/lit/ - Literature

>>16089063
>Kant does not. Hegel does not.
Kant and Hegel are incredible philosophers with probably more influence than anyone else in the field, but they were awful writers. Most philosophers are awful writers because writing is not their expertise.

I think Sartre does a good job though.

>>16089233
Well, Sartre's philosophy was dumb so he had time to spend on writing plays.

But what do you think of Plato as a writer?

>>16089250
Considering that Plato was one of the first people to actually *write anything*, I think his work, from what I've read, is very impressive. I would like to dive deeper into his dialogues at some point in my life.

I disagree that Sartre's philosophy is dumb, I found the concepts of "bad faith" and such very interesting to read about. I don't swear by his plays or anything, I'm much more a fan of his "Roads to Freedom" trilogy, which I think illustrates more of his philosophy and much more beautifully.

>>16089063
>heidegger not at all

Heidegger's work is literally poetry.

>>16089063
Wait, we actually have threads with intelligible content and discussion?

Not gonna lie, nietzsche's poems kinda sucked.

>>16089063
Philosophers are not poets, mongoloid.

>>16089063
>Nietzsche barely does
Nietzsche's work is literally the closest philosophy comes to blending with poetry. Hell, he even inserts a few poems into his work.

>>16089449
>Considering that Plato was one of the first people to actually *write anything*
I'm not mocking you anon, but I mean come on that's factually false. Homer existed hundreds of years before Plato, up to 600 years and he was writing, and we know he was part of a long tradition of Greek poets(as was Hesiod, of a different tradition). So I mean civilisation has had writing and been writing for a pretty long time before Plato, just look at Gilgamesh. In Plato's time it was about as normal thing as now, unless this was a shitpost in which case I apologise for ruining the joke. But yes of course he is the father of Western thought and arguably the greatest philosopher to ever live so yeah definitely worth reading.

And as for Sartre, I dunno I've always found most of his conceptions, or his worthwhile ones, are more just a specification of much previous thought, such things when he talks about human freedom are already found in someone like Heidegger to a large degree. And "bad faith" I find to be, if with my limited understanding, somewhat very simple and again in a better form already found in Heidegger with individual authenticity. The whole idea of human freedom of his I do absolutely find interesting, but I definitely wouldn't call him "one of the greats" as many moderns do, but I do need to read more of him.

>>16089488
Not in the way as Plato organises his works, as far as I know. Though I'm aware especially some of his later works grew more beautiful and poetic in nature.

>>16089624
That's why I said barely does, but it's really very simple say how Zarathusra goes about expressing its ideas, though one may say his ideas are complex and great, it's a very simple movement of Plato and understand of truth in the work. And as far as the poetic it works in the same way. Plato's actual dialogues are far more complex than anything Nietzsche wrote, or how he wrote, unironically.

>>16089544
Yeah, /lit/ is worth it for good discussions like these.

>>16089063
Here's the really good Phaedrus thread that brought up some of these topics through Heidegger and Derrida:

>>16078623

>>16089696
Well, to be completely factual, anon, there is still some debate as to whether Homer even existed, as there are no written records directly attributed to Homer, and these stories existed as oral histories for centuries before it was ever written down in full. However you are correct, I guess what I meant to say was that he was one of the first *philosophers* to write anything.

And back to Sartre, I agree with you, he certainly isn't one of the "greats," but he did toe the line quite well between philosophy and prose.

bump.

>>16089889
>there is still some debate as to whether Homer even existed
>great man does great things
>some random faggot 2000 years later can’t cope with his greatness and doubts his existence
Every fucking time

>>16089624
Nietzsche is a poet, not a philosopher.

>>16089544
>>16089721
Cringe. OP's nonsensical remarks are among the stupidest ever posted.

>>16089233
>Kant and Hegel are incredible philosophers
Buddha, Chuang Tzu or Jesus are not philosophers like Hegel, or Kant. If you read Hegel the meaning has to be discovered. It is very arduous, as if Hegel is making every effort to make it more and more difficult, weaving words around words, making everything riddle-like. So when you first encounter Hegel he will look superb, a very high peak, but the more you penetrate and the more you understand, the less of a man he becomes. The day you understand him, he is just useless.

The whole trick is that you cannot understand him, that's why you feel he is so great. Because you cannot understand, your mind is baffled, because you cannot understand, your mind cannot comprehend, the thing seems to be very mysterious, incomprehensible. It is not, it is only verbal. He is trying to hide, he is not saying anything. Rather, he is saying many words without any substance.

So persons like Hegel are immediately appreciated, but as time passes appreciation of them disappears. Persons like Buddha are not immediately appreciated, but as time passes you appreciate them more. They are always before their time. Centuries pass, and then their greatness starts emerging, then their greatness starts appearing, then you can feel it. Because their truth is so simple, there is no garbage, there is no rubbish around it. It is so factual you can miss it if you think about it.

When you are listening to a Chuang Tzu, just listen. Nothing else but a passive receptivity, a welcome, is needed on your part. Everything is clear, but you can make it a mess, and then you can get confused by your own creation. These disciples must have missed Chuang Tzu - they are missing him again. They are worried about what is going to be done.

And this point has to be understood: a man of wisdom is always concerned with the being, and a man of ignorance is always concerned with questions of doing, what is to be done. Being is not a question to him.

Chuang Tzu is concerned with being; the disciples are concerned with doing. If death is coming then what is to be done? What should we do? The master is going to die, so what about the funeral? We must plan it.

We are mad about planning. We plan life, we plan death, and through planning the spontaneity is destroyed, the beauty is destroyed, the whole ecstasy is destroyed.

>>16090015
Hegel was thought to be a great philosopher - till he was understood! When he was understood, he was put aside as just a tricky fellow, who was only trying to mystify people. And he had succeeded. At least in his life, he enjoyed the idea of being a great philosopher. Only after his death slowly, slowly scholars looked into it and found that he says nothing. He says so much, but if you condense it, your hands are empty. There is nothing in it.

Then you go to the great philosophers - Hegel, Kant, Aristotle, Plato - they prove that they are very wise. That is their foolishness.

If you have to choose, choose the fool and you will become wise. Don't choose to pretend wisdom, otherwise you will become a fool.

>>16089889
>However you are correct, I guess what I meant to say was that he was one of the first *philosophers* to write anything.
But I mean, the presocratics had existed for hundreds of years. I believe Anaximander the second major presocratic in Greece wrote quite a few works. I mean Plato is by far the greatest Greek thinker, but he's more the middle period of philosophical writers, but realistically more like towards the end considering the development of the Roman Empire a few hundred years later. And most of the basic principles of a philosophic treatise or poem had already been established before Plato with people like Parmenides, hell even the framework in which philosophy has conducted itself was constructed by similar figures prior to Plato.

>And back to Sartre, I agree with you, he certainly isn't one of the "greats," but he did toe the line quite well between philosophy and prose.
I want to know something about Sartre, why is it do you think that he chose the politics that he did throughout his life? And then furthermore Maoism towards the end of it? Just the times that he was in do you think that he developed a whole philosophy focusing on that?

>>16090015
>>16090034
>Osho posting
Pls stop, I know your secret.

>>16089991
Anon, it's pretty clear what the Op means.

>>16090015
>>16090034
This is actually very insightful of him. Fuck hegel

>>16090080
>it's pretty clear what the Op means
And it's fucking disgusting.

>>16090095
You'd have to know initially very little about Hegel to find that insightful, and you have literally just taken a fools knowledge, utter lies, as truth in your own brain because of that. Don't listen to that retard Osho, the anon only posts him because he at least in part thinks it's funny how wrong he is.

>>16090107
Get a grip man.

>>16089556
>Philosophers are not poets, mongoloid
They should be. Even Wittgenstein thought so.

>the anon only posts him because he at least in part thinks it's funny how wrong he is.
I literally post him cause he's not complicated to read unlike hegel. Shove your mental gymnastics up your ass deep inside, brother.

>>16090121
If you fail at poetry, become a poetry critic. Don't try to foul up philosophy with your degeneracy as some kind of revenge against life.

>>16090057
>I want to know something about Sartre . . .
To be perfectly honest I agree with many of the views he held at various points of his life. I think it's clear in his writings that he didn't ever completely subscribe to one specific ideology and did quite a lot of tip-toeing between communist and anarchist theories. It wasn't until towards the end of his life that he really settled in.

I believe his time and his surroundings (a constantly revolutionary France) did much to influence his political attitudes. As well as I think that his constant forward exploration of morality in his philosophy fed into his leanings towards leftist theory. Why he became a borderline Maoist at the end of his life has always and will always baffle me.

>>16089889
Current scholarship is definitely leaning on the side of Homer being an actual person though certain chapters were probably later add-ons by others
Just because certain myths existed as oral history doesn't mean that their synthesis and expression are irrelevant
The question nowadays is wether Homer the writer of the Iliad and Homer the writer of the Odyssey are the same person

>>16090142
You literally admitted to me once that the joke was that he was blatantly lying about Jung.

>>16090163
>Why he became a borderline Maoist at the end of his life has always and will always baffle me.
Yeah it doesn't seem like something that follows the pattern of the rest of his life, but more so a sudden choice of belief to me. Still, I think it makes sense in his character.

But out of curiosity, how much do you know about Heidegger? Who of course led to Sartre's entire philosophy.

>>16090171
vague the post. Shove your vagueness AND mental gymnastics up your ass.

>>16090202
Shiposting ey?

>>16090254
shiposting? shove your retardeness, vagueness and mental gymnastics up your bum that jung and hegel fucked.

Gosh your mind must be rotten by now just like billions of people simply vegetating on this earth

Don't tell me you follow an organized religion too on top of dickriding jung and hegel

>>16090297
>you can only follow a religion without organisation!
Lmao what a retard. Worshipping my poo might as well be a religion worthwhile then.

>>16090167
>writer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP4nXlKJx_4

Where to start with Plato?

>>16089980
based

>>16089063
διαβάζεις ελληνικά;

>>16090034
Profound post

>>16090598
I don't get it, I've already seen this video.

>>16090616
Plato Five Dialogues, then Ion. As the earlier dialogues.

>>16089710
>Plato's actual dialogues are far more complex than anything Nietzsche wrote
How so?

>>16090196
Being perfectly honest, I know next to nothing about Heidegger. I unfortunately haven't gotten around to reading any of his work yet, but he is on my list. It is cliche to ask where to start, but seeing as we've been having a pleasant discussion so far, what would you suggest?

>>16089063
>>16089544
>>16089721
This is the best thread we've had in a very long time

Bumping for interest.

>>16089980
A bad poet.

Keep this bumped please, I'm trying to write something.

A few hours and almost archived. This place moves way too fast for any real discussion. Fuck.

>>16089063
Easy answer: we have different editorial and academic practices.
Plato didn't just publish his dialogues as we would. He wrote them, then he spent the rest of his lifetime editing them. Since most of his readership was composed of people who personally knew him, people who would meet him on a daily basis, he was able to do so openly, without having to worry about a)someome missing out the edit and b) being considered shady for editing those texts.

This means that he had his entire lifetime to work and tinker on his whole corpus. That's why it is so cinsistent and so dense: whenever he came up with something better than what he wrote, he could just go back and edit it.

"Plato, although he originates the history of philosophy, also stands outside it. Aristotle is the first professor (despite the fact that Plato is the first university president). The absence of a conceptual theory in the Platonic dialogues is relatively clear from the fact that these dialogues soon produced the opposed schools of dogmatism *and* skepticism. There is an indeterminateness in the Platonic daydreams which the conceptualizing intelligence finds repugnant. As Kant himself remarks, Plato is the father of Schwärmerei; the philosophy of Aristotle 'is on the contrary *work*.'"

>>16094589
Based Rosen post

>>16089556
Excuse me sir

>>16090729
I explained it in the Op, go to the previous thread to see more.

>>16090839
I'd honestly just suggest Being and Time. But you really should watch this video first, it explains a lot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_os-ysZJM_I

Bowden was one of the best orators of Britain. But you should be familiar with people like Husserl and Hegel as well as the presocratics and plato and aristotle. Because he is reviving the question of being from the Greeks.

>>16094533
But I mean, isn't that the same with an Aristotle and many other thinkers?

>>16094589
I dunno this seems totally averse to any real Plato to me, I cannot imagine his Sophists or Parmenides being merely exploring daydreams. Rather it seems whatever value this statement has of his, is more from the perspective of a floating daydream.

And yes, the thread is back, yippy.

t. Op

A bump for me Mr. ice scream man.

bump.

Cicero
Plutarch
Plotinus
Pseudo-Dionysius
Damascius apparently wrote something like Arabian Nights but for Greek/near Eastern myths and stories, was apparently "surprisingly" well written according to Photius, but since it was pagan he didn't bother preserving it.
It's even possible the Persian Night which Arabian Nights was based on was originally translated from Greek to Persian which explains why the Persian is quite 'meh'. Just a speculation... Damascius did live in Persia for three years and then Syria.

>>16095251
Probably, we don't know since we have lost all of his dialogues apart from some exercpts, so we cannot study them with stylometric analysis.
His treatises were certainly edited, since they were just lecture notes used for both studying and lecturing concerns.
By the time Rome became a major political player, we got to an editorial standard similar to the modern one: books were meant to be published and distributed "internationally", so they had to be complete by their first draft. Plato's editorial method works only when you personally know most of your audience+most of the philosophical academic community, unfortunately. The more you expand the circle, the less room for revision you get

>>16095922
But even apart from what we don't have of Aristotle, he start writing not that long after Plato. One would think, considering what we do know of his main method of works, that he didn't write in the same way as described in the Op like Plato. His intentions seem different, after all when he was a scientist he had the empirical concerns of reporting animals and plants as they are.

>>16095953
The report we have of his dialogues picture them as poetically and rethorically effective As Plato's ones (for one, Cicero liked them more than the latters).

>>16094589
>this man is responsible for all our problems
Humanists everyone.

>>16089710
Nietzsche actually explained the point of Plato's dialogue format and I agree with his assessment. Plato wrote in dialogues because he was writing a manual for future philosophers to refer to, because dialogues are easier to remember and quote. His work is a political mission and he was interested in recruiting agents for establishing his political proposal. Nietzsche follows suit with Zarathustra with the same purpose. You could argue that Plato is the more original of the two, but at least Nietzsche understood that about Plato, and few could say the same.

>>16089063
different skill bub, mysticism doesn't work like that
https://seanald.ca/platos-allegory/

>>16096026
Hmm, but considering how Aristotle views truth being expressed in his other works it seems to me he wouldn't conduct the dialogues in such the same way as Plato. As beautiful they may be. But then again he knew Plato so it's likely he did know its truths and tried to imitate it himself. So I'll agree with you on this one. But maybe he disagreed with Plato in its uses, were they intimate enough to know every thought of the other?

>>16096209
Yes that's quite a genius observation by Nietzsche, but not something that many who have pried into Plato did not know. Yet if that is the extent of which Nietzsche spoke of the purpose of Plato's use of the dialogue, then I must say he misses the complexity's which that memorability, and "living" existence which the dialogue has into itself.

>>16096209
>Plato wrote in dialogues because he was writing a manual for future philosophers to refer to, because dialogues are easier to remember and quote.
kek what a retard.

>>16089449
>Considering that Plato was one of the first people to actually *write anything*
Are you actually a retard? The earliest known author of literature existed over 1500 years before Plato.

>>16089556
disregard the autism in Ion - the two terms are not mutually exclusive. why should philosophy not also be the voice of the Gods, spoken through men who function as empty vessels?

>>16090616
Apología Sokrátous

>>16096492
You don't know what he means.

>>16096359
>he misses the complexity's which that memorability, and "living" existence which the dialogue has into itself.
He didn't miss it, that's precisely what informed him of Plato's intention with the format. Dialogues have a "living" quality which makes them easier to draw from memory in live political argument. The point is to equip readers with arguments so that they can take action in the world. Neither Plato nor Nietzsche are interested in remaining in the literary realm.

>>16096998
But anon, Plato describes the point of writing with the dialogue in it being a living thing, and not just being easy at hand, but having a living knowledge in itself which is passed onto us. But the dialogue never ceases to have these complexities and inter-relations. Such as the many casings over of Parmenides. One is still meant to refer to the work. And Plato obviously wasn't writing dialogues just for future practical affects, as we know contemplation of the Good, of the One, of God, brings us closer to him; Wisdom brings us closer to him-- according to Plato. That is a chief asceticism which sets Plato apart from Nietzsche, among other things. And I believe Nietzsche himself didn't just write Zarathustra for political or reasons of ease, but that this is a short-sighting of its real value, that of being and encompassing that, among other things.

>>16089063
Go back to bed, pirsig

>>16097089
i only read the first half of Zarathustra but comparing this with Plato´s dialogue is like comparing beer with the finest wine, i don´t like how preachy Zarathustra is, it´s like the equivalent of someone saying looking at me fools i´m better than you and here´s why, there´s this kind of lack of subtletly in the way Niestzche narrates, until i saw this thread i would never compared Zarathustra with Plato´s dialogue because for me altought the intent is there, they´re nothing alike and feels like an inferior piece

>>16097089
This is all true and still compatible with Nietzsche's evaluation that the purpose of conveying himself in this format is to arm the readers in the process so that they can win debates in the real world and achieve political success in the name of these individuals' political proposals.

There's no question about how political Plato or Nietzsche are and how interested they were in political reform. While there is also philosophy being conveyed in both Plato's dialogues and Zarathustra's dialogues, the format as dialogue is extremely useful in turning their positions into highly quotable and highly referable weapons of argumentation and Nietzsche's point is that Plato was well aware of this when he chose the format (and in turn, Nietzsche is telling us that he, like Plato, is also interested in political reform, just as much as he is interested in conveying his philosophy).

>>16096998
what does he mean then?

>>16096998
>art is supposed to have an effect
Woah.

>>16097252
>extremely useful in turning their positions into highly quotable and highly referable weapons

Read more Medieval Philosophy if you want good prose. St. Bernard of Clairveux and especially St. Hildegard von Bingen are really entertaining to read even if Bernard isn't writing about anything particularly new. Hildegard is super based though, if not a little crazy.

>>16089544
lol my first reaction but search for the phaedrus thread in the archive it’s entertaining and interesting

>>16097654
What are you even trying to say? There's nothing remotely liberal about what's being said.

>>16097174
I'm not sure if I would cal Zarathustra an inferior piece, because I believe it does have something of a more typically poetic value to it; obviously. But that's why I said "Nietzsche barely does it" in the Op, because he doesn't arrive at the same complexity in the Zarathustra's method as in Plato's dialogues.

>>16097252
>This is all true and still compatible with Nietzsche's evaluation that the purpose of conveying himself in this format is to arm the readers in the process so that they can win debates in the real world and achieve political success in the name of these individuals' political proposals.
Yes, I agree Plato was likely very aware of its practical uses too. And he comes to such a conclusion in the Phaedrus as well, I believe when he starts talking about how normal treatise allow one to feign knowledge without actually having it. But of course, he says so much more, and I don't even think that ease is the centre of the reasons of that dialogue because as I said, the complexities in the dialogue could not be put into another structure.

I would also say that I believe Nietzsche liked Plato more than he let on, though I have not read Nietzsche so I can't say much on that. What do you think?

>>16097695
What about Aquinas or Eriugena, and Boethius? How are their prose? I would like to know.

>>16097940
I disagree with your post that caused the anon to post the soifaces, but that's a good response identifying his critique with a critiquing of some liberalness. But of course, it's not a refutation if the anon thought about it a bit and provided a fitting reply. Not a total assblasting that is.

>>16098039
>I would also say that I believe Nietzsche liked Plato more than he let on, though I have not read Nietzsche so I can't say much on that. What do you think?
Sure. Nietzsche disagreed with Plato philosophically, but politically speaking they are very similar and Nietzsche learned a lot from Plato on this.

>>16098332
Did you happen to see the anon that said exactly this? Or was that you? That Nietzsche agreed with Plato politically but everything else less so or not at all.

>>16090034
>Hegel was thought to be a great philosopher - till he was understood!

>Then you go to the great philosophers - Hegel.... - they prove that they are very wise.

Is this a meta-joke about Hegel or something?

>>16089063

There are.

But you're using a term ("philosopher") that has been co-opted by the white man to mean logic and syllogism.

Look outside those white evil lies and you'll see plenty of poetical philosophers.

>>16090015
i feel this is getting into some continential wishy wash. Hegel is just dense and awkward. i can appreciate Buhda or Tzu, but i never really found much depth in their application. as if they talked in poetry rather than trying to make a system that is well thought out. when i come to a hard or complicated problem, i usually defer to the thoughts of Hegel, even if the words of Jesus or whoever is more pristine and beautiful.

>>16098659
I don't mean a poet like Rumi anon, and you don't seem to understand what I mean by the complexities of the dialogue. Read Plato's Phaedrus.

>>16089063
Because those who would just become artists instead. This is like asking why mathematicians aren't really philosophers anymore, or at least why they don't share a department. The curriculum has simply inflated.

>>16099520
Are you implying Plato would have just become an artist instead?

>>16099532
No, on the contrary I bet he'd be less of one in the modern day in order to be more exclusively a philosopher.

WVO Quine

>>16099537
But now you're just completely ignoring my alternatives which encompass this in the Op.

>>16099561
What's this?

>>16099894
>But now you're just completely ignoring my alternatives
Yeah? Alternative people are alternative.

>Quine
He has some good visualizations of concepts.

>>16100245
>Yeah? Alternative people are alternative.
Anon...

>He has some good visualizations of concepts.
Like what relating to the topic?

Fag thread.

>>16100916
Fuck you foggot!

>>16100916
go back

>>16090015
A religious devotion to denying getting filtered...

>>16090839
>reading the fanfic before the original

Really? Only one mention of Aquinas?

>>16101615
Ahh, Aquinas spoke of the mythical city on the hill. I should have know, but somehow I think the Aristotlean influence made him a more direct communicator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feY5KhdXsUQ

>>16098417
I think he is making a point about the greats are only considered so great because of the pretense of wisdom they present forth, anon.

>>16090111
Are you gonna cry, Hegelfag?

>>16101859
I'm a Christian.

bumping.

>>16098058
Medieval philosophy is not known for its readable prose. In fact, it was neglected for so long after the medieval times because it's fairly unreadable. Aquinas isn't bad as far as the monks go. Eriugena is always weaving contradiction back into his writing, which makes it a little complicated and even nonsensical at times. Boethius is harder than his reputation would indicate, for me anyways. Not the original anon, and also definitely not an expert. I've barely read Eriugena.

>>16090015
>The whole trick is that you cannot understand him, that's why you feel he is so great.
BASED. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

>>16101445
Explain the gist of Hegel's philosophy.
>Nooo, you can't explain Hegel in a couple of sentences! He's too complex for that!
Then it's meaningless garbage.

>>16096351
The dialogues WERE Aristotle's works. The treatise we read nowadays are mostly lecture notes compiled by his most promising students.

>>16102503
this is very common cope I appreciate it you are not supposed to read anyway

>>16097174
I wrote something that is far too long so let me try again.

"Concerning poor style: This becomes most apparent in moral contexts, such as when a bad writer tries to justify the shooting of hostages. That is far worse—far more flagrant—than any mere aesthetic offense.
Style is essentially based on justice. Only the just man can know how he must weigh each word, each sentence. For this reason, we never see the best writers serving a bad cause."
- Junger

I think your remarks on style are more important than people realise. Nietzsche's own analysis of Wagner arises almost entirely from a point of emotional reaction. And while it may be extreme to make such a comparison - the standard reading certainly does not support this and I would need a lot more space to argue it fully - there is an element in Nietzsche's aesthetics that are equivalent to Malevich's pure feeling. The total horizon of art which in Bataille becomes nothing more than the sacrificial act, the will towards the impossible. This is useful in situating Nietzsche within the history of aesthetics, and amidst the death of romanticism. Here he appears closer to the moderns, and even Kant, than to the Greeks.

Nietzsche had a poor sense of justice, one may even say that he stood completely in opposition to it. Comparisons to Callicles and Thrasymachus are good enough for a basic understanding, but it is worth noting his dismissal of the masses, the will to have them carried off by the devil or statistics. A man equal to the processes of democratisation and centralisation which mark every moment of the modern era. And in this same writing on History his introductory remarks ruthlessly attack the historicised man incapable of action, and then in the very next paragraph he descends into individualist phantasiespiel and a repressive defense. This suggests not only a lack of a sense of justice, but also an inability to control himself, much like his weakness before drink.

>>16103554
2
Plato holds an opposite character. He is happy to be an entirely willless figure, to give over to his opponents the central column of Greek philosophy to which he will only decorate with paint or weave with ribbons. This is a true understanding of art, it is an antiphon quality that runs through the history of Greek art like the chasm which gave birth to the universe. Nietzsche had no interest in antiphone qualities, such weakness would prevent him from becoming an idol. He despised opera, and yet if there was an antiphone quality in his work it was that idyllic voice. This is only hidden beneath a machinic brutality, a dying romanticism, and it becomes difficult to tell whether his brief appearance held the character of an Echo or an Orestes.

Hesiod and Homer are equal in their willless sacrifice to the antiphone, all of their poetry is nothing more than a gift of the Muses. This means of art is so significant to the Greeks that it becomes a ritual: the song of the strophe and antistrophe, an echo from east to west and back, formed of the world ocean and its pillars. Again, an autochtonous quality rising from the earth as a chasm.

This is difficult for us to imagine, our understanding of art is almost completely determined by the technical aspects. But setting this aside for a moment, one might contrast a work of Bach to the great waltzes of Brahms: one overwhelms us with a world of contemplation, the other the compulsion towards the most intricate dances. Even in technical art there remains a relation to the infinite and the numinous, so our questioning should not lead down the predetermined path in which the technical appears as the catalyst for the destruction of art. Doing so would also be a historical reading, confined to nothing more than reaction.

Instead, one should be reminded that art is itself a means, the relation of being to the greatest forces. Technical and irrational art, the realist and the dynamic, are equal in their potential for ascent or decline, how they force us to relate to the highest or the lowest. Instead, as Junger suggests, our movement towards the numinous or the mundane is determined as in the forces of gravity. One must weigh every decision against the mass and its relation to the territory: a monument must not be merely beautiful, its placement also has to guide citizens as if they had entered a portal. The Janus figure so central to the Romans. Otherwise, one may understand this in the sense of Zeno's paradoxes: perfect art apprehends us, forces us into another world where movement is absolute yet petrified. The Gorgon Pediment, Laocoon and his Sons, The Battle of Anghiari.

>>16103561
3
The tragic exists in historical time, a subversion of the laws of movement in which the audience is petrified within a collective memory. The Muses cannot be understood on their own, theatrocracy leads to a division of the Muses as in that of a division of powers - and then the descent into monotheistic worship of a symbolic god. They are born of memory but through their songs intend to return us to time. Set against the Hours we may understand them as though equivalent in force to the opposition of Epimetheus and Prometheus. Memory and forgetting are only a means to a greater relation with time.

Song, occasion, and memory, the forces which run through all great forms of art: the festival, the military parade, the mystery, and the prophetic rite. Each has a specific relation to time, the collision of worlds, a portal-like character of call and return necessary to prevent becoming lost in unfamiliar and dangerous territory. The antiphon of dominion. Art cannot be of a single direction, simple forgetting and return to the moment, this is where we see the technical means of the modern era applied through the irrational. It is equally the forgetting of the moment, and abandonment of the world as need arises.

We no longer have festivals, nonetheless a quality of the ancient antiphons can be sensed in folk songs - which may also explain why its songs have endured where classical music could not, despite its greater material force. This is particularly striking when the antiphon is set as a refrain or in rounding. In the song "Hilla Lilla" there are two lines repeated throughout:
"...
Ingen vet min sorg utan Gud
...
Den lever aldrig till som jag kan klaga mina sorger"
("...
No one knows my sorrow but God"
...
"He who could share my pain is gone")

>>16103565
4
These lines form a column of time through the song, and as it progresses there is an opposite effect to that of the story which merely unfolds. Instead, all other lines of the story appear as if being stripped away, revealing the full force of the repeated lines. With each repetition the pain deepens like a scar upon time. And then the refrain disappears for a single moment, in the climax the antiphon is repeated, only with completely other words. Here we sense the column forcing itself into being, fate rising as if the mark which gives every moment its intimate character. Turning as if its own rotational axis against the world and time. This is the deep law within art, the "Cyclopean portal" through which we wander through new worlds.

Another example appears in the work song, the sea shanty "Roll the Old Chariot". In it we sense the martial quality of work, the beauty of repeated rhythms which drive us to exhaustion and then carry us on through an overcoming of the will. Again, one is driven on, carried forth by the forces of fate. And in Veljo Tormis, "Käsikivimäng", the grinding mills of heaven which wear upon the heart and drive humanity onwards into the force of worked iron. The peasant works remind us that the highest is of a wellspring, and like the distinction of the rational and irrational there is no certainty in which type will carry us towards the numinous. Often enough, the greatest works are of the peasantry, the simple relation to nature, to the earth forces, apprehends its qualities and releases them without the overwrought techniques of the overly civilised and domesticated. Nietzsche contra the Shield of Achilles.

Simplicity has a wonderful genealogy in the myths, in heroism and even the simple cursed figure who transcends both tragedy and the catastrophic. Arachne, Narcissus, Actaeon, figures equal to the gods in their relation to the laws of dominion. In Ovid we feel the overwhelming power of this simplicity, a force entirely lost to the moderns. In comparison, Nietzsche's overwrought and unromantic individual is forged of an iron realm unworthy of even Hephaestus, despite his protests he is a machined being paralyzed by his fear of death and equal to a transitional territory which would inspire Achilles' gratitude for the underworld.

In Orff's "Catulli Carmina" a reminder that the numinous resides even within the most mundane. "Tu es Venus, Tu es Venus, Tu es Venus. Venus es!" Even the stomping of the Cyclops may return us to happiness. The law of Meno's Slave also applies to art.

>>16103571
5
Plato's method encapsulates all of the force of the antiphon. In short, the return to Cronus, the Golden Age so reviled by Nietzsche and the moderns. Even after Holderlin the relation to the Titans cannot be understood, there remains a great fear of the primordial ages, even for the godless. What is interesting in our modern works is the repetitive and derivative quality, and yet the technicity demands to be recognised as totally unique, individual, freed completely from the willless quality of the antiphon. Plato's method is similarly technical, but of a completely other type, one as foreign to us as the works of Holderlin or Pindar. Even those who worship the gods fear the Titans, and this may be the source of Plato's greatest work - a turning of that which paralyzes us before the force of evil into a good. This is of an anti-Christian character that Nietzsche could never even approach.

If Socrates and Plato were of a greater technical school than Daedalus then we must imagine what cult they were a part of, and the mysteries of which they held sovereignty over the labyrinth. The Cyclopes would be a certainty, and a cult which, if named, would certainly contribute to calls for capital punishment. Hephaestus certainly, and Ares. Cronus, and perhaps Menoetius. Dike and Themis without question. Any knowledge of the cults and mysteries are lost to us, but the legend of Archimedes is revealing:

"Marcellus, however, got away; and, mocking the technicians and mechanics with him, he said, “Shall we not cease making war upon this geometrical Briareus, who uses our ships as ladles in respect to the sea but has beaten and driven off our harpists in disgrace and, casting many missiles against us all at once, outdoes the hundred-handed monsters of mythology."

The war of the physical world against the formal, even the Sub specie aeternitatis may be overwhelmed by many hands. And in the civil war between the technical and the sensual we are reminded of that which is of a greater force than any art. After the death of the artistic form there can be nothing other than return to the highest, or an endless dance with the deathless - the figure of time which exists as a chasm for modernity, and to which the technical only appears as a revealing figure.

https://youtu.be/lS12KiVV32Q
https://youtu.be/49FWp7WLYKw
https://youtu.be/LlWtt06mmC4

bump

>>16089063
Plato was a poet, before an old nigger corrapt him. Others just not.

>>16102362
Thanks anon, that helped.

>>16102932
I had thought hat he wrote a few dialogues in Plato's style, but they weren't his main method.

bump

>>16105613
They were unfortunately his main method. I say "unfortunately" because that's the only reason for which we have lost them: they were so commonly printed and so widely read that Andronicus of Rhodes (the guy who basically saved the part of the corpus we know of) didn't think they required his own effort for preserving them.

>>16089754
Strange thread.

>>16107325
>They were unfortunately his main method. I say "unfortunately" because that's the only reason for which we have lost them: they were so commonly printed and so widely read that Andronicus of Rhodes (the guy who basically saved the part of the corpus we know of) didn't think they required his own effort for preserving them.
Oh fuck man that's tragic.

>>16108751
Indeed.

>>16102362
>>16098058
I've never read Eriugena, unfortunately. Also not an expert like the first anon but I've read some Aquinas and Boethius.
Aquinas is very much a medieval scholastic. His writing has grown on me quite a bit, there's beauty and creative value within his work, regardless of how scholastic it is. The Summa can read like an FAQ at times with how dialectical it is but there's definitely a great writer in there within his biblical commentary (Augustine was better, though)
Boethius is a neat writer with unorthodox prose. It isn't that bad to me personally, but it's written in poems and then a following dialogue with 'Lady Philosophy' (which is a badass rhetorical device).
Anyway, Bernard of Clairveux deserves mention because his prose borders on excessive. Maybe I'm just a literary smoothbrain, but I have a much easier time with Scholastics and even Hildegard than I do with Bernard.
>For this hatred of body and soul is not so much found in the form of a feeling; rather it is revealed by its effects. Thus the madman hates his body when he lays hands on himself when his powers of rational thought are asleep. But is any madness worse than impenitence of heart and an (Jbstinate will to sin? If a man lays wicked hands on himself it is not his flesh but his mind that he tears and damages (Jb 13:14). If you have seen a man tearing at his hands and rubbing them together until they bleed, you have a clear image in him of the sinner's soul. Pleasure turns to pain and agony follows itching. While the man was scratching he ignored the consequences although he knew what would happen. In the same way we have lacerated ourselves and given ourselves ulcers on our unhappy souls with our own hands -- except that in a spiritual creature it is more serious because its nature is finer and so more difficult to mend. We have not done it in a spirit of enmity, but in a stupor of inner insensibility. The absent mind does not notice the internal damage, for it is not looking inward, but perhaps coneentrating on its stomach -- or beneath the stomach. The minds of some men are on their plates, (7) of others in their pockets. "Where your treasure is," he says, "there is your heart" (Mt 6:21). Is it surprising if a soul does not feel its wound when it is not noticing what is happening to it, and is somewhere else far away (Lk 15: 13, 17)? The time will come when it will return to itself and realize how cruelly it has eviscerated itself in its wretched pursuit. For it could not feel that while it was like a filthy spider weaving a web out of its own body with insatiable greed to catch its vile booty of flies.

>>16089063
Proust’s In Search of Lost Time is argued by many credible authorities, including Nabokov, to be a work of philosophy more so than fiction, so perhaps Proust would be interesting for you if I understand you correctly

>>16109441
Wow many I really enjoyed that. Did Bernard write that?

>>16089063
It is philosophy not sophistry you retard

>>16109479
I don't believe you do, but you are onto something no doubt. I will read Proust; but refer to this thread to get a better idea on what I'm talking about >>16089754

>>16109441
should clarify this excerpt is from Bernard's sermon On Conversion. The sinner who hates his soul (Ephesians 5:29) similarly hates his body. This translation is a little more tame but there's another one where that last part is written as a "Spider weaving a web out of its own viscera"

>>16109491
Are you implying Plato was a sophist, or did you overlook my mention of him in the Op?

>>16109488
Yeah, he did.
>>16109500

>>16109500
>"Spider weaving a web out of its own viscera"
That's a highly based expression, man this guy is great how could you not like him? And that's even better than the milder translation. Maybe it's just me having not read any medieval theological works.

>>16109504
Plato literally was a sophist. He invented philosophy so that he could legitimize his words over others. This is why Nietzsche went coocoo over his philology knowledge.

>>16109536
>Plato literally was a sophist. He invented philosophy so that he could legitimize his words over others.
Please tell me you don't believe this.

>>16109524
He's great in small bites. It's just kind of exhausting when you're reading a sermon in its entirety, and every chapter is written like that. I imagine it'd be exhilarating to listen to, though.
That chapter has always stuck out to me specifically because of how unfathomably based it is, but there's plenty of awesome prose like that in all of his work. Check out Honey and Salt: Selected Spiritual Writings of St. Bernard. You've inspired me to give him another chance, I think reading him for leisure and not for a grade will probably make him more enjoyable.

>>16109591
>Check out Honey and Salt: Selected Spiritual Writings of St. Bernard.
Could you recommend the translation at all? And out of curiosity, where'd you get the two versions of the translation provided?

>You've inspired me to give him another chance, I think reading him for leisure and not for a grade will probably make him more enjoyable.
Yeah and you me, I really want to read a lot of them now. But eh I still gotta finish the Greeks(and yes I took the meme seriously).

>>16109656
The translation is Honey and Salt.
https://www.amazon.com/Honey-Salt-Selected-Spiritual-Clairvaux/dp/0375725652
>I still gotta finish the Greeks
I'd also recommend reading some Aquinas and Augustine first/have some theology under your belt

>>16109687
>The translation is Honey and Salt.
Wait Honey and Salt has the two translations?

>I'd also recommend reading some Aquinas and Augustine first/have some theology under your belt
Nah fren, I got the Greeks and the Bible the focus for now. And I wouldn't want to bring in the medievals without first really digging into Aristotle, where I have already built up quite a tectonic structure for understanding Plato and the presocratics and the great Greek poets.

But thanks for the help man.

>>16109698
Honey and Salt is only the second translation, sorry. I pulled the first one off of Google from Columbia University's website. I didn't feel like typing all that out so I used whatever translation I could find on the internet, but the one in Honey and Salt is definitely better.

>>16109776
>I didn't feel like typing all that out so I used whatever translation I could find on the internet, but the one in Honey and Salt is definitely better.
No probs, and I see then I'll definitely buy it to read within the next year or two anon, sometime soon hopefully. You've been more help than you could know, thank you anon!

>>16109543
What does it matter what I believe? Science 'knows'

>>16109795
>Science "knows"
You do know that Heidegger said "Science cannot think" don't you?

>>16110699
>Heidegger
Pseud alert.

>>16110721
>Heidegger is a pseud
Who do you propose in contrast?

>>16110727
>that pic
Amerimutts are so fucking ugly...

>>16110727

>>16110729
irk pale, boney and whatever that face is, yikes

>>16110729
Please don't insult based reviewbrah.

>>16110736
>youtuber
Hopefully he hangs himself as do you.

>>16110733
Constipated self-masturbatory sexually shameful sublimators of decadence and more a lack-of, than any real intelligence present. I'm going to Japan and going to enjoy their culture.

>>16110699
but alas rhetoric is lost in text

>>16110741
>all youtubers are bad

>>16089696
>Homer
>writer
Ever heard of the passage from oral to written tradition, and the Homeric question?

>>16089959
That is not the case. Read more books.

>>16110842
He's essentially a writer anon, you think everything not everyday was purely Oral at Homer's time?

>>16110789
>hes in his 20 and still watches ecelebs
You are nothing more than a glorified zoomer. Kill yourself.

>>16110789
>i CANt wait to watch the new youtube video that the person i heckin subscribed to comes out!
>thumps up !!

>>16089063
>Nietzsche barely does
He literally wrote a more autistic version of Aesop's fables to explain his thoughts

Why would you make your philosophy laden with poetry when all it serves to do is obfuscate your point? That's what I'd like to know.

>>16110923
>I'm looking forward to watching some content
Yes.

>>16111012
>implying I said Plato "ladened" his philosophy with lyrical poetry

>>16110905
>in my twenties
Bro I AM a zoomer.

>>16096209
>>16096492
I am like the midwife, in that I cannot myself give birth to wisdom. The common reproach is true, that, though I question others, I can myself bring nothing to light because there is no wisdom in me...Of myself I have no sort of wisdom, nor has any discovery ever been born to me as the child of my soul. Those who frequent my company at first appear, some of them, quite unintelligent, but, as we go further with our discussions, [some] make progress at a rate that seems surprising to others as well as to themselves, although it is clear that they have never learned anything from me. The many admirable truths which they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within...
(Theaetetus)
BTFO in 2 ways

>>16096492
>I am like the midwife, in that I cannot myself give birth to wisdom. The common reproach is true, that, though I question others, I can myself bring nothing to light because there is no wisdom in me...Of myself I have no sort of wisdom, nor has any discovery ever been born to me as the child of my soul. Those who frequent my company at first appear, some of them, quite unintelligent, but, as we go further with our discussions, [some] make progress at a rate that seems surprising to others as well as to themselves, although it is clear that they have never learned anything from me. The many admirable truths which they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within...
(Theaetetus)
BTFO in 2 ways

>>16111299
Was Nietzsche an American?

>>16111299
>>16096209
You guys should have read this >>16103561
I gave you the answer.

>Plato holds an opposite character. He is happy to be an entirely willless figure, to give over to his opponents the central column of Greek philosophy to which he will only decorate with paint or weave with ribbons. This is a true understanding of art, it is an antiphon quality that runs through the history of Greek art like the chasm which gave birth to the universe.

But I'll try and explain this better.

Plato's method is rather something of a reverse of the dialectic as we understand it, he does not intend to represent or repeat, nor even perfect his own ideas within the political arens, as if this were an individualist philosophy. His intention is to recreate the very form of the Greek understanding of eternal ideas through the conflict of Socrates and the other philosophers. This is the form of the dialectic, those who take part are not the subjects, they are simply wanderers attempting to catch a glimpse of the eternal laws which give rise to the forms. He often writes himself, or Socrates, out of the picture as in the Diotima lines or the famous "All I know is that I know nothing." This is Socratic humility, which may be set against Kantian humility.

In relation to ritual art, it is the weaving of ribbons around the maypole which gives it a natural sense of life and movement, the winding wheel of fate which downcasts even the strongest and grinds them into that which is greater than death. This is not a matter of revealing, which is difficult for us moderns to understand, but of apprehending, of transition to another world.

Or in other words, if we must understand the method in political terms then the Form is equal to that of the pomerium: the territory in which divine law rules, the autochthonous boundaries of the original city against the territory which it merely gains and holds. This boundary must be understood as the upholding of the city's oath: in the case of Rome the warring of brothers raised by wolves, and in Athens the accepting of Athena's gift of an olive tree rather than Poseidon's horses. All of the events of a city's history unfold as if by this law of fate, there is a certainty of movement and beauty which increases the sense that the city is in keeping with eternal laws, what will persist beyond any era. In other words, the laws are in keeping with time and even though separate from nature the city appears as if formed by its laws. It is no mistake that both Rome and Athens fall in a manner completely in keeping with their founding oath, as if it had been torn out from the stones beneath.

>>16112123
2
This can also be understood from the other pole. Our sense of placelessness is due to a refusal of eternal laws, in effect the society of nations at the center of modern law is nothing more than the rule of the dead territory outside of the pomerium. This accounts for the endless two-front civil war that occurs in a manner completely opposite to that of the Romans - both against the state of nature and any formation of centralised cities or states. The great paradox is that such a law forces a movement ever outward into nature, destroying it and founding new cities which are themselves prone to centralisation. Where any of these cities have a unique character it is much more general, an oath to the human rather than an oath to a god: the city of love, the city of dreams, the eternal city, sin city. As Tocqueville says, neighbouring towns in the middle ages were distinguished from each other more than entire continents today.

Plato's dialectical method is the same. He is not merely representing good dialogues between people for future use, rather he outlines from the very beginning what the discussion sets before itself as its intended path, and with each step never falls away from this. This is often outlined by Socrates or one of the other characters, and wherever there is a falling away from the central form of the dialogue one of them always initiates a return. It is essentially an oath to the form, and all of the logical steps taken exist as in the architecture of the city: prominent and then falling away as we move through it.

This is perhaps why a dialogue like Euthyphro is so confusing, it is like the opposite of a revealing. All of the contradictions set before us of how we relate to the gods and how they relate to one another seem fruitless, and then we are reminded that the decision will be made without us. The triumph of the law is its rule over mortals and immortals, the law proscribes itself, that is the essence of justice.

>>16112128
3
"Law, the king of all, of mortals and immortals,
guides them as it justifies the utmost violence
with a sovereign hand."

Plato's conclusion is equal to Pindars, the falling away of all that is built up is to ensure that we are apprehended by the form itself, not any of its instances or the false representations outside of it. This is the entire purpose of Platonic irony, and it works quite opposite of how we think of irony in our time. What Plato is doing is essentially preserving the laws of the gods, or at least attempting to, for a citizenry lost to its language. This is akin to learning a new formal language, the language of myth and other worlds, which is much more difficult than simply learning a representative language. Words have much greater meaning and imaginative sense than mere symbolic representation, simply learning the basics of a language does not amount to the period of initiation required to be accepted into a culture.

It is in this sense that we may begin to see the decline of intellectualism. Even where great topics are discussed they rarely have force behind them, this is because they are most often mere symbolic representations or technical associations. It is the thinking of someone who knows the basics of a language, or one who is only concerned with mobilising the world of form and sense for a technical purpose. Academics become mere workers and as time goes on they can hardly be distinguished from data miers or cryptographers. There is no gravity to the ideas because there is no central oath, no eternal form to which each sentence is weighted as a means of return.

This is where Nietzsche is interesting, as he is an entirely historicized being. Even though he can sense the power of historicization he cannot resist it, thus his own methods are determined by it and he must read Plato as if he were equal to the same process. For Nietzsche there is no eternal truth, and in many cases he fights against any hope such ideas, he wants to destroy every idol to ensure that there is no eternity hiding within its center. Against death he imagines a complete triumph over fate, a great contradiction in which he is equal to his enemy Kant. In this we see a form equal to that of the dead territory of exile from the pomerium, the democratised center at the heart of the society of nations. What we learn from Nietzsche is almost entirely due to his being equal to the society he struggled against, a completely fruitless sacrifice.

>>16112137
4
This perhaps leads to the confusion that Nietzsche was a nihilist, the endless attack of anything, the war which 'leaves him standing alone.' The attack which only becomes ever more fruitless and can only be backed up by the iron political romanticism of an imagined sacrifice. This is the source of what appears as something far worse than moralism, he held a machine quality of destruction which upon realising its fruitless effort may only search out more destruction. This is, paradoxically, the line upon which all modern political philosophies meet: the destructive quality to which the only sense of an eternity is further destruction. Nietzsche was as far from realising an answer to the problem of nihilism as the socialists were to resolving economic contradictions, or fascists founding a state in the image of the original man. There are no answers because these are impossibilities, paradoxes in the opposite sense of the Platonic. The more that is built up through the destructive process the more the sense of destruction must replace any sense of the eternal - becoming itself the form. The Nietzschean is a type of Kantian under unfavourable conditions; a Kantian made sick.

In the end Nietzsche's dialectic is the unfolding irony of his becoming the sacrifice of democratising law, just as Socrates had made an oath to the law of Ahens. Nietzsche simply did not know the laws to which he had made his oath. At his death, "I owe Dionysus nothing."

>>16089980
He's a psychologist.

>>16097654
Kek, also bump.

>>16098417
Small brain

>>16103554
Faggot. You sound like the photography professor from life is strange, I bet you're bad at calculus.

>>16112148
I forgot about this part, but perhaps it can act like something of a summary, and a possible beginning of answers.

Nietzsche imagines "Carthago delenda est" as an inevitable triumph, and beyond a technical analysis of all the destruction he wishes only to build atop the ruins with further pronouncements of delenda est. His dialectical will is that of the armed idealist built up into barbaric pantheism. Whereas Plato continues to see both "Carthago delenda est" and "Carthago servanda est" even after the defeat, and often has Socrates defend the weaker side. He imagines Carthage as the mirror of Rome, and war as the possibility of the betrayal of the oath of each city. Power is nothing more than a measure of justice, and overstretching threatens the very law of the homeland: if the pomerium is extended it either is weakened or must be applied to a territory which may hold greater autochtonous laws. This is also the law of Diomedes, where man overstretches his power into the heavens he threatens the kingdom of the gods and something far worse than their wrath. However, only the gods seem to be aware of the possibility of their death, and seem terrified that they have unleashed a force within man that threatens their power.

Carl Schmitt gives an account of a Serbian epic in which the hero kills a great Turk warrior. After the battle a serpent appears from within the corpse and tells the hero, 'You were lucky that I slept through the battle.' To which the hero cries out 'Woe is me! I killed a man who is stronger than me!' The modern sense of war cannot hold such sentiments, and it is in the same way that Nietzsche relates to the Death of God. His decision is to destroy all memory of the gods and their idols, and to imagine this figure of man as more powerful than anything it has ever killed.

What Plato saw in the gods was how they had defeated stronger enemies than themselves through a cleverness. In the period after the betrayal of its oath, Athens began to worship historicised gods, the myths lost their imaginative power and the Olympians no longer feared the power of men. An idyllic end to the myths, a slave morality quite opposed to that of the Christian type. Plato imagined instead a reconciliation of the gods, a return to the old order. His cleverness unfolded as a reversal of that type which led to the downfall of the titans and then the gods themselves.

>>16113468
Rather than revelling in the impossible this is the type of cleverness that we need. Such a position requires, before anything else, an acknowledgement that the attempt to decisively move towards the good is not wrong simply because of a history of failures. This thinking is so common that a type of Kantian sickness has developed in which ideas themselves take on the weight of the categorical imperative. At the same time a hardness cannot oppose a hardness, the Kantian ethic was a type of moral death and rebirth for the technical imagination. We must once again imagine what it is that the will contends with, not only desires and instincts but the very dominion from which they rise.

For Schmitt this is the spirit that struggles with spirit and life that struggles with life, the rising along with the Ab integro nascitur ordo. We should now imagine incredible opportunity, even if the current situation appears as a horrifying end of everything we know. The anti-pomerium that characterises the modern age is coming to an end, and where the Western World falls to a two front war - defeat before its external and internal enemies - we see the strength of fate in that which deserved to die. Nothing survives death but the downcast of laws. This is precisely what we are witnessing, the return of a nomos equal to the chasm of the West's founding. We must view this grim picture as that of entire continents full of cities giving way to the betrayal of their oath, but along with this the potential for new centers and borders of divine law - the inevitable return of the pomerium.

All great writing will deal with this new order, and in this we must imagine the return of the gods and the form of law which proscribes itself beneath this new territory.

>>16113314
>playing video games
>playing video games for teenage girls
>basing your understanding of the world on video games for teenage girls
Is this really the average anon?

>>16089554
This.