Moralism being fundamentally about perception or group relations. Legit stop listening to Giuli, SP is a fag for promoting him.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4609281

https://voegelinview.com/leo-strauss-and-the-crisis-of-modernity-i-liberal-relativism/

[Anonymous No.18590587]

>>18590541
>Michael Anton does not represent anyone other than himself. Do not confuse him with the students of Leo Strauss.
I wasn't even thinking about Anton lol. Conservative intellectuals are starting to wake up en masse. I can't say more, but trust me on this one. People who were preaching the gospel of egalitarianism 20-30 years ago are now realizing with folly and fraternizing with political pariahs.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to correct a lot of misconceptions. I'm hoping that a fruitful synthesis of conservative thought can emerge before it's too late.

[Anonymous No.18590688]

>>18590587
"The West" is in crisis, though it is not necessarily in danger. I don't want to live under right-wing tyranny any more than any other kind of tyranny. There are more than a few options out there. Read Leo Strauss, starting with German Nihilism and Three Waves of Modernity.
https://archive.org/details/LeoStraussGermanNihilismIntegral1941_201810
https://archive.org/details/LeoStrauss3WavesOfModernityocr/mode/2up?q=three+waves+of+modernity

[Anonymous No.18590844]

>>18590419
It is easier to "repeal" America than to repeal Civil Rights law. Civil Rights law is as sacred to most Americans as the Quran is to serious Muslims. The whole trajectory of the American left, who have always defined what "the American idea" is, is to interrogate the fulfillment or non fulfillment of said idea using Blacks as a yardstick - they are the sacral center of America. If you are a right-winger in the US, you have to realize that you are the Loyalists. You are the bad guys. At least, you are within the overarching Massachusetts liberal morality play. The real trick is to abolish America while pretending not to.

[Anonymous No.18590860]

>>18590844
I hope, for your sake, that you are a federal agent.

[Anonymous No.18590871]

>>18590844
>"repeal" America than to repeal Civil Rights law
These are the same exact thing. Repealing Civil Rights legislation would be repealing America.

[Anonymous No.18590884]

>>18590587
Are you in academia or something? I have seen like 0 evidence that milquetoast old conservative faggots who let the left get win after win after win are anywhere close to realizing that they've massive losers who've sold us all down the river for their lack of a spine.

[Anonymous No.18590911]

>>18590860
Nope just an autist. but if you think any Republican is going to reform, let alone repeal, the worst aspects of Civil Rights law, you are delusional. Really, what is needed is a society-wide overcoming of victim-centric morality, which is at the root of everything most right-wing people dislike nowadays. If you're reaching the point as a society where you are proclaiming that emphasis getting the correct answer on math tests is a form of white supremacy, you have lost the plot. Easier said than done though.

[Anonymous No.18590923]

>>18590844
Shut the fuck up. Not even John Locke and the Founding Fathers believed in radical egalitarianism.

John Locke made distinctions between persons, people capable of reason and self-control, and mere human beings (which is how he justified slavery). The Founding Fathers saw it fit to ONLY grant citizenship to WHITE persons (of good character) in the 1790 Naturalization Act. Up until about 1960s and beyond, the American ethnicity was understood to be inherently WHITE, an amalgamation of European peoples of a certain character (look at what was called "all-American" back in ye olde days). Even Abraham Lincoln was, at one point, willing to ship freed slaves back to Africa rather then attempt to integrate them into American society, post civil war, because we all know that only the top 10% have a chance at surviving in a high trust, low time preference society.

No, you're fucking wrong. What is happening today is a perversion of the very ideals that this country was founded on. And we had a fun little experiment about just how far these games of "equality" can go before we hit the giant roadblock of genetics and group dynamics. The gloves are coming off.

[Anonymous No.18590931]

>>18590911
The victim-centric morality will be wiped away by a time of crisis. Because nobody gives a fuck if you're a victim when the world is falling apart. We need strong people, and then we need to remember what we sacrificed to get out of this crisis.

[Anonymous No.18590935]

>>18590911
I think it will mirror the shift in conservative sentiments in Spain during the run-up to the civil war. When conservatives shift from being do-nothing faggots to realizing that there are enemies in the house it will happen all at once.

[Anonymous No.18590948]

>>18590935
It's already happening.

[Anonymous No.18590953]

>>18590923
Not who you're responding to, but nobody believes in those ideals anymore. Liberals obviously just want to invert it, and conservatives are fine with ignoring anything to do with race. It's the party of black gay orgy baizuos vs the part of I-just-want-to-grill

[Anonymous No.18590963]

>>18590948
I'm skeptical. The pushback against CRT is interesting but the problem is that conservatives never take the initiative. It's always just trying to play goalie against liberal policy pushes and once those pushes succeeds everyone forgets about it and we move on to the next push where conservatives scramble to keep it from happening. When they finally start taking the initiative on something that isn't just "desperately fail at trying to rollback the liberal flavor of the month" then maybe I'll take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.18590988]

>>18590963
You've got conservative thinkers, realizing that they grew up on a lie, brushing shoulders with white nationalists behind closed doors. You can only inoculate against these ideas for so long before the antibiotic-resistant strand crushes the foundations of the old order. And many people are waking up and realizing that something isn't right, especially the older generation, who are being told they owe something to the black community despite being raised on good ol'-fashioned bootstraps mentality.

It's going to take another major crisis. But people stop caring about the victim mindset when hard times come about. The backlash is going to be ugly.

[Anonymous No.18591005]

>>18590953
Have fun grilling when the black gay orgy baizuos move in next door. I pray every night for that day to arrive.

[Anonymous No.18591007]

>>18590923
Who cares what the Founders believed nowadays? What has actually mattered in terms of the trajectory of the US is what Massachusetts liberals and their spiritual kin believed. If anything, the Founders were basically moderate conservatives, good men who did the best they could. But over the course of American history it's obvious that the idea of the Call to Equality has been more compelling.

>>18590931
I'm not so sure, if anything I think a crisis will make a lot of people cuck out because "we all need to come together".

>>18590963
All the messaging against critical race theory (which is hardly even a theory, it is mostly just black cope to explain why they can't succeed) invokes "the Civil Rights Movement and the values of Martin Luther King, Jr." The trouble here is that contemporary race rhetoric in the US is fulfilling those values, not going against them. It's like an anticommunist dissident telling the CPUSSR that anticommunism is actually a return to the spirit of Lenin and the October Revolution. It is a farce and anyone can see through it.

With that said, there's not really anything better they can do, as they lack an account of why black people aren't equal yet in a country where equality is nominal the highest good. It's not as if the official position can be "Well blacks are just a bit dim...", that will not fly for sacred matter of this sort when victimary morality is so pervasive. It will be seen as a step down the path to the gas chambers. Even if there are some temporary successes, leftists will just retreat to academia and rename their rhetoric and return with a vengeance in 20 years.

[Anonymous No.18591018]

>>18590988
Who? Other than the odd Claremont guy who shows up on Tucker Carlson and echos Jared Taylor-tier talking points I don't see anybody anywhere in the mainstream who is shifting from spineless conservative slug to an actual right wing positive position.

[Anonymous No.18591026]

>>18591007
>okay, all the hamplanets, whores, faggots, niggers, and trannies come together and help us fight the Chinese
Yeah, no. No amount of propaganda can save you from collapse. That's like believing Goebbels could have saved the Third Reich while the Soviet Union was at the Gates of Berlin. If there's any strength left in this country when the time comes, the people who still want to cling to life and its glory will gather around the leaders capable of restoring peace and prosperity. The victims will be brushed aside and left to die. That's a fact of life.

[Anonymous No.18591034]

>>18591018
And you don't think the Claremont Institute and Tucker Carlson have any influence? This is what we like to call "networking" and "the Overton shift". They're simply connecting the dots for what many conservatives and moderates have been starting to internalize (if unable to completely vocalize) over the insanity of last year. Our current administration has lost most, if not all legitimacy, and the national myths we've been operating under are no longer tenable.

[Anonymous No.18591040]

>>18591026
They're certainly going to try to run with that message, but I don't think it's going to work very well. More likely that it ends up being McNamara's Folly 2.0 and the US gets rocked in a war.

[Anonymous No.18591053]

>>18591040
And what happened when the German Empire got rocked in a war?

[Anonymous No.18591060]

>>18591053
You could get a Bad Mustache Man (German). But you could also get a Bad Mustache Man (Russian).

[Anonymous No.18591069]

>>18591060
Think about the American context.
>You could get a Bad Mustache Man (German)
What race will he be?
>But you could also get a Bad Mustache Man (Russian).
What race will he be?

[Anonymous No.18591082]

>>18591069
In the first case, Mexican. In the second case, White.

[Anonymous No.18591091]

>>18591034
Obviously they have influence but I think they've been at this game for awhile now and they're really the only ones. They're the designated Fringe Right Wingers (TM). What I'm saying is that I don't see anybody who is not already known for being the far right of the mainstream moving towards the far right. I'm sure the guys are Claremont absolutely know what's going on but they sort of always have and that's always been their schtick.

[Anonymous No.18591101]

Thread quality deteriorated quickly, huh? It's funny to think that people actually believe some dynamicism is going to 'save' Americans from themselves, just another case of a paradoxical negative exceptionalism in action. Probably helped along by by Spengler-tier interpretations.

[Anonymous No.18591106]

>>18591101
Traditionalism threads are always bait threads anon.

[Anonymous No.18591113]

>>18590228
Kek Schmitt was so clearly an opportunist in joining the NSDAP that they got skeptical and removed him from his jurist position, and Heidegger had the sec agencies keeping an eye on him while the rank and file thought he was a joke.

[Anonymous No.18591114]

>>18591101
>Thread quality deteriorated quickly, huh? It's funny to think that people actually believe some dynamicism is going to 'save' Americans from themselves, just another case of a paradoxical negative exceptionalism in action.
Well, why don't you give us your take, big guy? Flex that big brain of yours.

[Anonymous No.18591117]

>>18591101
This post says very little

[Anonymous No.18591150]

>>18590381
>Is it really fair to call Allan Bloom a "nihilist" after he published "Closing of the American Mind"? I personally never understood this
He (and the Straussians he represents) aren't nihilists, but he clearly is more skeptical of traditional morality than he lets on in "Closing" (look at the essays accompanying his translations of Plato's Republic and Rousseau's Emile). His morality is like Socrates, moral only because the pleasure of philosophizing is greater than the competing pleasures that look like they'd give way to vice, not because they're right or wrong.

[Anonymous No.18591174]

>>18591034
Carlson != Claremont, and as we can see from the last four years with Anton and Kesler, "influence" and "respect" have barely amounted to more than a fart in the wind.

[Anonymous No.18591184]

>>18591113
They still joined rather than fleeing to England and America like so many other intellectuals in Europe did at the time and it leads many to associate their entire corpus of thought with NSDAP because obviously it lead them to being fellow travelers while so many other people who disagreed with them to begin with ended up fleeing and helping the Western Allies.

[Anonymous No.18591185]

>>18588961
There's nothing there for you. Strauss didn't give a shit about the crisis of the West because he wanted to save the West or some dogma he thought was right, he gave a shit because all he cared about was philosophy as the highest human possibility that needs preserving.

[Anonymous No.18591189]

>>18591114
>>18591117
Do you want a real answer about pseudo-Insurrectionary Brotherhoods (ex Carbonari, Decemberists, etc) and their contextual relation to Jacobinism following the Thermidorian reaction as it relates to insurrectionary levers (i.e. a disaffected army) and the parallels to bourgeois transnationalism and media appeals today? If I do provide an answer, you're unlikely to care for the conclusions or debate in good-faith, so what's the point?

[Anonymous No.18591225]

>>18591189
What's the point of posting if you're not going to say anything?

[Anonymous No.18591245]

>>18591225
Why should he spend his time writing out political philosophy or history for a bunch of ignorant American /pol/tards?

[Anonymous No.18591274]

>>18591184
Sure, granted, but they also weren't Jews who were going to be subject to the Nuremberg laws, right? And in both of their cases, they were smart enough to keep quiet. Heidegger's notebooks and works written but unpublished during the period like Mindfulness capture in his how far removed he was from his excitement in '33 in seeing in Hitler and Nazism just manifestation of what he'd go on to bitch about in his writings on technology.

[Anonymous No.18591275]

>>18591245
If he feels that way why would he post in the first place? Either post and say something or don't post at all.

[Anonymous No.18591315]

>>18591275
>implying it isn't a social good to remind Americans of their ignorance while refusing to elaborate further

[Anonymous No.18591333]

>>18591274
Sure I was never saying that they were Nazis, they are certainly better characterized as part of the Conservative Revolution and like almost everyone in those circles if they didn't immediately see the Nazis as squandering thugs and autists they realized it soon enough into the 30s. But those two in particular were fellow travelers (like many other Germans who weren't Nazis) and this tainted them in the eyes of the mostly Jewish circles in America that were active in dialogue with their works like Strauss, Bloom, and Jaffa. It seems impossible to me to not see the Nazi association as coloring the views of the original Straussians. That's not to say that Strauss and his followers were some kind of neurotic opportunists looking for any excuse to get back at the Germans, they weren't, but how could their views on political philosophy not be deeply impacted by WW2? Especially when engaging with thinkers who were part of Nazi Germany.

[Anonymous No.18591348]

>>18591315
Seems short-sighted considering that America is going to go the way of South Africa in a scenario where the National Party did not denuclearize.

[Anonymous No.18591383]

>>18591348
No it's not you /pol/tard, your brain has been totally rotted by 4chan and social media. It's just going to get more dysfunctional and poorer and go back to being an irrelevant backwater.

[Anonymous No.18591422]

>>18591383
I don't think that America will "go back to being an irrelevant backwater" so long as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale exist.
>>18591333
Heidegger was very much a Nazi supporter. You have likely heard the quotes. No such quotes exist for Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.18591433]

>>18591422
>he thinks schools make a country a world superpower
put down the Moldbug.

[Anonymous No.18591445]

>>18591333
Ah, with that clarification that's certainly all fair. I suppose one way to consider the matter of how tainted Heidegger was might be by looking at how Strauss argued (in a limited manner) on behalf of Heidegger in some of his correspondences with fellow students and Heidegger associates, and how he kept up with Heidegger's later writings, even if he didn't speak up publicly about him at all. While he did warn students off from him, one suspects from Strauss' meager writings on Heidegger that it was to prevent them from falling under his historicist spell too hard, and not just because of his Nazism. The notable exception was Benardete, his favorite student, to whom was gifted Pathmarks, I think (whichever later period collection has the essay on Aristotle's Physics).

I'm not aware of whether Strauss kept up with Schmitt's writings after the 30s. I know Strauss tried to keep up correspondence for a short period after his review of The Concept of the Political, but that ended with Schmitt ignoring his letters, so i could understand if Strauss was a bit more viscerally salty about Schmitt, whereas he felt too uncertain to reach out to Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.18591462]

>>18591422
>Heidegger was very much a Nazi supporter. You have likely heard the quotes. No such quotes exist for Schmitt.
Heidegger changed his mind after 1936, which is evident in the notebooks and the unpublished at the time Mindfulness. Everyone knows Heidegger got pissy that morons like Streicher got to have more say in the party than he did.

[Anonymous No.18591466]

>>18591422
>Harvard, Princeton, Yale
The cash nexus created by Ivy League institutions perpetuates inequity (a la income inequality), which imperils social cohesion in the US (think Gini coefficient), correct?

[Anonymous No.18591485]

>>18591433
Our schools are the most prestigious educational institutions on the planet. As long as we have them, as long as their reputation does not lower, and as long as Chinese continue to send their students to America to study under us, we will continue to be the intellectual superpower of the world.
That doesn't really matter though, since there are no institutions in any of these places that could possibly counteract our followers after we have departed from the scene.
Unless you can foresee, or have already witnessed, the development of forms of progressivism that bear no relationship to those dominant in the United States at present, I see no future in which the United States is not the most important country on the face of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.18591494]

>>18591466
No one is going to touch HPY.
>>18591462
I've never heard of this. Can you post your source? What I know is that he continued to speak of the "greatness" of the National Socialist movement into the 1950s and never repudiated his former actions, speeches, and associations.

[Anonymous No.18591496]

>>18591383
>YOU IDEA OF AMERICAN DECLINE DOESN'T FIT MINE DURRR U R POL DURRRR
lad...

[Anonymous No.18591499]

>>18591485
The US doesn't have "good schools" that make it powerful, its power makes it have "good schools".

[Anonymous No.18591515]

Strauss is a midwit nobody. Better off sticking to Traditionalism.
>>18591189
No, we do not want an irrelevant comparison to the French Revolution. Use you superior knowledge to explain what America's situation is without farfetched analogies. For the record, I don't even think America can be saved, but I'd like to see what your view is.

[Anonymous No.18591563]

>>18591499
I'm not sure about that. In the case of the UK, for instance, Oxford and Cambridge are still at the top of every international ranking, despite the eclipse of British power.
In any case, the progressive impoverishment of the American people does not necessarily mean its weakening as a military and economic power. These things do not necessarily have anything to do with each other.

[Anonymous No.18592012]

>>18591494
Sure, or at least I can post the most explicit and suggestive statements.

Firstly, this is from Mindfulness, written between '39-'41:

"There is no attitude, which could not be ultimately justified by the ensuing usefulness for the totality" (Adolf Hitler 30, January 1939)

Who makes up this totality? (Eighty million-strong extant human mass? Does its extantness assign to this human mass the right to the claim on a continued existence?)

How is this totality determined? What is its goal? Is it itself the goal of all goals? Why? Wherein lies the justification for this goal-setting?

When is the usefulness of an attitude ascertained? Wherein lies the criterion for usefulness? Who determines the usefulness? By what means does this determination justify itself in each case? Can and should the one who adopts an "attitude" also judge its usefulness and its harm at the same time?

Why isusefulnessthe criterion for the legitimacy of a human attitude? On what is this principle grounded? Who determies the ownmost of the domain of man?

From where does the appeal to usefulness as the measure of truth acquire its comprehensibility? Does comprehensibility justify legitimacy?

What is "totality", if not the quantitative expansion of a particular conception of man as an individual?

What doesattitudemean? Does one arrive at what is fundamental to human being through an attitude? If not, then what does justification of an attitude by the totality and by the ensuing usefulness for the totality mean?

Is there not in this concept "attitude" already a renunciation of every fundamental questionability of a human being with respect to its hidden relation to beyng?

Is not man beforehand and ultimately tied here to the pursuit and control of beings in the abandonment by being? and what are "ideas"? Do they not count as names for the final 'dis-humanization' of everything that man still and always creates beyond himself, so that through "ideas" he inevitably falls below his ownmost? Are not "ideas" phantoms that serve solely the "eternal" forth-rolling and up-surging of "life" and fully close off man in his animality as a "living-being"?

Is not all "attitude" together with totality of a "people" shoved down the yawning abyss of "beings" insofar as attitude and totality always merely spin around themselves?

And does not such a 'casting-oneself-away' to being entail the ultimate renunciation of every inceptual, fundamental calling of man for struggling -- with a knowing leap untobeyng-- forthe essenceof gods and for 'the time-space' of their essencing?

[Anonymous No.18592062]

>>18592012
Another significant anecdote showing some of his earlier reservations can be seen in Karl Lowith's account of the last time he saw Heidegger in 1936:

"In response to my remark that there were many things I could understand about his attitude, except how he could sit at the same table (at the Academy of German Law) with someone like Julius Streicher, he remained silent at first. Then, somewhat uncomfortably, the justification followed ... things would have been "much worse" if at least a few intelligent persons [Wissenden] hadn't become involved. And with bitter resentment against the intelligentsia, he concluded his explanation: "If these gentlemen hadn't been too refined to get involved, then everything would be different; but, instead, I'm entirely alone now." To my response that one didn't have to be especially "refined" in order to renounce working with someone like Streicher, he answered: one need not waste words over Streicher, Der Sturmer was nothing more than pornography. He couldn't understand why Hitler didn't get rid of this guy - whom Heidegger feared."

For more suggestive private writings, cf. this collection of passages about Jews in the Black Notebooks put together by scholar Richard Polt. His references to the Nazis at first are still caught up in his initial excitement, but there's a definite change where you can tell he's not happy with the emphasis on biological racism.

https://www.academia.edu/11943010/References_to_Jews_and_Judaism_in_Martin_Heidegger_s_Black_Notebooks_1938_1948

[Anonymous No.18592151]

>>18588961
Is there even a Straussian political philosophy? I thought Straussianism was a method of close reading of texts. I'm sure a Straussian reading of Traditionalist authors would be very interesting but the problem facing 'the West' is complicated by the de-cohering of the concepts of nation/state/country/people/region etc (this do-cohering is affecting all societies to different degrees). The core Traditionalist texts were written when this problem had not been properly diagnosed yet. A Deluezian reading the Traditionalists would probably be more rewarding.

[Anonymous No.18592315]

>>18588961
only Communism can save the west

[Anonymous No.18592983]

>>18592315
Nay, only a god

[Anonymous No.18593030]

>>18592012
>>18592062
Not a single word of this amounts to renunciation of National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.18593248]

>>18593030
Duh, he wasn't going to apologize for having what turned out to be a different vision of the movement than the party leaders. What's clear is that came to reject the core of the Nazism of the party and its leaders, namely, its grounding in biologicism. Further, the obsession with technology and the treatment of the volk as merely mathematical tools to be used calculatedly, came across to him as metaphysically *the same* as socialism, capitalism, communism, and Jewry.

[Anonymous No.18593316]

>>18593248
>Duh, he wasn't going to apologize for having what turned out to be a different vision of the movement than the party leaders.
I think the definition of National Socialism is what is at issue here. Heidegger, despite knowing that National Socialism was in fact, and had been from the very beginning, a movement espousing biological racism and military might, gave that movement his support and never retracted it. He continued to speak of its greatness until after the war, and in the passages you cited, speaks as one who is part of a movement but thinks that it is being led badly. Unless we assume that Heidegger was blinded to the nature of National Socialism, we must conclude that he knew what it was and where it intended to go, and, in spite of that, still thought that it was worthy of his support. He thought there was something good in the core of National Socialism.
It is in this sense that one can call Heidegger a supporter of National Socialist. Schmitt called for the abolition of the NSDAP and SPD and only did what he had to in order to continue doing his work under National Socialism. Heidegger went above and beyond in calling for Germans to devote themselves to Hitler. There is really no comparison here.

[Anonymous No.18593396]

>>18593316
I agree that what's at issue is the definition, but it remains steadily at issue. Heidegger was likely aware of the biologicism issue (since after all, that was the kind of antisemite his wife was, and he seems to have first heard of the Nazis through her), but at no point does he accept the biologicism in the sense of personal agreement; at most, he accepts that others in the movement accepted it, but the rectorship debacle and his lectures and writings during the whole period of the 30s and early 40s show that he had a fundamentally different vision from top to bottom of what Nazism meant to him and what he took it to possibly mean for Germany. I'd like to think better of Heidegger's judgment, the man wasn't stupid, but everything indicates that he had blinders on getting in the way from seeing at the beginning what he most definitely saw by 1939. He couldn't see why Hitler would pal around with Streicher and promote Der Sturmer, he never could see why an idiot like Rosenberg was given such access to the Nietzsche archives, he most definitely couldn't figure out why Hitler wasn't as smart as he initially hoped he was in just using biologicism and focuses on industry and technology as rhetorical lure to be thrown off in favor of the volk's chance to rediscover the primordial experience of Being, like the Greeks he thought the movement appreciated for more than merely aesthetic reasons.

It's right there in his notebooks, he thinks biologicism is stupid, that's the feature that distinguishes Nazism from fascism, and he thinks it's stupid and that Hitler's just another rube obsessed with treating everything like a part of industry. That's not no difference. All the same, as we both recognize I think, Heidegger doesn't see himself as needing to apologize for thinking the movement was better than what it turned out to be.

[Anonymous No.18593472]

>>18593396
I suppose the real question is why he didn't see it. It is clear that he thought that National Socialism corresponded in some way to his philosophical views. What precisely in it did he support, and what does his support for those aspects of National Socialism tell us about the logical conclusion of his philosophy?

[Anonymous No.18593483]

>>18588961
>save the West
lol

[Anonymous No.18593526]

>>18593472
For what he seemed to look forward to, it's ridiculous if you spell it out clearly, but it seems to be that Germans would have the revolutionary chance to rethink their relationships to technology and their land and language? How would that ever feasibly happen on a large scale via a political movement? Later Heidegger makes sense to me insofar as he jettisons the very short-lived notion of the volk being a kind of really big Dasein in favor of something more akin to Strauss' strong reticence about the possibility of everyone being equally able to philosophize. The funny thing about Heidegger's views on nature and land and home and such, is that, unlike the urban liberals who read him and fantasize about philosophizing in a cabin in the woods, a lot of his work looking at that environment is about how shitty and hard it is, and how it's the shittiness and difficulty that bring you into some primordial relationship with [insert literally whatever here]. I don't get why he ever thought that would be something a nation would just take on.

As for why he was blinded, that's so difficult to see with him. Maybe it's the elimination of prudence in his thought? As fascinating as his readings of Plato and Aristotle are in the 20s and early 30s, he always has this dessicated understanding of prudence, rhetoric, and dialogue. Like, he cheated on his wife a bunch and thought he'd be able to keep all of it a secret, fell put with an important mentor by shitting on him in his lectures and keeping totally quiet about his disagreements in person until they came out at once in writing. Lowith's fuller biographical account of him portrays him as totally unable to have a frank conversation with anyone, listening but barely responding. It's baffling, he just seems very incapable when it comes to people or politics shit.

[Anonymous No.18593603]

>>18591245
I'm extremely knowledgeable about history and knew about all of those liberal revolutionary movements and their place in time. I don't know your beliefs, and you hardly know mine. I like high effort posts. Maybe you'll change my mind, or at least force me back to the drawing table.
>>18591189
Give me the real answer!

[Anonymous No.18593828]

>>18591515
>>18592151
Straussians have gone on to become major political players in American conservatism. That's why it's important.
>The core Traditionalist texts were written when this problem had not been properly diagnosed yet. A Deluezian reading the Traditionalists would probably be more rewarding.
Would love to hear more.

[Anonymous No.18593835]

>>18590988
Popular narrative is better.
Everyone to the right of Heil Kyle is a beta.

[Anonymous No.18594088]

>>18593526
>Like, he cheated on his wife a bunch and thought he'd be able to keep all of it a secret, fell put with an important mentor by shitting on him in his lectures and keeping totally quiet about his disagreements in person until they came out at once in writing. Lowith's fuller biographical account of him portrays him as totally unable to have a frank conversation with anyone, listening but barely responding.
This sounds like a lot of people I have met, and it also sounds dangerously close to the ideal man portrayed in our media. I'll have to check out Karl Lowith's book.
>I'd like to think better of Heidegger's judgment, the man wasn't stupid, but everything indicates that he had blinders on getting in the way from seeing at the beginning what he most definitely saw by 1939. He couldn't see why Hitler would pal around with Streicher and promote Der Sturmer, he never could see why an idiot like Rosenberg was given such access to the Nietzsche archives, he most definitely couldn't figure out why Hitler wasn't as smart as he initially hoped he was in just using biologicism and focuses on industry and technology as rhetorical lure to be thrown off in favor of the volk's chance to rediscover the primordial experience of Being, like the Greeks he thought the movement appreciated for more than merely aesthetic reasons.
Perhaps what he could not see was that the primordial form of Being to which he aspired would necessarily result in outcomes, perhaps not identical, but similar to Nazism. We have to wonder if the Third Reich would have been a good regime, even if it had not been racist, anti-Semitic, and pointlessly destructive.

[Anonymous No.18594118]

>>18588961
Catholic Einstein Hates you all

[Anonymous No.18595257]

bump

[Anonymous No.18595994]

bros what ideology does this hate for ornamentation comes from?
I can only tell this is postmodernism, but what else? Frankfurt school? who said it first?

[Anonymous No.18596013]

>>18588961
>is that combination what's necessary to save the West?
Seeing as it just finished running its course I'd say no

[Anonymous No.18596157]

>>18596013
The West isn't dead yet. It could easily die out within a 100 years though.

[Anonymous No.18596184]

>>18596157
I'm not talking about the West, I'm talking about a Straussian/Traditionalist fusion. That shit powered the entire conservative revolution of the 1980s. Whether or not you like where we are now answers the OP. I see know reason to believe that things would be different.

[Anonymous No.18596198]

>>18596157
I'm not talking about the West, I'm talking about a Straussian/Traditionalist fusion. That shit powered the entire conservative revolution of the 1980s. Whether or not you like where we are now answers the OP. I see no reason to believe that things would be different.

[Anonymous No.18596241]

>>18595994
Just sounds like High Modernism of a common enough variety. Look up James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State about that kind of attitude. Sounds like the same attitude that designed Brasilia.

[Anonymous No.18596393]

>>18593828
To the degree that Traditionalism requires a coherent subject - the one who experiences the Tradition - it can't be applied in post- or hyper- modernity. This is because the subject of Traditionalism, a 'people', is no longer a coherent entity. Thus, while Traditionalist signs and signifiers (rationale, arguments, etc.) are still present to be read and thought about the level at which they can be implemented is only at the level of the individual. Because no organizations or authorities are operating and because the de-cohering of the state/nation/country/people from each other there is neither giver nor receiver of traditions.

To put it in Sloterdijkian terms, the collapse of the Macrosphere into a foam of micro-cultures has made the attempt to reformat the cultural air of the Macrosphere impossible. The immunological functions of the Macrosphere have ceased.

[Anonymous No.18596517]

>>18596198
No way. I don't believe you. There was nothing Straussian nor Traditionalist about the Reagan era. Nothing even remotely close to that emerged until Buchanan and Trump (in an extremely primordial and unfocused form).

[Anonymous No.18596709]

>>18596393
More on Sloterdijk? I'm unfamiliar with his work.

[Anonymous No.18596948]

>>18596709
His body of work is vast. But, speaking only of the 'Spheres' trilogy: 'Spheres' uses the "sphere" as a theme to re-examine the human life-world. 'Spheres 1: Bubbles' maps the interpersonal from fetus to group. 'Spheres 2 Globes' charts the project of globalization from the moment of realization to its conclusion, 'Spheres 3 Foams' discusses the implications of our post-unified situation.

(also, fuck captcha)

[Anonymous No.18597053]

>>18596948
>>18596948
>Spheres 2 Globes' charts the project of globalization from the moment of realization to its conclusion,
Where does he place the beginning of "globalization?"

[Anonymous No.18597339]

>>18596241
thanks so much!

[Anonymous No.18597885]

>>18597053
At the moment when the 'Seven Wise Men of Athens' realized the Spherical nature of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.18597946]

>>18591189
Look at this pseud

[Anonymous No.18597951]

>>18591433
What does Moldbug say about schools?

[Anonymous No.18597961]

>>18592151
>Deluezian
Cringe and non-reader

[Anonymous No.18597967]

>>18596393
>To put it in Sloterdijkian terms, the collapse of the Macrosphere into a foam of micro-cultures has made the attempt to reformat the cultural air of the Macrosphere impossible. The immunological functions of the Macrosphere have ceased.
Holy cringe. Why do people spam this pseud?

[Anonymous No.18598186]

>>18597967
Not that guy, but have you read him? How good is he, really?

[Anonymous No.18598393]

Which traditionalists in particular? Also wouldn't traditionalism imply we can put the genie back in the bottle? Wouldn't it be better to come up with modern solutions to modern problems?

[Anonymous No.18598437]

>>18598393
The whole point of Strauss's work is that modern thought leads to specific problems that cannot be solved without the resources of classical thought. Whether he believed in putting genies back in bottles, I know not.

[Anonymous No.18598439]

>>18598393
>lso wouldn't traditionalism imply we can put the genie back in the bottle?
Not necessarily. Evola's words, to paraphrase slightly, were to push modern democracies onward at a greater pace, so as to create more fertilizer for the earth, when modern regimes finally collapse in on themselves and open up a void. This is the only real Traditionalist "modern solution to modern problems." Guenon would simply suggest that there is no modern political solution and that the cycle is close to its culmination. Evola wasn't as happy with this, which is why he suggested destruction as a viable path in the final stages, rather than simply waiting.

[Anonymous No.18598599]

>>18598393
What if modernity is the problem?

[Anonymous No.18598810]

>>18598437
Classical thought would be illequiped to deal with modernity. Our barbarians live amongst as opposed to being at the gates. We also mistakenly allowed people to vote let alone women to vote. Outside of a collapse scenario, how are we to reverse this "progress"?
>>18598439
I never knew Evola was an accelerationist. I always thought he was a wait until the system collapses kind of guy. In the event of a collapse, who's to say we'll win?
>>18598599
Nice dubs. I'm saying it is, but looking back with rose tinted glasses is futile. Traditionalists using a modernish example would have you believe the 50s were perfect. Meanwhile the 50s laid the foundations for today and housewives were fucking the milkman.

[Anonymous No.18598812]

>>18598810
*I'm not saying it is.

[Anonymous No.18598839]

>>18598437
I'm not sure whether he supposed the thought of the classical philosophers could fix the modern situation, but he was sure that there was no putting the genie back in the bottle; the classics at best preserve ancient philosophizing as a way of life for a very small number of people, that's all.

[Anonymous No.18599490]

>>18598810
Strauss, as far as I know, was neither a racist nor a sexist. In any case, I'm not sure.
>>18598839
He seems to have believed that it is possible to prevent the tyranny he faced from becoming universal and permanent.

[Anonymous No.18599799]

>>18588961
>Is that combination what's necessary to save the West?
That's your problem maybe. You still think the west in something salvageable.

[Anonymous No.18599944]

>>18598810
>Nice dubs. I'm saying it is, but looking back with rose tinted glasses is futile. Traditionalists using a modernish example would have you believe the 50s were perfect. Meanwhile the 50s laid the foundations for today and housewives were fucking the milkman.
Are you retarded? Or do you simply not understand what capital-T Traditionalism is?

[Anonymous No.18599957]

>>18598810
>and housewives were fucking the milkman.
Even today, in our promiscuous age, women are not as adulterous as they are implied to be.

[Anonymous No.18599968]

>>18599799
As long as the West is still alive and capable of sustaining a triple digit IQ population, there's still something salvageable.

[Anonymous No.18600502]

bump

[Anonymous No.18601134]

>>18599968
You know, IQ tests are scored such that 100 is always average.

[Anonymous No.18601377]

>>18601134
The world average IQ is not 100. And you can always set a frame of reference where "100" actually means "not a complete mouthbreather" instead of whatever new low standard it happens to be today.

Bet you felt really intelligent writing that, huh? Midwit.

[Anonymous No.18601400]

>>18601377
>The world average IQ is not 100.
1. If a group of scholars were to study the IQ of the entire human population, the parameters would be set such that the IQ of the average human being is 100.
2. The datasets that you are looking at use specific American datasets as a baseline. This is why IQ scores from certain countries appear higher or lower. A dataset which used, say, presently available data from South Korea as a baseline would yield vastly different results.
Hope this helps clear things up.

[Anonymous No.18601863]

>>18601400
I think you're missing the point.

[Anonymous No.18602047]

>>18601863
No, I'm not. You are focusing on something stupid without even understanding it.

[Anonymous No.18602195]

>>18602047
No, you're quibbling on the minutiae of standardized intelligence tests while ignoring the purpose of the analogy. You might be on the spectrum. Get checked.

[Anonymous No.18602221]

>>18602195
These aren't "minutiae." The point is that the average IQ score will always be 100, and even if it were to drop relative to today, it wouldn't matter. IQ does not matter. If it did matter, we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

[Anonymous No.18602270]

>>18602221
low IQ cope

[Anonymous No.18602318]

>>18596517
>there was nothing Staussian nor Traditionalist about the Reagan era
Wrong, it was both those things in practice. Trump is not a Straussian, Straussians aren't anti-intellectualist. The Reagan era consisted of a political elite of economic libertarians and obscurantist expansionists buoyed by a cultural constituency of rabid religious conservatives. It was by definition the fusion of the two, you're not going to get anything different from that even if you created a dictatorship.

[Anonymous No.18602425]

>>18602318
>The Reagan era consisted of a political elite of economic libertarians and obscurantist expansionists buoyed by a cultural constituency of rabid religious conservatives. It was by definition the fusion of the two, you're not going to get anything different from that even if you created a dictatorship.
You don't seem to know anything about either Straussians or Traditionalists.

[Anonymous No.18602447]

>>18602318
I think you're confusing Traditionalism with traditionalism (commonly associated with conservatism). Traditonalism (capital T) was founded with René Guénon in the early XX century.
But if we are talking about conservatism, then yes, it could be seen as a fusion between the two.

[Anonymous No.18602456]

>>18602425
Enlighten me then, dickhead. What a chanfag would consider a Straussianism/Traditionalism fusion is probably an a priori rejection of material exigency and a philosophy that gives the illusion that this would be anything but retarded failure. Hardmode: no Scotsman fallacy

[Anonymous No.18602510]

>>18602456
>What a chanfag would consider a Straussianism/Traditionalism fusion is probably an a priori rejection of material exigency and a philosophy that gives the illusion that this would be anything but retarded failure.
How did you derive that from your reading of Leo Strauss and the Traditionalists?
The only thing I can tell you to do is read Leo Strauss himself. He and his followers are neither obscurantists nor expansionists. Strauss emphasized moderation, the enormous flaws of modernity, the importance of justly wielded political power - his students famously wrote an epigraph in one of their edited volumes honoring FDR and Felix Frankfurter for making proper use of the executive power - and the irreconcilable contradiction between philosophy and the city.
Traditionalism I know less well, but from what I've gathered the point is to reject modern thought, not in favor of classical rationalism, but in favor of the very orders that the Ancient Greek philosophers as well as Strauss and his followers considered unjust. Evola modelled his ideal form of society on the Hindu caste system, i.e. he idealized a society in which ranks and orders were permanent and formally defined by law, custom, and faith. Strauss openly calls this form of society unjust in Natural Right and History. There is no way to synthesize the two into a single governing doctrine, because while Traditionalism is fundamentally about our form of government and way of life, Strauss and his students are interested solely in philosophy and the consequences of its misuse.
In any case, Straussians are all academics who generally shy away from politics as much as possible. The only exceptions are Harry V. Jaffa and his students, but he is a minority.

[Anonymous No.18602572]

>>18602510
Ah yes, a man who feels that philosophy needs be removed from the polity for its own sake is not an obscurantist. I'm talking about the applied political reality of a dishonest political elite peddling lies for the purpose of cohesion and a constituency that wishes for legal guaranty of their social mores. Whether or not that aligns with the idiosyncrasies of a specific thinker if irrelevant. You can say "well Strauss/Guenon/Evola wouldn't have tolerated x" until you're blue in the face but as far as I'm concerned the way those philosophies justify political policy is what matters.

[Anonymous No.18602598]

>>18602572
>a man who feels that philosophy needs be removed from the polity for its own sake is not an obscurantist
That's not what he believes. He believes that there is an inherent contradiction between philosophy, i.e. the quest for the truth of the whole, and government, i.e. the task of establishing stable modes and orders, defending and even expanding territory, and administering large numbers of people. The two cannot be reconciled.
>I'm talking about the applied political reality of a dishonest political elite peddling lies for the purpose of cohesion and a constituency that wishes for legal guaranty of their social mores.
If you had read Strauss, you would know that, while he does not consider this situation ideal, he accepts that it is universal and unavoidable. He is not responsible for it. It has always been this way. It will always be this way. Why blame the messenger?
>You can say "well Strauss/Guenon/Evola wouldn't have tolerated x" until you're blue in the face but as far as I'm concerned the way those philosophies justify political policy is what matters.
Their philosophies don't justify any kind of policy that could possibly exist in this Earth as it is. Have you actually read them?

[Anonymous No.18602637]

>>18602598
>he believes that there is an inherent contradiction
And he believes philosophy ought to be exclusionary to this end. You're splitting hairs.
>accepts that it is universal
>philosophies don't justify any kind of policy that could possibly exist in this Earth
So on the one hand you've made it so every governmental body is Straussian and on the other that no policy is Traditionalist. Wonderful. This is why discussing the intentions of dead fucks is worthless. The ruling class of conservatives of the neoliberal era were influenced by Strauss and had a worldview shaped by his philosophy. They are therefore Straussian. I don't give a fuck what Strauss himself thought, the OP was asking about these philosophies saving the West and these philosophies held sway and they brought us where we are now. I don't give a fuck about what aspersions you think this casts on the thinkers in question because we've seen them applied and we are at the result. If you simply deny any proper political manifestation of their views then you're making a non-point to no purpose. It's like arguing with a leftist over what "the real communism" is.

[Anonymous No.18602711]

>>18602637
>And he believes philosophy ought to be exclusionary to this end. You're splitting hairs.
No. He believes that they are contradictory. You cannot have both at the same time.
>So on the one hand you've made it so every governmental body is Straussian and on the other that no policy is Traditionalist.
That's not what I said.
>The ruling class of conservatives of the neoliberal era were influenced by Strauss and had a worldview shaped by his philosophy. They are therefore Straussian. I don't give a fuck what Strauss himself thought, the OP was asking about these philosophies saving the West and these philosophies held sway and they brought us where we are now. I don't give a fuck about what aspersions you think this casts on the thinkers in question because we've seen them applied and we are at the result. If you simply deny any proper political manifestation of their views then you're making a non-point to no purpose. It's like arguing with a leftist over what "the real communism" is.
No.

[Anonymous No.18603264]

>>18602510
If Straussianism is the balancing act, then Traditionalism is the core. Combine both and you have a resurrection of Western society.

[Anonymous No.18603295]

>>18603264
If you look at Strauss and his work as some kind of political tool to be wielded against your enemies, you will miss the point.

[Anonymous No.18603307]

>>18603295
I think Strauss misses the point if he sees any value in his work, since it will fail to exist without a host capable of sustaining its kind of thinking. Or hell, without Western civilization around to study.

[Anonymous No.18603343]

>>18603307
I don't think you've read his work. If you have, you haven't read it carefully. Consider that Ancient Greek philosophy died out and was resurrected many centuries after the fall of Rome.

[Anonymous No.18603345]

>>18603343
Western civilization didn't die out. World events right now are conspiring to wipe out white people for good.

[Anonymous No.18603400]

>>18603345
"Western civilization" is not synonymous with white people. In most of the world, there is no civilization but Western civilization. Stop thinking in terms of race, and start thinking in terms of ideas.

[Anonymous No.18603415]

>>18603400
>Stop thinking in terms of race, and start thinking in terms of ideas.
Ideas are connected to both racial potential and heritage. Blacks are genetically too stupid to sustain Western ideals for long, and China has its own intellectual tradition that they've been bound to since time immemorial. You're living in a delusional haze if you think that there's a remote chance that Western civilization will continue without its original host.
>"Western civilization" is not synonymous with white people.
Are you Jewish?

[Anonymous No.18603533]

>>18603415
>Ideas are connected to both racial potential and heritage.
Kek get a load of this nigger

[Anonymous No.18603558]

>>18603415
>Ideas are connected to both racial potential and heritage. Blacks are genetically too stupid to sustain Western ideals for long
I don't know what you're talking about.
>and China has its own intellectual tradition that they've been bound to since time immemorial
Is that why they have a multi-party pseudo-democratic system which is led by the Chinese Communist Party? Is that why the most famous and well-known authors of the first half of the twentieth century spent all their time attacking Chinese tradition? Is that why they abolished Classical Chinese, abolished the old way of writing characters, and make their children read Western thought and literature in their schools?
You are operating on the basis of autistic memes that you have gleaned from the internet. The fact of the matter is that every major country today is essentially Western. They think like Westerners, they read Western books, they study Western history, their forms of government are modelled on modern Western ideas, and they regard everything traditional as a mixture of pathetic and embarrassing. Stop looking at memes and start actually reading about the history of the world. You will see that, when Strauss spoke of tyranny becoming "universal and permanent" he was not making things up.

[Anonymous No.18604532]

bump

[Anonymous No.18604629]

>>18589150
This

[Anonymous No.18604669]

If Strauss was against democracy, what form of government did he like?

[Anonymous No.18604689]

>>18604669
Anarcho-Tyranny

[Anonymous No.18604903]

>>18604669
He wasn't against democracy per se. He was against whatever snuffs out philosophy; sometimes it flourishes under a regime, and sometimes it's persecuted by the same regime. Socrates wasn't brought tp trial until he was an old man, and he would've been brought to trial or punished by any regime in charge since he would've questioned the foundations and laws of any regime. Strauss understood that.

[Anonymous No.18605791]

>>18603533
>>18603558
>I don't know what you're talking about.
>Kek get a load of this nigger
Do you guys really think that an 85-90 IQ population could continue the Western tradition?

[Anonymous No.18606097]

>>18598810
Perennial traditionalism is fake and gay, but good ideas from the past are real

[Anonymous No.18606142]

>>18605791
Considering that the population containing the individuals who developed "the Western tradition" was largely illiterate and had low IQs compared to the people of today, yes, I don't see any issue with that.

[Anonymous No.18606562]

>>18606142
>Considering that the population containing the individuals who developed "the Western tradition" was largely illiterate and had low IQs compared to the people of today
Categorically wrong on every claim (and 99% of the assumptions that led you to believe such magical thinking). DVKWK

[Anonymous No.18606761]

>>18606562
No. You really should read Leo Strauss.

[Anonymous No.18608001]

>>18605791
The tradition doesn't fucking matter, it's a spook. What's decisive is the best way of life, and the more neurotic you get about the tradition coming apart, the further you get from that way of life. At best, its preservation "just 'cause" amounts to aesthetic ritual devoid of any meaning any of it had in the first place, like Japanese tea ceremonies or kabuki theater in the modern era.

[Anonymous No.18608696]

>>18608001
>At best, its preservation "just 'cause" amounts to aesthetic ritual devoid of any meaning any of it had in the first place, like Japanese tea ceremonies or kabuki theater in the modern era.

It's "just" your date of birth until it isn't. It's "just" a funeral ceremony until it isn't.

[Anonymous No.18608706]

>>18606761
Leo Strauss is a cope

[Anonymous No.18608804]

>>18608696
You sound like a late night talk show TV host.

[Anonymous No.18608972]

>>18598186
Most important philosopher of the 21st Century.

[Anonymous No.18609819]

>>18608804
thankx

[Anonymous No.18609827]

>>18608804
Thanx.

[Anonymous No.18609863]

>>18609827
That's not a compliment.

[Anonymous No.18609879]

>>18609863
You can be either
>the gigacharismatic TV priest
>the cuckold reductionist

[Anonymous No.18611282]

>>18609879
Neither of these is good.

[Anonymous No.18611570]

>>18608696
>b-b-b-but muh arbitrary customs *are* meaningful!
Kek cope

[Anonymous No.18611665]

>>18608001
>The tradition doesn't fucking matter, it's a spook.
Same way, as language, money and laws are. You do not reconfigure such things on a whim. You do not decide that today "cat" should mean "dog", and dollars should be just green toilet paper.

The functioning of society depends on the existence of FICTION, so that everyone could successfully run their routines on autopilot. The preservation of this fiction through time is absolutely *vital*.

[Anonymous No.18611738]

>>18611665
>You do not decide that today "cat" should mean "dog"
Kek you gonna wage war against janus and skunked words now? Virtue meant "manliness" and now gives the connotation of a woman's chastity.

>>18611665
>The preservation of this fiction through time is absolutely *vital*.
No one's saying "quick tell the plebs the secret teachings", but man's history is the history of man's many and shifting arbitrary customs, and any attempt to stop it is ultimately pissing in the wind. The philosopher knows this.

Besides, you're not going to have anything in common with an ancient Greek or Roman or Christian or even the medievals. You're a modern just like Moliere's Alceste, obsessing over the tradition but unable to be anything like the people who formed it and lived it.

[Anonymous No.18611774]

>>18611738
>but man's history is the history of man's many and shifting arbitrary customs
This is an extremely superficial view of history.

[Anonymous No.18611825]

>>18611738
>man's history is the history of man's many and shifting arbitrary customs
The chair may be with different amount of legs, different in size, color and look completely futuristic - but it would still be a a fucking chair and not a sofa.
Tradition evolves, yes. But there is a distinction between retaining a chair through time, and allowing some random junk to pile up in a completely arbitrary shapeless manner.

"For the authentic revolutionary conservative, what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions have been particular expressions, adequate for a specific period of time and in a specific geographical area. And just as these particular expressions ought to be regarded as changeable and ephemeral in themselves, since they are connected to historical circumstances that are often unrepeatable, likewise the corresponding principles animating them have a value that is unaffected by such contingencies, as they enjoy a perennial actuality. New forms, corresponding in essence to the old ones, are liable to emerge from them as if from a seed; thus, even as they eventually replace the old forms (even in a “revolutionary” manner), what remains is a certain continuity amid the changing historical, social, economic, and cultural factors." (c) Evola

[Anonymous No.18611906]

>>18589150
Shut up mike

[Anonymous No.18611997]

>>18611825
>The chair may be with different amount of legs, different in size, color and look completely futuristic - but it would still be a a fucking chair and not a sofa.
>Tradition evolves, yes. But there is a distinction between retaining a chair through time, and allowing some random junk to pile up in a completely arbitrary shapeless manner.
This is the whole problem with your trad LARPing, your example is products made by man; if I use the back end of a hammer to open a bottle of beer, it's a bottle opener, no matter how much you seethe. Only natural beings have anything like an essence. There is no Form of chair or couch, they're already a mismatch of material shaped by human neediness and desire.

>Evola quote
Not Strauss, yawn.

[Anonymous No.18612133]

>>18611738
We don't need to be *exactly* like the people who discovered Tradition. After all, they were not perfect. We only need to preserve and carry forth their wisdom into each new era.

[Anonymous No.18612142]

>>18611997
>Not Strauss, yawn.
This thread is about exploring the potential synthesis of Straussian and Traditionalist thinking.

[Anonymous No.18613396]

bump