/lit/ - Literature

ˢᵒʳʳʸ

>>19828262
Don't scare me like that. My sanity is already hanging by a thread

>>19119175
kinda makes you wanna.. suck on it..

>>18436059
Are we now living in an enlightened age? the answer is, No, but we live in an age of enlightenment. As matters now stand it is still far from true that men are already capable of using their own reason confidently and correctly without external guidance. Still, we have some obvious indications that the field of working toward the goal is now opened. What is more, the hindrances against general enlightenment or the emergence from self-imposed immaturity are gradually diminishing.

Don't see this posted much anymore but it's a classic
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

>>18015393
>>18015408
>enters the thread discussing Popper
>doesnt want to discuss Popper

Feynmanbros....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

>>16849533
"Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State" by Maurice Duverger

Where'd you get a copy of my diary desu?

>>16475162
In a way he is almost impossible to refute because he dovetails onto the end of his book that there may be "reversals" in history. So even if you raise points about democratic backsliding or islamic fundamentalism or state-capitalism or dysfunctions emerging in existing western democracies, fukuyama or his supporters can just turn around and say its a reversal of history not progression, and the REAL end of history is still liberal democracy. I don't want to go into a Popperian "pseudo-science because it is unfalsifiable" point, but it does weaken a position when your response is only convincing if you already assume the truth of the position
One can also pick at parts of Fukuyama's argument as being inconsistent. For example, he claims that liberalism is the end state of human ideological development, that it has been triumphant "in the realm of ideas" i.e. it presents the most desirable system of government that people free from coercion would choose to live under. This and the material world i.e the actual distribution of governmental systems can differ, which he uses to explain why the above reversal of history is possible without the end of history thesis being debunked. As evidence for this triumph, he presents the competition between liberal democracies and opposing ideologies during the twentieth century. Yet it is altogether unclear why this supports the original premise. The fall of fascism and communism were largely a product of material triumph (military and economic)—it wasn't a "war of ideas", it was just a war. Nazi Germany ended because it lost the war; The USSR ended because it was bankrupted by the arms race (of course, there was of course far more at play in both of these cases). This could be construed as a measure of superiority, as being the system best equipped to wage a war (both economic and military), but considering his comments on democratic peace theory it isn't the superiority that Fukuyama meant. Neither of these cases were choices "free from coercion"
And if you turn to the core, which is the notion that liberal capitalistic democracy fulfills the master-slave dialectic—what is there to say? it already has fallen far from the tree of Hegel's original meaning. Even if we follow Fukuyama's interpretation, what is the kind of recognition that exists under capitalist economic systems? Realistically the recognition isn't between property-owning persons (in the classical sense), but between producers and consumers; coca-cola doesn't recognise me as an essentially human equal capable of ownership and hence freedom, but as a data point indicating a potential source of revenue to be extracted. It is an instrumental recognition, not a categorical recognition. Reminiscences of Marx's commodity fetishism and Kant's second formulation of the CI
I'm a liberal myself, but there is nothing inevitable about liberalism. I further see the reticence born out of the idea of liberalism's inevitability as quite dangerous

>>16327446
This is quite the pernicious received idea.

Okay, but promise not to make fun of me.
>Lysidike took her ability to read his mind as a matter of course, but his converse power was still unsettling. Time was only Anaximander ever gleaned what she thought with any proficiency; but he deduced her nature from what his oily smarts told him was the nature of a person, and only sardonically hinted at his mastery. Tlexictli didn’t even have to puzzle to catch her straight away, so the privacy she took for a metaphysical given in her youth broke up, and she felt her disagreements with her husband as dumb sensory pressures, like heat or cold. Their cross-purposes weren’t any easier for their transparency, but there was nothing to worry over – they’d conducted business together before becoming sentimental.

>>16178108
Sure, the source of the attack is different; I'm talking about the effects--depression of wages and a devaluing of labour.
It's funny because most discourse is focused around the worry of individual freeriders and not massive corporate rent-seeking by displacing labour costs onto the public.

>>16132246
Sorry, I haven't read anything by Sorokin yet so I don't have any opinions on him. And the only elitist I've had the chance to read is Michels (outside of a few fragments from Pareto's Mind and Society).

Are the Corona Tourists gone yet?

The problem isn't so much the gays, but the trannies that inevitably follow behind them. It's like a shark to the scent of blood in the water, and while a small percentage of the population, trannies are very online people. In practice, trannies and incels are just different sides of the same coin--they both are so utterly defined by their sexual situation that they never talk about anything else. Our gay friends already lost /lgbt/ to trannies, and I know they want a new home, but we don't want you inviting in just as big a pain as the one you're meant to be remedying. LGB has shown time and a again to be ruined by the T. Unless you can solve the T problem, it isn't a good idea to spam gay-posting.

>>15072555
It's weird but look at the catalog right now: there isn't a single guenon thread. I think he must have finally been banned, or maybe coronavirus got 'em. Either way, I'm enjoying the peace from his inanity.

Why does she eat the glue?

>>14900607
>a fucking scroll
Arion Press is nuts

Maybe I should buy some Mie Goreng incase a quarantine happens...

Yes I've read him. Good if you want to build a totalitarian system of control. But in all honesty, I find the acquisition and maintenance of Power alone a pretty boring subject. Also, Machiavelli's importance doesn't stem from the profundity of his work (at least, not the prince), but the context in which it was written.

how is it that so many people scored high on altruism yet everyone on this board is so mean?

fascism doesn't have a teleology. well, i suppose nazism kinda does, but classical italian fascism doesn't. as far as i can recall anyway.

Sabah alkheir, /lit/ Muslims
I'm a big fan of political philosophy and recently wanted to explore some non-western writers. From the googling i've done on Islamic political philosophy, i've come up with:
>The Quran
>The Book of Government or Rules for Kings by Nizam al-Mulk
>Notes on Plato's Republic by Ibn Rushd/Averroes
>The philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, The Ideal State, political regime, Summery of Plato's Laws by Al-Farabi
>The Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun
I'm sure i am missing some works. If you know any more, please let me know. I'm interested in exploring your rich intellectual tradition.