/lit/ - Literature

Dear old Slaughter-dyke, bless his heart, uses a very early passage to indicate that the Abos were especially stupid. In his discussion of the applications of fire:

"From this point on---that is to say, for many millennia to come---the metabolic regime that characterizes the oldest human civilizations will remain characterized by the consumption of a relatively low amount of biomass. For the most part, the fire-making hunters, fishers, warriors, and gatherers were still too weak to destroy either the reproductive capacity of their prey or the growth cycles of their vegetative environments. Instead, a sense of reciprocity in the relationship between human beings and nature developed early on; it manifested itself in the protoreligious impulse to carry out regenerative services and to offer sacrifices or counterofferings to a fellow world of spirits, ancestors, and numinous powers. On the other hand, in recent years paleontologists have become convinced that the tribes that immigrated to Australia about fifty thousand years ago, now called Aborigines, were responsible for hunting large animals to extinction. Hence, it would be inappropriate to summarily assume that the ancestors of modern humans were conscientious of ecosystemic relationships or a sense of "resource" conservation."

He goes on to indicate other wasteful practices in other cultures, which have obvious implications for the current era. And the capacity of the Abos to destroy is itself a kind of strength, opposed to the earlier "weakness". But I appreciate that he took the trouble to write out a passage with the obvious inference that the Abos are dumb.

>which Schleiermacher convention ally calls 'faith', consistently goes hand in hand with a suspension of empiricism. Only someone who is able to decide against the authority of appearances, in this case the appearance of finitude and in Fichte even the apparent primacy of the objective, can believe.
>Whoever cannot go mad – or become childlike, one could say – within certain boundaries has no place among believers. The reason for this is clarified by an understanding of the function of symbolic immune systems: they separate out individuals from the continuum of prosaic data. Their basic operation aims to rehearse the most improbable as the most certain.
>There can be no immunity to setbacks without separation from the principle of reality, and without the will to faith there can be no confidence that the mountains standing here today could already appear elsewhere tomorrow.

4chad's hostility towards the 'normiedom' is an atavistic instinct towards the truth, which is before and beyond the imposed 'authority of appearances'. What is really lacking is the sense of responsibility for the particular stratum; a certain higher emotional impulse of the emerging 4chad aristocracy. Twice-born shitposters, returning from a long-winded exile, fortified with the flaming heart. Stupidity, you say? Madness? Certainly, that which is not bounded by the logic of finitude and lack has no place within the governing paradigm. Hence, the illegitimacy of God. And yet, could it be that the useless hold the long anticipated key? It is the matter of faith. Or 'madness', as seen from the side of lowered imagination and honour.

It’s Christmas after all! Which Rwing Pomo can help me celebrate the best neoliberal anticonsumerist Xmas and praise our lord and savior! Is slaughterdick a good? Land seems too cyber and not godfearing enough

Propose a conceptual explanation of the logic behind the janny-archonticism within the local milieu.

>Sloterdijk posting is becoming thing
Absolutely based. My time to shine draws near the horizon.
Do we have some memes to force?
Something like a big chungus Sloterdijk with an "easy on the spheres peter" caption?

It's not common but it's also not impossible.
Sloterdijk has very good prose and reading him is in my opinion always a good experience.

Has anyone here read Sloterdijk, particularly his writings on Gnosticism?

I'm currently owning 20 Peter Sloterdijk books.
Pretty sure I've read most worthwhile stuff by now though.

*inhales*
Spheres....

>>19164149

>>18878586
Correct.

Peter Sloterdijk. (2011) "Bubbles: Spheres 1", 'The Retreat within the Mother: Groundwork for a Negative Gynecology', ch 4 pp 268-289.

I love this lil nigga like you wouldn't believe

>>18504743
*Teleports behind you*

Based.
Anyone read "den himmel zum sprechen bringen" yet?
Wondering if it is worth it.

My Sloterdijk shelf continues to grow and it's quite the wild ride.

>slaughter dyke

Cool dude that writes in an interesting and as OP said, insightful way.
The amount of knowledge that every book contains is often quite staggering since constantly provides you with historical facts and anecdotes.
Some of his points become a little bit unclear the more you read from him. Most of the books are pretty self-contained and once they have similar topics they diverge from one another quite heavily.
I still can't get a real answer from him on the fact what theology/religion is. Sometimes it's training, sometimes it's a bank of anger and now it's Poesie?
Spheres and You must change your life where my absolute favourites though and probably my most dear phil books.

>The Gnostic critique of the world had the courage to draw from the extreme crime the following conclusion about the essence of the perpetrator: the nature of the perpetrator called “the world” – the Pharisaic–Roman coalition – is demonic all around. In the “ultimate” jurisdiction, a world that has made itself guilty of murdering the savior already stands under the sign of the highest guilt.

judaic archonbros... I don't feel so good...

>>17384832
Based and sphere-pilled.

Great writing style in my opinion.

I was watching an interview with Sloterdijk, and he said something very interesting.

I'm paraphrasing, but Sloterdijk said the main purpose of a war is to destroy capital. Without wars, capital just accumulates and demands larger and larger share of the production to be distributed to the capital holders. After a certain point, this becomes unbearable for the workers, the private firms, and the governments, and they will conspire (usually not being fully aware of why their interests are now aligned) to start wars. He also went on to talk about who wins the war is almost always decided by the banks (the representatives of the capital) who will provide finance to the side they believe will preserve the capital more.

I'm ignorant of Sloterdijk's ideas, having yet to read any of his books. Does he go further into this idea in his books? Which one should I read to get the full explanation?

.