/lit/ - Literature

define modernity

>>14041876
If you have to ask...

This is a common fallacy among infidels. They think in premodern societies they wouldn't be weaklings. In fact they would just be dead weaklings

>>14041876
Because modernity is hideous. Modernity is having a robotic lawn mower commit suicide by driving into a canal because even it cannot fulfill it's power process.

>>14041876
>new bad!
>old good!
Since fucking Socrates

>>14041957
They were right back then, and they’re still right today

>>14041978
"No"

>>14041996
That was too recent

>>14041876
That picture is intensely misleading. There is a tonne of suffering involved in modernity, and it's carefully hidden from consumers who frankly prefer to be deceived. The materials are harvested and refined by some exploited 3rd world worker who may or may not be underage. If it's made out of animals then the animals themselves are not hunted down like that but instead kept in downright demonic conditions from the day of their birth until the day they are unceremoniously butchered en masse. The product is then shipped to you where you can wear it for a short while and throw it away. The blood is there, but you just refuse to see it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22476774
Yes this article is very old, and no, things have not changed since.

>>14041996
Let me guess
>the world was bad back then it was full of violence!

>>14041876
http://thebahiyablog.blogspot.com/2015/04/happiness-kicks-butt.html?m=1

>>14041895
stop trying to make every discussion about islam faggot

>>14042366
and epidemics
and famine
and political instability
Literally the Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse running rampant and having a party

>>14041957
>>14041978
Correct, and it's a personality thing. Actually, both of them were geared for it. It's a byproduct of always needing new stimuli and having little ability to control oneself.

>>14041957
When Socrates was alive, the Athenian society was in big decline, and it has pretty much kept declining since.

>>14041957
I hardly think so. Throughout history there have been overlapping declines of empires/kingdoms, so one has plenty of examples of doomsayers to pick from. But in most rising powers you won’t generally find naysayers. Take Europe of the 16-17th centuries, for instance. Or take the Roman Republic after the first war against Carthage. Etc. There are too many to choose from.

>>14042739
Actually, let me follow up a little. How many empires have we had in Europe? The Roman, Charlemagne's, The Holy Roman Empire, The Spanish, the French, The British, etc. All at the top in one century and rubble the next. Plenty of sincere opportunities to complain and be right about it.

>>14042350
How many horses died just to glue your covers?
https://youtu.be/bunP5TnHf2Q

>>14042446
And it still manages to be better than today

>>14042446
Yet they had "Life". They had meaning and a purpose which fulfilled their life, be it serving their monarch or just surviving the horrors of their time. Such barriers in their life made them develop strong discipline, character and, besides other things, gave them meaning in life.
Yes, nowadays we do have better medicine, education, better food supply and more "possibilities". Such "possibilities" as becoming a code monkey for a corporation to which you are just another insignificant cog that can be replaced anytime. A "possibility" to become a scientist and work on a project that will only lead to more control over the population, will make them more dependent on a new technology and will take more of their freedom away, making some corrupt people even richer while doing so. Or maybe a "possibility" to become a ruthless participant of a system and engage in a capitalistic competition for money that will eventually lead to a life full of stress and shallow existence. A "possibility" to be a wage slave for the rest of your life because you are not compliant enough with the system.

>>14041957
Isn't that merely a clumsy deflection, a false narrative you give yourself to cope and to ignore 'the other'?
>OLD IS TABOO, ONLY NEW IS PERMITTED

>>14042446
Oh, and the modernity! The one in which we are forced to accept new "morality" while seeing all that is beautiful and has meaning be turned to ashes for the sake of "tolerance".
Compare this with the days of old, when you could be, for example, just a sailor. Seemingly a menial job. Working your limbs to the bone, possibly losing some of them in the process. But at least you could experience life! You roamed the waters of the world and seen foreign lands.
Or maybe you were just a soldier fighting for your land, serving your king. You could of course die, but it would be for such a noble cause: family, tradition, history of your kin and your people, for the damn freedom, real one at that.
You LIVED and could tell your children stories of your life and they would want to share it with others because of how interesting their dad's life story is!

>>14041957
>
Of course the ways of old were better than what we have today. Just turn off all of your prejudices, no matter how hard it may seem, no matter you political adherence. And observe.
(>inb4 lol not left wing
Modern "left" isn't even what "left" is supposed to be. Those, who you are talking about, are, and I can't find a better word, just slaves to the brainwashing elite. They tow any line they are told to.)
Look at how degeneracy grows in cities and spreads to the country. Look at how dependent people are today. How many regulations are put in place that interfere with people's freedom, especially that of thought!

>>14041876
Hey, OP. You can also read the entire reply to this guy(>>14042446), but to answer specifically your question: It's because of the loss of values. This is especially noticeable today, but to an extent stated with the advance of technology.

>>14041896
you have a pet robotic lawn mower too?

>>14043216
>Look at how dependent people are today.
>How many regulations are put in place that interfere with people's freedom, especially that of thought!
Dependent? Free?
You retard
All it took was a bad crop year for people to starve to death. Your entire region could be sold off to another lord or convert religion overnight
In what fairy tale timeline where people free?
Do you think people in the past were homesteading? Do you think all those nationalist and liberal movements sprang up violently because people were having a great time or where they random?
What about the religious splits that happen all the fucking time? Is that about having a clear set of values too?
Stop for a moment and look at the patterns and stop seeing history through the goggles of the equivalent of a modern millionaire rentier

>>14041996
I agree with this in theory, although I think it is swinging far to the other side. Peopple always had pros and cons and we usualy have a negativity bias.

>>14042350
>If it's made out of animals then the animals themselves are not hunted down like that but instead kept in downright demonic conditions from the day of their birth until the day they are unceremoniously butchered en masse
This is true that what we do to animals is abhorrent. It's the same with factory farming.

>>14041876
In fact, I think a good part of modern negativity simply comes from modestly intellegent people thinking about morals, but only coming part way. They critique modern sensibilities explicitly, but from an innately modern model of right and wrong. Yes there are inconsistencies and flagrent contradictions in the moral landscape, but trying to change them outright simply leads to hate and despondence that is largely self-inflicted. I think C.S. Luis puts it best in Mere Christianity. Dogma is the the thing that brings most people contentment. Due to modern trends in thought, simple reaction, or going against the mold is considered a virtue in and off itself, or "to revolt for revolts sake" which is rather trite.

Critiquing society from a detached lense and making transitional, rather than revolutionary changes is one thing, like standing back from a fantasy book and pondering about its society, But raging against the machine you yourself are part of is ultimate coming from a place of indignation rather than understanding.

>>14041957
If you're thinking of the common quote, it's apocryphal.

>>14043713
I hope your reply is just a result of not reading my post(>>14043207
). I though it was obvious that I have written it and not someone else.
>You retard
I specifically wrote that it wasn't easy and that this was the reason for people to develop strong values. Yes, people died and suffered, but they lived. Now, turn off your materialistic view on the world and re-read my post, or at least grasp it here as you read. What I mean by "lived" is not just "they existed", that is exactly what I consider the people of today are doing and I tried conveying it in my post. People of today merely "exist", while people of old "lived". They had purpose, and the struggles through which they went gave it to them.
Also, your view on freedom, as I've said, is very materialistic judging from your post. I assume you think of freedom as "indulge in anything, consume anything, don't have handcuffs around your wrists". Freedom that I talk about is the freedom to "govern" or have control over your life.
I hope you don't expect me to write an article about "how and why", but I'll say here that one of the reasons, major one at that, of such freedom that I talk about to be possible was the capabilities of government surveillance and interference.
>Stop for a moment and look at the patterns
There are patters, but they only highlight "big" events like revolutions, wars, famines and such.
Overall, I got the impression that you believe I said "Life conditions were better in the past than they are today", which I didn't(read first few sentences of my post >>14043207).

>>14041895
>They think in premodern societies they wouldn't be weaklings.
They wouldn't, because they aren't now. Weaklings tend toward the appreciation of the state as caretaker since they are not self-sufficient. The strong see it as a cage and an obstacle. Please stop being retarded while I still have respect for Islam.

>>14043964
>Freedom that I talk about is the freedom to "govern" or have control over your life.
You really are a stupid asshole if you think the vast majority of people in the past had anything of the sort
I hope the civilization collapses and get the serfdom life that obviously suits your mental capacity

>>14044252
I tried my best to explain to you. If this is the answer you can give me after all of the explanations and elaborations, then let it be so. A little disappointing to be honest. I hope for other anons my posts will be a ground for thought.

>>14044305
>I hope for other anons my posts will be a ground for thought.
They are probably tilling the fields

>>14041876
because modernity is gay and retarded and you're a fat bitch

everyone but me should die

Literally nothing stopping you from going into the woods and hunting some pigs with a piece of sharp flint.

>>14044356
based omnicidal anon. I share your sentiment, there is no one worth loving as much as yourself

>>14044090
based

>>14041876
the belief is that there are values beyond the material reality, but modernity does not give a man what he needs to seek them

Just pull a Joker on society you wusses. You know you want to.

>>14043207
You're honestly just a retard, most people have a "life" the way you described it, idiot.

>>14041876
It leads to the increasing effeminization of men and the leveling of individuals. Nietzsche was all about increasing inequality.

The hero can never be a relativist.

>>14043207
Holy fucking kek
This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen on here.

>>14042865
Yes, I know. I don't mean to come off as an outsider looking down at society in general. I'm as culpable as the average person. More so, since I do it despite being aware of it.

>>14043207
I feel embarassed for having read this. I hope it becomes pasta in order to memorialize how fucking overwrought and idiotic you are.

>>14043209
They never said that new is taboo