See my answer to Fahran below.
Advertisement
by Kowani » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:46 pm
by United Muscovite Nations » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:47 pm
by Kowani » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:52 pm
by Fahran » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:01 am
Kowani wrote:It’s not so much an axiom as it is a conclusion, or at least in my case.
Kowani wrote:Oh, mostly by choice.
But seriously, to establish a working society, arguing about what is right is not necessarily helpful. Justice as well, for that matter does not actually work based on what is good, but what is societally hedonistic.
Kowani wrote:Should, not can. Very different things.
Kowani wrote:In the same way that a whale and a butterfly weigh the same thing in space, you’re correct.
Kowani wrote:Yes, but that’s because I don’t like pain. And, as a secondary reason, the power of reason. If nothing has intrinsic value, there is no reason to do anything, yet in the same vein, there is no reason not to do anything. However, things are more pleasurable (that’s not really the right word, but my English could be better), so I do them. Could I choose to step in front of a train? Sure. Would I enjoy it? Nah. Should I? Nah. Should I not? Same answer. So, what choose t’enjoy life.
by United Muscovite Nations » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:02 am
by Fahran » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:05 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Which is why Fahran and I say that nihilism cannot be right. Any theory in which killing millions of people is not qualitatively different than being a humanitarian is clearly wrong.
by Conserative Morality » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:13 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Nihilism isn't a moral philosophy. It's the absence of a moral philosophy.
United Muscovite Nations wrote:That's what the nihilist argument is.
by Frievolk » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:44 am
Conserative Morality wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Nihilism isn't a moral philosophy. It's the absence of a moral philosophy.
Which is not something I'm often accused of.United Muscovite Nations wrote:That's what the nihilist argument is.
It's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely questioning axioms.
"Then you are a king!"
"It's you that say I am.
I look for truth,
and find that I get damned."
"And what is 'truth'?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?"
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik ♔
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne ♔
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt ♔
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.
by Conserative Morality » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:48 am
Frievolk wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:Which is not something I'm often accused of.
It's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely questioning axioms.
"Then you are a king!"
"It's you that say I am.
I look for truth,
and find that I get damned."
"And what is 'truth'?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?"
Wwait that's not the lyrics I remember.
by Frievolk » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:55 am
♔ The Frievolker Empire || Frievolker Kaiserreik ♔
♔ The Realm in the Sun || De Reik in de Sonne ♔
♔ Led by Kaiser Johann, Part of the Erstwelt ♔
Never forget that the Muslims literally made up a new meaningless name for him when they forgot the name of Adam's Firstborn.
by Nea Byzantia » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:12 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Nea Byzantia wrote:Revolutions - even if they start out with the most altruistic intentions; reflecting the grievances of the People against a corrupt Regime; or in some way representing the "Will of the People", they usually get co-opted by either Elite Factions within the Nation itself; or by Foreign Powers with their own agenda. Oftentimes, its some combination of the two. Revolutions usually result in the empowerment of either an "outsider" clique of the Elites (ie. an Elite Faction that could stand to benefit from overthrowing the Regime); or the Marionettes of a Foreign Power; or both. Usually, the People end up suffering under the "New Boss" as much as they did under the "Old Boss"; oftentimes more.
Spoken like a true reactionary who wants people to knuckle under and just accept their place under their 'superiors'. "If it wasn't us, it would be someone worse! =^)"
by Anarcho capitalist utopia » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:58 am
by Genivaria » Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:56 am
Anarcho capitalist utopia wrote:If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn
Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok
by Starblaydia » Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:04 am
Anarcho capitalist utopia wrote:If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn
Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok
by Western Vale Confederacy » Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:16 am
Anarcho capitalist utopia wrote:If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn
Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok
by Sicaris » Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Anarcho capitalist utopia wrote:If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn
Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok
Apparently being right-wing somehow makes you unable to be attracted to transgender people...
Fuck is this bullshit? Even my own grandfather, who is arguably the most conservative family member I know, has expressed approval at post-op transgender women at least once.
by Fahran » Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:38 am
by The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord » Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:48 am
Fahran wrote:So I realized, after a bit of reading, that our recently departed colleague, Parkus, may well have been quoting Michael Marder, Oliver Marchart, and some of their predecessors in his analysis of Schmitt's thought, titled What Is the State For?, as a political extrapolation of Heidegger's existentialist philosophy - a form of political ontology within the framework of the total state guided by the absolute sovereign. I thought the discussion was largely underappreciated, swiftly devolving into discussions of the liberal night watchman state or various other subjects as opposed to really exploring the purpose and existence of the state and the relation of society, institutions, and people to it.
I'll preface any statements I make here by stating that I'm not an existentialist, taking rather more of my philosophy from Plato, Aristotle, and Jewish/Catholic thinkers and mixing it with a perhaps unhealthy dose of romantic pining. In discussions of the state, even conservatives are often inclined to discuss the material boons the state can impart. Its ability to afford us security from crime and protection from external enemies is one function popularly cited by the ideological heirs of classical liberals - the people who to a significant extent have come to populate the modern political right in the United States and most of Europe. Discussions of welfare and other social policies are common enough with our syndicalist and nationalist friends as well. The state is perceived as a way of mediating material conflicts between classes of people, the bourgeois and the proletariat or the wealthy and the destitute. The state is a means to an end.
My own perspective departs somewhat from the one Marder and Marchart ascribe to Schmitt, being more heavily reliant on Aristotle's conception of man as a political animal and the state as natural as well as political themes explored in Torah - which I feel is too often sanitized to fit into and match the biases of liberal theorists. The idea that one drags from Aristotle, or at least that I dragged from Aristotle, is that the state is a natural, hierarchical emanation of society that completes man as other institutions serve to complete man. There are, of course, a laundry list of differences between this and Schmitt's political theory when we begin to dig into the gritty details - not the least of which are time and place. Likewise, Parkus and I agree on next to nothing. I actually thought his original post attempted to tie together too many philosophers over too short a span of paragraphs and muddled the basic argument with excessively philosophical language.
Nonetheless, I felt this might be a worthwhile subject to discuss given the recent surge in popularity enjoyed by Schmitt's writings and theory across the political spectrum and his status as one of the preeminent political theorists of the nineteenth century. How should conservatives describe the purpose and function of the state and other societal institutions? What is the approach we should take to individualism, personalism, and society - since those three things are at times wholly divorced from each other? How would you begin to describe the purpose and existence of society and of man?
by Conserative Morality » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:53 pm
Nea Byzantia wrote:
A true *Byzantine* Reactionary :
by Diopolis » Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:57 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Kowani wrote:Yeah, I’m not looking for a reason to morally judge him, what with not believing in morality.
Which is why Fahran and I say that nihilism cannot be right. Any theory in which killing millions of people is not qualitatively different than being a humanitarian is clearly wrong.
by Bienenhalde » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:16 pm
Anarcho capitalist utopia wrote:If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off totrangenderporn
Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok
by Conserative Morality » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:17 pm
by Hanafuridake » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:37 pm
Anarcho capitalist utopia wrote:If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn
Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok
Suriyanakhon's alt, finally found my old account's password李贽 wrote:There is nothing difficult about becoming a sage, and nothing false about transcending the world of appearances.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Almonaster Nuevo, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann
Advertisement