/lit/ - Literature

>>11776758
Is this a vaporwave album?

nature and right wing are the same thing until immanentization at which point they are differentiated into disgusting binary

>>11776771
Take your Seroquel and Lithium anon

>>11776804
t. sentient capital adjusting the flows

I sure am glad this is the nature and/or politics board

>>11776758
This is such a dumb thing to say holy shit you fucking retard

>>11776758
Nature does not care for the weak. She gives her scepter to her favorite child and lets him do as he pleases.

>>11776843
This

>>11776827
> Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/,

>>11776864
Do you dummies not even finish sentences you quote?
>ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer

>>11776875
Key word: IDEALLY

>>11776883
Do you actually believe your less-than-ideal thread has any place on any board? What a stupid concept for a thread. In any case, here are some boards that might be a better fit, since you seem too stupid to click the links at the top and bottom of the page.
>>>/an/
>>>/his/ (if you actually believe this is philosophy lol)
>>>/pol/
Have fun, friend

I can't because you're right

Imagine projecting human values onto the natural world and believing it isn't a logical fallacy

>>11776909
Do you actually believe your less-than-ideal post has any place on any thread? What a stupid concept for a post. In any case, those boards might be a better fit, since you seem so stupid.
Have fun, friend.

>>11776758

>Nature is inherently right wing.

What the fuck am I reading? I agree with your sentiment, but the way you phrased it is retarded.

Try something like, I feel right wing political beliefs to be more similar and compatible with the laws of nature than left wing beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEyNNCn9Z5M

>>11777285
And let's also note that an adherence to nature isn't good in and of itself.

Who keeps spamming threads like this? This is a literature board

>>11777292
Probably the behead all satans guy. He seems like he'd shitpost this kind of stuff here all day every day.

>>11777285
This. OP is putting the cart before the horse.

>>11776758
No it's more like, the right wing is inherently for nature. The left wing is against nature.

>>11777350
>climate denial
>clean coal
>dismantle the EPA
>repeal the endangered species act

>pro-nature
lmao

>>11777215
wow sure proved me wrong there big boy

>>11777296
no, it's not him. the behead all satans guy spams lemurmemes.

>>11777402
He'd get banned for avatar posting if he only did that.

>>11777364
The crux of his argument against this would be something like "Yes, but that is inherent and natural to humans and therefore it is unnatural to work against"

>>11777364
Nice stereotype and reliance on burgerland politics.

>>11776758
Conservation saves, progression destroys.

>>11777415
i've never been banned for avatar posting

>>11777429
Got em.

>>11777421
>>my politics are natural therefore it's unnatural to work against them
>but I'm equally a part of nature as you and you're destroying the planet
>>see what I mean, you're unnatural for trying to stop us from poaching rhinos and destroying the rainforest. Business interest is the real nature, and conservation is unnatural!

>>11777425
>you aren't allowed to reference the largest, richest, and most prominent right wing government in the world because I said so. Especially don't talk about their platform verbatim.

>>11777364
The left wants to solve these "problems" with technology (unnatural). The far right just wants things to be traditional, wood burners, primitive technology (If any), small comfy communities and family centric life. Don't confuse the center-right neocon cuckservatives with the real right.

Also, regulation is unnatural.

>>11777456
Then stop trying to regulate my technology and social progress

>>11777458
More like, stop trying to regulate life with your technology and social progress.

>>11777456
>The far right just wants things to be traditional, wood burners, primitive technology (If any), small comfy communities and family centric life.
But that's regulation as well. You're being arbitrary and unnatural.

>>11777456
>primivitists are right
Why must Americans be so retarded?

>>11777464
Why is it more like that?
I'm totally cool with zero laws, but you wouldn't like that very much because then tradition would have zero social control or political influence.

That's definitely the argument the Right Wing tries to make.

>>11777473
>tradition would have zero social control or political influence.
Yes and?

>>11776758
God, the only being that is truely free, God's creation is 'right-wing'.

>>11777490
>I want a traditional society
>actually I'm fine if we destroy all the traditions

>>11776758
It's intellectually dishonest not to include your definition of "wrong" in this case, you pleb.

>>11777473
Regulation doesn't just mean laws unless you are that autistic

>>11777364
>>climate denial
Climate change is natural. Consequences are natural. Humans deserve to disappear if they can't fix their shit. It's the same as any animal population consuming all their resources and dying out. Death and decline is not bad it's just part of the cycle.

>>clean coal
Don't care about neocon garbage. But burning carbon fuels is still more natural (We've been doing it for at least 50,000 years) than solar panels, wind turbines, reactors and all the AI that will emerge in the future to manage these things on their own.

>>dismantle the EPA
Nature doesn't need an "agency" to protect it. It will destroy us, not the other way around.

>>repeal the endangered species act
Extinction is natural. By trying to keep unviable species alive, you're putting a manmade vision of "diversity" above nature.

>>11777510
Regulation does include law. Every law is a regulation. Even if not every regulation is a law, if you do away with the whole of regulation, you do away with the whole of law.

It's okay. What you're feeling now is cognitive dissonance. Work out for yourself how to resolve the contraditions in your beliefs and it will get better.

Or, you could always just lash out and call your interlocutor an autistic libcuck babby and pretend you never had the conversation.

He never said it didn't include law moron. Learn to read the point being made about their being more to regulation than just law.

>>11777519
>Climate change is natural. Consequences are natural. Humans deserve to disappear if they can't fix their shit. It's the same as any animal population consuming all their resources and dying out. Death and decline is not bad it's just part of the cycle.
Carbon taxes are natural by the very same argument. The death and decline of unchecked production in response to carbon feedback is equally as natural as belching carbons into the atmosphere as a byproduct of industrial production processes.

>Don't care about neocon garbage. But burning carbon fuels is still more natural (We've been doing it for at least 50,000 years) than solar panels, wind turbines, reactors and all the AI that will emerge in the future to manage these things on their own.
If humans discovered it earlier, it must be more natural!

>Nature doesn't need an "agency" to protect it. It will destroy us, not the other way around.
Actually, not protecting your grandkids from famine is more natural

>Extinction is natural. By trying to keep unviable species alive, you're putting a manmade vision of "diversity" above nature.
Anthropogenic extinction is a choice. You're fucking retarded.

>>11777530
kys

>>11777496
Tradition comes from nature. Humanity is self-organising in groups of a natural size. Civilisations of hundreds of millions are not our natural size. Our brains are still tribal and evolution takes much longer than we have allowed it.

Laws are only "necessary" to contain millions of people but they are not wholly effective. They are kept in place to continue industrial production, profit above all else (Man's ideal above nature).

For a description of how humans are supposed to live in accordance with nature, look no further than The Odyssey.

>Thence we sailed on, grieved at heart, and we came to the land of the Cyclopes, an overweening and lawless folk, who, trusting in the immortal gods, plant nothing with their hands nor plough; but all these things spring up for them without sowing or ploughing, wheat, and barley, and vines, which bear the rich clusters of wine, and the rain of Zeus gives them increase.
>Neither assemblies for council have they, nor appointed laws, but they dwell on the peaks of lofty mountains in hollow caves, and each one is lawgiver to his children and his wives, and they reck nothing one of another.

>>11777543
Good, let's both do it sweetie! It'll help the environment. ;)

>>11777540
>If humans discovered it earlier, it must be more natural!
If you build technology on top of technology, yes it is more artificial. Earlier technology that has less dependent technology is more natural (But still bad to a degree).

>Actually, not protecting your grandkids from famine is more natural
The natural way to do this is with your own foodstores, preparation and savings. Protecting the children of your genetically unrelated enemies from famine is not natural and it's complete cuck shit. Self reliance chooses the strong and forward thinking. Those who don't save for winter deserve to be selected out.

>You're fucking retarded.
Not an argument

>>11777560
Tradition does not come from nature. Tradition comes from happenstance. That's why there are thousands of human traditions, and an infinite number more that are compatible with the natural world as it is.

People do not need to be contained. Industrial production isn't any more or less natural than a fishing rod. Carbon tax and nuclear power and a roasting a quail over an open campfire are all equally in accordance with nature.

Humans aren't "supposed" to live any type of way. The Greeks believed a bunch of stupid shit like literal shapechanging superhumans being in charge of their personal States of affairs, astrology, and a ton of other wacky things that are proven incorrect.

>>11777575
Okay, you first

>>11777581
Let's do it this way then.
Define nature.

>>11777540
>Carbon taxes are natural

>>11777594
What happens without man's conscious intervention. It can't be "forced" to happen.

>>11777595
>actually spitting carbon into the atmosphere until nothing can grow is natural

>>11777364
>Using Amerimutt neo-con-v-neo-lib "politics" to define the left and right.
Truly an intellectual.

I'm an Italian style fascist, and I'm heavily into environmental preservation, and clean energy.

Liberals who claim to be environmentally friendly, are often the worst polluters - they are not willing to go without their creature comforts and embrace kamp.

>Buy local, buy white, buy organic, buy ethical.
>Preserve and extend your national parks.
>Have a reasonable 2.0 kids, and push out the subhumans who will leech your welfare to have 6+ kids.

Thirds worlders will present a much larger threat to wildlife than whites ever will be. Even ancestral hunting techniques (burning down the bush) of African and Australoid tribesmen are said to have driven many species of megafauna to extinction. China does not care about pollution, health, or planetary welfare. India is utterly filthy and polluted.

Marcus Follin, Varg Vikernes, Tom Roswell... all people who are white nationalists (and some even aryan supremacists), and all claim the environmentalism is INHERENTLY tied to racial roots.

The first national parks were created by Teddy Roosevelt - someone who by today's standards would be a racist, sexist monster, who viewed america as a white nation, and the lynching of immigrants and blacks as "a good thing".

Hitler expanded Germany's national parks, to the point where the modern political left in Germany have become repulsed by anything that isn't a grey, industrial, soviet-style cityscape.

The Swedish Green Party hijacked and abandoned environmentalism to push anti-white propaganda, and they're now dead.

A true right winger respects nature, for his shining tower would be nothing without the hill it stands on, and the hill would look all the more barren and bereft of ingenuity without the European man's castles and masonry.

>>11777604
So when I noscope you from muscle memory, that's natural, but when I build a fire and cook a fish, that's unnatural?

>>11777620
Fascism is unnatural, and so is the conscious attempt to "return to nature" and "uphold tradition"

>>11777458
Libertarianism (Which sits on the right much more than on the left) is -for- allowing the unimpeded consequences of the market and letting things take their course.

Even if capitalism itself can be seen as building more and more artifice, at its core, allowing the market to "be" is a respect for the universe to be self correcting without intervening at every turn because you believe things should be different.

>>11777642
So I should let you build a megafactory in my backyard and frack the shit out of my daughter because stopping you would be unnatural?
Go fuck yourself

>>11776758

There is a broad spectrum of difference in the right wing. But I guess we could select a few perennial aspects, and go with that. So by nature, I assume you mean non-synthetic? But the problem here is, that every form of social organization is inherently synthetic. Yes they still rely on the same natural laws for their being, but ideological contradictions do remain. For an example, the Russian civil war. If we get to the real essence of it, it was the superior use of violence that allowed the soviets to win. So, there was no left wing ideological effect which aided in the victory, aside from perhaps, the ideology being able to posses more hosts.

We can find many forms of organization in the strata of nature. There are matriarchies and patriarchies, etc. There is the example with the Bonobo apes, who resolve conflict with absurd polymorphous sex. Is this isomorphic with right wing ideas? So, here we are speaking of specific natures, not nature as a whole. So, what are we speaking of in regards to the question? It has to be the human nature and condition, the ''meta nature'' will always be present, you will always need to consume energy and so on, in order to remain alive, there will always be conflict in and between different strata of life. Furthermore, evoking the naturalistic fallacy would be redundant, but lets for the sake of it take the notion of ''conservation''. If our historical record and prehistorical biological adaptation has shown us anything, it is that nothing can be conserved in an equilibrium. The nature of nature, seems to be change. Were the first humanoids that utilized fire, unnatural? It was clearly in their condition and capacity to do so. Is the use of fire a political category?

Personally I don't think anything is unnatural, the definitions are too vague and often based on arbitrary ideological axioms. Example: What does every form of life do? It acquires energy. Now, which animal has utilized and consumed more energy than any other? As far as I can tell, this is the Human. Factories are thus absolutely natural, and reflect the base essence of all life. People feed the produce of dead organic matter, and steal rays from the sun, as to feed machines, for to manifest their desires and needs.

>>11777624
You're completely misunderstanding. The amount of technology (And therefore conscious "progress" against nature) required to noscope is orders of magnitude higher. There's nothing wrong with building a fire and cooking fish. That is the human niche of survival and it doesn't depend on radically altering the environment or ourselves over some misguided vision of the future.

>>11777634
Fascism (and more specifically Absolutism) is what 99% of human history resembled.

And the conscious return to nature and tradition is no more contrived than what made us divert from it. Heidegger would strongly disagree. He would view something like a Zoroastrian revival in Iran as "authentic in being," since there is an extant Persian intellectual tradition.

The ties of white nations to their roots are even stronger than what remains of old-Persia in the modern Islamic world. For a large portion of what we know of our western tradition is still extant, it is just that we've never had to deal with the existential threat posed by people like yourself, and thus we have to render the unconscious continuity into conscious authenticity.

>>11777662
But you didn't say anything about technology in your definition here:
>>11777604

Did you want to revise it to include technological progress to avoid this outcome implied by your own definition?

>>11777634
Cringe and bluepilled.

>>11777669
Ah yes, I completely forgot. The more you do something, the more natural it becomes. That must be why you're so terrified of change!

>>11777678
Spotted the NPC

>>11777583
>People do not need to be contained. Industrial production isn't any more or less natural than a fishing rod. Carbon tax and nuclear power and a roasting a quail over an open campfire are all equally in accordance with nature.
So basically you don't believe anything is unnatural. In that case, you shouldn't even be having this argument if you are completely blind to the distinction we are trying to make.

This is like a nihilist trying to argue with a definition of good. Completely pointless, just go away.

>>11777673
Technology is the conscious effort against nature to "improve" things according to manmade ideals. There is absolutely no inconsistency between the points I made there.

>>11777620
>Hitler expanded Germany's national parks, to the point where the modern political left in Germany have become repulsed by anything that isn't a grey, industrial, soviet-style cityscape.

Hitler intensified industrial production, de facto polluting more than he saved.

>I'm an Italian style fascist

Do you shake hands with people?

>Even ancestral hunting techniques (burning down the bush) of African and Australoid tribesmen are said to have driven many species of megafauna to extinction.

Whites practiced slash and burn too. A recent example would be found in Finnish history. And almost every human population wiped out their megafauna, this includes the European populations.

>>11777697
>everything I don't like is nihilism
You're a fool.

Here's the reading you missed, which happens to be the obvious one:
The artificial/natural distinction has no meaning unless ALL human behavior is unnatural.

>>11777686
Your post is exactly the sort of post an NPC would make actually.

>>11777681
That's nothing at all to do with Heidegger's work from "Being and Time."

Fascism is very versatile and adept to change. I wouldn't want the European race to stagnate forever as it is.

Heidegger would view the romanticization of the past as inauthentic, as you would not be acting within your own time. It would also cause people to stagnate.

Heidegger would also view throwing out societal tradition, or adopting completely new cultures as inauthentic, and dangerous from the other perspective - in destroying what you value.

Heidegger would instead prefer that a nation uses its past figures as symbols for greater ideals, that can guide us into the future, and authentically grow society.

I'm not terrified of change, and I do not hate other races, religions or creeds.

What I do despise is people who think that the mass importation and replacement of one culture with often incompatible cultures, within one or two generations... and then morally grandstand over their artificial social project.

You, sir, are the one afraid of change. But unlike your charicature of a conservative, you are afraid of change from the other perspective - and so you seek to make everything uniform, you seek to balance imaginary ledgers, you possess the arrogance to believe you are the instrument of nature's correction...

Fascism is the embrace of struggle, and your place within an ever changing family tree. An authentic place within a people that will change.

In 1000 years, the descendants of my people will probably have metal flesh, and no concept of my creed, but they will be my authentic children nonetheless. THAT is an embrace of authentic change. You will not impress anyone with your cheap artificial "corrections," just because you brand it as "the natural change of this majestic world."

>>11777700
In fact it looks like I said exactly the same thing in both of these posts.

>What happens without man's conscious intervention
>And therefore conscious "progress" against nature

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension before you come into these threads to act all high and mighty.

>>11777710
Glad you think so. Now that we both don't see each other as human I can strangle you to death and sleep fine at night.

>>11777704
I already addressed this. Animals do not have a pre-frontal cortex to premeditate events. Therefore it's only humans who CAN go against nature.

>>11777604

>>11777713
Of course you don't see the distinction because you believe that consciousness is unnatural and that technology is proof of it.

>>11777721
You didn't though. You just claimed that people are conscious, but you in fact have no proof of that other than your own feelings and intuitions. Are you actually making the argument that 3 inches of brain matter is the difference between everything natural and unnatural? That's really your argument???

>>11777704
>The artificial/natural distinction has no meaning unless ALL human behavior is unnatural.
Animals eat, plants eats, humans eat.
Humans build factories and machines and ideologies and split atoms and genetically modify food. Animals and plants don't do any of these things.

>>11777722
Of course you don't see the distinction between unnatural and natural because you think everything is natural.

>>11777727
>Humans build factories and machines and ideologies and split atoms and genetically modify food.

And why do they do this?

>>11777727
That's incorrect. Animals use tools, store and modify food, use other species for food production, and much more. It seems like your views on nature are largely formed based on your ignorance of it.

Let me guess, you read a mathematician's musings on the natural world anf believed him?

>>11777730
I don't, and I already posted my actual view in plain English one sentence long, but it's probably too nuanced for you to understand.

>>11777726
No it's choice in application of those 3 inches of brain matter, not their existence.

It's funny how you "it's just 3 inches bro" my argument to make it seem unsubstantial when you are talking about 3 inches of the most complex system in the known universe.

Also worth mentioning that humans existed for 100,000 years with this 3 inches of matter before they created all the garbage we have now. Civilisation is a disease and a mental disorder.

I remember this. I could never beat the final boss, Mecha Newman. Thankfully there was a code for playing as George instead of Jerry.

>>11777733
Animals don't build machines. I already said in this thread that I am for storing food and I am for using primitive tools.

Maybe you should publish a paper on the squirrels genetically modifying nuts for winter, you could win a Nobel prize!

>>11777744
>No it's choice in application of those 3 inches of brain matter, not their existence.
So you believe that free will exists, but actually exercising it in a way that demonstrates that you have it is unnatural and therefore wrong. Why not go get a lobotomy?
>It's funny how you "it's just 3 inches bro" my argument to make it seem unsubstantial when you are talking about 3 inches of the most complex system in the known universe.
That's impossible when there are systems that also include said system. Of course I doubt you will understand this with your three inches.

>Also worth mentioning that humans existed for 100,000 years with this 3 inches of matter before they created all the garbage we have now. Civilisation is a disease and a mental disorder.
Projection

>>11777731
Because they have a misguided idea of "improving" things nature already perfected over billions of years.

>>11777761

Did man somehow magically acquire a prefrontal cortex?

>>11777754
https://www.ed.ac.uk/biology/news-events/news-2018/complex-tools-help-crows-hunt-more-quickly

Oops.

Machines are just a conceptual catgory created by humans out of hubris and self-aggrandisement. It is a difference of magnitude, not kind.

>>11777757
I don't believe that free will is exclusive to cognition and therefore it's not exclusive to humans. But this is a total change of topic and you won't even accept a single argument I made on a much more simple topic. I'm not going to get dragged down a rabbit hole about free will.

>That's impossible when there are systems that also include said system
I'll concede this point but it's off topic.

>Projection
Ad hom, not addressing the argument.

>>11777757
>That's impossible when there are systems that also include said system.
This is a fallacy of composition

>Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

>>11777642
>(Which sits on the right much more than on the left)
No it isn’t?

>>11777766
I know that animals build tools. This is not news.
I also didn't say that humans shouldn't build tools.

Your argument is literally this
>Animals make tools
>Tools are machines
>Therefore animals make machines

This is clearly not the case. Animals do not make machines. Just because it's difficult to define the line where one is not the other (Although you can find some fairly convincing lists online, just search for "the difference between a tool and a machine"), does not mean they are the same.

>>11777519
Extracting coal, oil and gas and then burning it on a such an industrial level is not exactly natural.
This is what accelerates climate change to such an incredibly unnatural degree in the first place.

>>11777817
>Animals make tools
>Tools are machines
>Therefore animals make machines

This is a form of the Association Fallacy

>Premise A is a B
>Premise A is also a C
>Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs

>>11777821
>burning it on a such an industrial level
I've argued against "industrial level" everything in every single post I've made on this topic.

>>11776815
It's worse than we thought. NURSE! Get the braces, this one needs institutionalized.

>>11777817
Here's a more complete version

>Animals make tools
>Tools are machines
>Super computers are machines
>Animals make super computers

Premise 1 and 3 are true but the conclusion (4) is false.
Therefore, premise 2 must be false.

>>11777834
You have argued that any carbon burning is natural which is always done to acquire energy for industrial purposes.
Regardless of if it's used to power bronze age cooper ovens or keychain manufacturing plants, you can't separate it.

>>11777863
There's a difference between mass producing to exchange for units of currency (Which has no limit of accumulation) vs producing tools for your own household and for your own need.

>>11777877
Yep, that’s right everyone up to the 19th century had their own personal metal furnace in their backyard.

>>11776758
>right wing