/lit/ - Literature

>>11999842
>rooting for the Schmitt friend/enemy distinction is like rooting for the house in blackjack
and yet rooting against it seems to lead to suspicion - everyone now feels surrounded by potential enemies or potential friends with no way of easily knowing who is who. Is this a superior condition? I'm skeptical. We can hope and pray that everyone will sing kumbaya and hold hands, you can even lead by example. And the rest of the world will go on as it is.
>>11999892
>the friend/enemy distinction, but an Us/Them (or even a One/Many) distinction, which is quite interesting
The destruction of the Us/Them distinction has lead to it being reduced to a One/Many distinction.
>in an Us/Them distinction, it is One and *a crowd.*
It wasn't always that way, and he's arguing in favor of returning Us/Them to one and one, you and *other.* I understand why you refuse to consider it Girardfag.
>it's *individuation* that matters, perhaps even more than *authenticity.* complicated stuff. to *wrench yourself free of the crowd without becoming a despot is hard,* and yet it is absolutely necessary.
Wrench yourself free, and yet ultimately you still blend in. You are in the crowd, but not a part of it. You are surrounded by Them, and there is no Us. If you value individuation over authenticity, this is where it leads. Is that satisfying to you?
>>11999940
>i want to believe in something much larger, a process metaphysics that encompasses the entire globe (and more than that).
Here is my question to you - what if some people are incapable of this Great Learning... or even if some people are better at it than others? Would you not promote the virtuous? Or would you do nothing, virtue being its own reward? What if some people don't care for virtue in itself, and never will? One could get into genetics, social conditions, etc I suppose, though I'm initially asking more broadly - is there a type of person you wish to cultivate?