/lit/ - Literature

>Liberty: individuals should be free to choose what occupation they pursue, what religion or philosophy they follow, who they marry, and where they live
>Equality: no one should have special privileges under the law, for example the rich or members of the clergy
>Social contract: government should not govern without consent from the governed
We know some authors such as pic related hold these principles in utter contempt. But would any of us really want to live without them?
And for those who really do desire a society without liberty, how do you confront the fact that the might makes right principle - the strong will prevail over the weak, something that Hitler believed - legitimizes liberalism as the victor over both fascism and communism?

So he wanted us to ride the tiger. I agree. But riding the tiger is fucking easy, the tiger is just lying on the fucking ground like it's dead, it's all drugged up and exhausted. What now? Do we just party on top of this limp tiger and entertain ourselves until the end?

>>14177617
>implying you understand what any of those symbols mean

>In the higher forms of the luminous Aryan spirituality, whether in Greece, ancient Rome, or the Far East, the role played by doctrine was minimal: only rituals were mandatory and absolutely necessary. Orthodoxy was defined through rituals and practices and not through dogmas and theories. Sacrilege and impiety did not consist in “not believing” but rather in neglecting rites.
Is this kind of spirituality completely dead or are there practices today which are reminiscent of this?

>When speaking of modern art, the first thing to mention is its “intimate” quality, typical of a feminine spirituality that wants nothing to do with great historic and political forces; out of morbid sensitivity (sometimes brought about by a trauma), it retreats into the world of the artist’s private subjectivity, valuing only the psychologically and aesthetically “interesting.” The works of Joyce, Proust, and Gide mark the extreme in this tendency in literature.
>In the majority of literary works, in short stories, dramas, and novels, the regime of residues persists, with its typical forms of subjective dissociation. Their constant background, rightly called the “fetishism of human relationships,” consists of the insignificant, sentimental, sexual, or social problems of insignificant individuals, reaching the extreme of dullness and banality in a certain epidemic type of American novel.

Where the hell did he explain the idea of aristocracy of the soul? I read both Revolt Against the Modern World and Ride the Tiger and he doesn't even use the term. I understand that both books indirectly address the idea, but where did he explicitly outline the concept, saying "Aristocracy of the soul is X"? Did he do it all?

ITT: Authors and philosophers who were as evil as they looked.

>[America] nurtures an instinctive indifference toward [intellectuality], and to the degree that intellectuality does not become an instrument of something practical, it is almost as if it were a luxury that those who are intent upon serious things (such as “getting rich fast,” “volunteer work,” and sundry campaigns and lobbies to promote various social issues) should not indulge in.
>In America any inventor who discovers some new tool that will improve production will always win more social approval and acknowledgement than the traditional type of the intellectual; moreover, anything that is profit, reality, or action in the material sense of the word will always be valued more than anything that may derive from a line of aristocratic dignity.
>Through a William James it has declared that the useful is the criterion of truth and that the value of any concept, even metaphysical ones, should be measured by its practical efficiency…
>The consequence of this typically “democratic” theory is that anybody can become anything they wish to be, provided a certain amount of training and pedagogy be supplied; in other words man, in himself, is believed to be a shapeless and moldable substance, just like communism wants him to be when it regards as anti revolutionary and anti-Marxist the genetic theory of innate qualities elaborated in the field of biology.
Does /lit/ agree with him?

>When speaking of modern art, the first thing to mention is its “intimate” quality, typical of a feminine spirituality that wants nothing to do with great historic and political forces; out of morbid sensitivity (sometimes brought about by a trauma), it retreats into the world of the artist’s private subjectivity, valuing only the psychologically and aesthetically “interesting.” The works of Joyce, Proust, and Gide mark the extreme in this tendency in literature.
>In the majority of literary works, in short stories, dramas, and novels, the regime of residues persists, with its typical forms of subjective dissociation. Their constant background, rightly called the “fetishism of human relationships,” consists of the insignificant, sentimental, sexual, or social problems of insignificant individuals, reaching the extreme of dullness and banality in a certain epidemic type of American novel.

Which is better to start with if my interest is sparked by his "aristocracy of the soul" idea: Revolt against the Modern World or Ride the Tiger?

>final boss of philosophy

Dude literally believed white people came from the north pole