/lit/ - Literature

>>16428854
See the light.

>>16428861

>>16428854
What's his argument? Can you summarize it?

>>16428854
>reading some homo american

>>16428869
that dude was obviously semi-ironic. i'm not going to look up some "autistic zoomer"-chart, but i'll let you know that you failed. and i'm so disappointed.

>Might is right
>but technology is bad because it's too powerful
>but globalism is bad because it's too powerful
>Jew's are bad because they have too much power

>>16428894
>taking stuff said from different groups and throwing them all together
Bravo

>>16428854
Le Nazis be like "might is right!" and then lose the only war they ever fought.

>>16428925
>said from different groups
anon..

>>16428894
>Jean-Paul Sartre

>>16428930
Hitler was consistently committed to it, by the end of the war he thought that Russians were superior to Germans

>>16428944
Source?

>>16428944
Sadly that trend ended with him.

>>16428930
It's always the most impotent people who fetishize power and strength

>>16428930
Not a Nazi but they had to fight against the whole world. And even after that the whole world had to come together, even enemies, to punish them in the first international court in history, just made for the Nazis.
https://youtu.be/uXdtafGdIVM

>>16428894
Because technology, the jews, and globalism are the result of scheming, treachery and backhandedness, not sword and axe killing on the battlefield

>>16428950
Can't find it now, but I remember having read it in one of Speer's recollections of late Hitler

>>16428963
Yes? Still lost and got fucked. Strategic inferiority has it's downsides.

>>16428977
How are swords and axes not technology and scheming? Apes don't use swords, and they would destroy us in a fight

>>16428977
then kill them on the field, what's the problem

>>16428854
Someone posted the 'best part' and it was extreme cringe. Maybe even worse than BAP.

>>16428995
they would if they could
>>16428999
>dude just attack the ZOG globalist system with swords and axes
u retarded brah

>>16429019
>oh no i've been subjugated by a superior system
>but it's wrong im the more powerful one really
>they just play unfair

>>16428992
>got fucked
>few years later most blooming country in EU
Yeah, I don't think so

>>16429035
>repurposed by the globohomo into a useful part of the economy
say thank you

>>16429040
>muh joos
Literally can't explain a single thing without involving a certain tribe. Yeah sure, they are galaxy brains, they are the only people who can overcome the uncertainty of history and predict everything with 100% accuracy and at the same time work on all fronts of the world.

>>16429062
I actually wasn't invoking the joos anon. I think you spend too much time on the internet.

>>16428854
Dude, quit making these threads.

>>16428944
I sincerely doubt it just like how most of the things he "said" late in the war were total fabrications.
>>16428956
Those out of power crave to be in, of course.
>>16428963
>muh german stand alone against the world
You've never even looked into elementary the history of the Second World War. It was the entirety of Europe and most of Asia against America, Russia, and Africa. The "muh ubermensch german race took on the entire world" is such an offensive meme. Many of the people and resources of France, Spain(passively), Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Poland, Czechslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, Turkey(passively), and Japan which under it's own domain incorporated Manchuria, China, and Indonesia all stood with the Germans.
Also
>Not a Nazi
then you post >>16429035 this? You unveiled yourself retard.

>>16429090
>You unveiled yourself retard.
>takes a meme too seriously
It's about the post, not the image, retard

>posts neo-nazi propaganda that literally originated on stormfront
>dude im not a nazi
Ok, retard.

>thinks I even knew where it originated and didn't think it was just a ironic meme
Get fucked, retard.

>its just a joke bro!
Very sad, but to be expected.

>>16429016
Which best part?

>>16429104
>100 year old book originated on stormfront

>>16429145
he wasn't talking about the book

>>16428854
You can shid and fard and coom on the greeks all you want, but Plato BTFO this shit 2,000 years ago in the Gorgias (and again in the Republic). By posting this book, you have outed yourself as a pseud.

>>16428894
>Le epic leftist intellectual telling that everyone he doesnt like is simply afraid of change and their "instintcs" and "liberties", so in turn he can apply his own strict morals, sense of liberty and instincts that are strict and never meant to be challenged and changed.

Why didnt any neo-nazi at the time simply reply to him with the exact same quote? I swear to god that Sartre is literally the lowest of low of all french philosophers to ever spawn in the face of the earth.

>>16429232
We had this discussion here a million times, you just conclude the content by the title and haven't read it either. So YOU'RE the pseud.
You literally can't refute this, it just states things as they are in their core.

>>16429245
Excuse me for reading books every day and checking on /lit/ occasionally, instead of vice-versa.

>>16429254
What I mean is it is retarded to read the title "might is right" and then conclude
>eh there was a character in Gorgias who said the same thing, then came Socrates and BTFO's him in an dialogue that's purpose is that Socrates wins, so Redbeard BTFO'd 2000 years earlier amiright guys ;DD
The book is not just superficially about this sentence, it goes way deeper and puts it in an overall context.

>>16429287
But the idea is wrong independent of context. In the same way that no book will make 2 + 2 = 7 true, no book will make "justice is the advantage the strong take over the weak" true.

>>16429309
>justice is the advantage the strong take over the weak
But that's already reality. There is only one instance who says what justice is and that is the state. The state is strong, it has the monopoly on legitimate use of force and therefore can tell you what you have to do and what you're not allowed to do. People just forget that, they think of their neighbors but we're all in the same boat, we're all just slaves here with no power, so this comparison is a mere illusion.
Just think about that. When there is no state there is literally no right and wrong. Or to put it differently: you have an innate sense of right on wrong, for example that you love your family and want the best for them. That's because evolutionary it would make no sense to harm them because they would just reject or kill you. Than you're alone or dead. So you see the family as an extension of your own and treat them like that. But other than that there is only morals when a stonger entity forces you. You can either fight back and win/lose or have to submit. We just all submit here because we are the children of children of children of [...] of defeated fighters. We were born here and it is like that this is all there is and it can't be an other way. But it can, it's just unlikely we will ever overthrow our ruler. We just shouldn't forget that. Most people hate this thought tho, they just exclude the state in their arguments.

Looks interesting will read

>>16429035

My initial interpretation of that picture was: Your attempt at refutation made me realize that you are not worthy of the mercy of man, I must evolve into a monster in order to destroy you.

I then realized ...

>>16429238
>I swear to god that Sartre is literally the lowest of low of all french philosophers to ever spawn in the face of the earth.

>>16428854
>muh gayreek philosophers

yes. you've already been pwned

>>16428854
marx is better.
We're thrown in this world, and we're told to study hard and work hard. If we're lucky we end up somewhere upper middle class, if not middle class, lower middle class or just poor. Work 40 hours a week, pay our rent, water, electricity, internet, phone, transportation, etc. Barely know your boss only upper management maybe keep working so you can work your way up the ladder. What for?
The environment is collapsing, every ~10 years there is an economic crash, you can be replaced, you have to follow the rules your workplace commands you to but you are free, free to sell your labour somewhere else or take the insane risk and investment to start your own business.
We need socialism, we need more democratically run worker coops, we need more safety nets, we need less profit motive to decide what has to be done.
Profit isn't worth more than people.
The psychopaths that floated to the top need an intervention.

>>16429406
>When there is no state there is no right and wrong.
>But also evolutionary psychology gives us a sense of right and wrong, which is the “correct” morality.
This is a contradiction, and neither premise supports your thesis. The first you debunk yourself, since you acknowledge that even in stateless societies, moral discourse develops.

The second is a position called “moral intuitionism,” i.e. every person had a natural understanding of right and wrong. But this contradicts the idea that “might makes right,” since I could easily exploit my children’s labor without negative consequences (for me or them), but my natural understanding of right and wrong tells me I shouldn’t. The same is true for the children of strangers. I feel a natural revulsion for exploitation. Moral intuitionism is defensible, but it contradicts the thesis of your book.

Again, I urge you to read Plato, and then Aristotle. All of these issues are covered in great detail, and if you understood the arguments in the Republic, you’d see that we can’t define justice in relation to strength.

>>16428854
>might is right
I use my might to establish a system of rules and enforce it on everyone, checkmate Ragnar

>>16429753
So first of all you always say "might makes right" but that's not the point, it says "might IS right". In fact there is not a single "might makes right" in the book.

Second, it's not a contradiction. Not harming your own people and not harming other people are completely different things. The fact that you think latter is wrong is because of programming by the system. There are a lot of examples by people (individuals who grew up outside of civilizations but also primitive tribes) who prove that it doesn't come naturally to us that we treat everyone as friends. Maybe it's hard for someone to imagine when he thought like this since he could think but you would have completely different opinions on morality when there were no ruler who programmed you since you were a child.
Here a good essay by Uncle Ted:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-system-s-neatest-trick

>>16429802
That wouldn't disprove anything said in the book.

>Behind all Kings and Presidents–
>all Government and Law,
>Are army-corps and cannoneers–
>to hold the world in awe.

>>16429852
Oh, ok, well, in that case I guess I already agree with it haha

>>16428877
you can probably guess it

'Might is right' goes all the way back to the sophists and even further. Socrates debates Callicles in the Gorgias about this topic for those that are interested.

>>16429730
>we need we need we need we need we need we need
That's all I hear from Marxlets. But seriously do you don't realize how stupid this is? Marxists literally say the CEO of a company shouldn't have the right to exploit the workers and to achieve this they have to be on the same level. But the thing is that's the default order, you have to have someone who TAKES the rights of the CEO. And that has to be someone who has to have more rights than the CEO. So you fight a power imbalance by creating a bigger power imbalance. It's like are marxlets seriously this blind? Are they this dumb? Over 130 years after Marx death and they still can't face the fact that YOU CAN'T ESCAPE Might is right? There HAS to be someone with might to make the rules and he has to the one with the most physical power because when push comes to shove the only answer is violence.

>>16428894

>>16429816
I see. We’re getting hung up on a fine point — there are two ways to understand “might is right.”

The first is that morality is socially constructed, and those in power control how it gets constructed. This means that “goodness” is not a property of actions, but rather something we decide on subjectively.

The second is that goodness is a real property of actions, and those actions that the mighty take (and/or endorse) are good.

Which do you mean?

>>16429852
>Behind all Kings and Presidents–
>to hold the world in awe.
god surely?

>>16428977
so it's odysseus not achilles
still a hero

>>16428977
The whites got outplayed by a superior jew strategy, and now they are seething about how unfair it is instead of trying to reclaim their lost power, pathetic.

>>16429896
Nah, the reality is that a majority always has more power than a minority. The majority are workers, the minority are capitalists. They might have more money but they can't win when the majority demands their rights.
I mean even if we're talking through violence a CEO can be taken down quite easily. You don't have to be more powerful to kill a CEO because power is often illusionairy. Then again many people are against violence so taken power through electoral politics is often the best, and the head of state is more powerful (usually) than a CEO.
This all boils down to workers self determination, I mean I'm not overly optimistic since in many countries far right leaders are gaining popularity. Their rhetoric of minorities bad gives people some kind of focus of anger. If they can get a job in the army killing minorities they would happily take it.
Global capitalism has fucked us, raped us, and we're desperate for change, even if the change isn't really change but just pretends to be.

>>16429896
This is a known thing and why a vanguard party is supposed to exist. The fact that the vanguard party has without fail stayed in power indefinitely instead of dissolving after instituting a socialist state is the main reason why modern communists are often also anarchists instead of "traditional" marxist-leninists. Look up anarcho-syndicalism for example.

>>16429918
There is no universal good or bad, just individual. What is good for A can be bad for B and vice versa. Morals are a tool to control the masses and Redbeard writes that the mighty don't buy it but they will play along if it benefits them and when a rule is in their way they will just step over it. Because they realize a rule means only something when there is someone who can enforce it. But say there is no one in the system with more might, they can literally do what they want. A practical example: you can jaywalk when there is no police around and nothing happens, the rule just didn't mean anything. But when there is police, you will wait until it is green because you know you are inferior to the state authority.

>>16429968
>You don't have to be more powerful to kill a CEO
We're not talking about a single CEO, we're talking about a system were EVERY CEO is affected
>Nah, the reality is that a majority always has more power than a minority
See pic related

>>16428854
Is this what the board really discusses? My serious question on Kant motivated by my readings of His Critiques and Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals doesn't get a single (you) or response, but this thread discussing fucking might is right has this many replies? Holy shit, I fucking hate this board. I fucking hate it so fucking much. You guys unironically kill any motivation to read, you don't have serious discussion about books you just shitpost about books from their fucking titles. I fucking hate this place. Fuck everyone on this board.

>>16430047
I mean we shall see what the future has in store for us, I remain pessimistic but really I see it between a struggle of socialism or extinction. We're approaching multiple global crisis, and capitalism, while very malleable, seems unable to deal with them. I'll keep educating and fighting, I don't care.
It is what it is, this is our struggle.

>>16430067
What's your problem, stupid autist? Stay in your cunt thread.

>>16430082
>What's your problem
My problem is I have serious fucking questions about Kant but those threads die out because no one on this board actually knows what the fuck they're talking about, they don't read shit they just look at the name of the fucking book and read a fucking wikipedia article. You guys just want to shitpost about irrelvenat fucking political philosophy, I mean c'mon fucking Might is Right?? What a dumb fucking thread. 9 words about Might is Right got more fucking answers then my question on Pure-Practical Reason and Kant's use of pure and impure for both a priori and pratical reason. I hate everyone on this fucking site.

>>16430067
Did you just realize?

>>16430067
You need better bait in your threads or just a cute girl that makes my dick half hard, this is an image board sorry fren.

>>16430105
>they don't read shit they just look at the name of the fucking book and read a fucking wikipedia article
Are you stupid? I read the whole book and not just once.
And go cry somewhere else you fucking faggot. When you got no answers it means there wasn't anybody around at that time who is an Kant expert or who had time to do an in-depth answer.
You crybaby clearly don't belong here, go to >>>/reddit/

>>16430123
>>they don't read shit they just look at the name of the fucking book and read a fucking wikipedia article
>Are you stupid? I read the whole book and not just once.
>And go cry somewhere else you fucking faggot. When you got no answers it means there wasn't anybody around at that time who is an Kant expert or who had time to do an in-depth answer.
>You crybaby clearly don't belong here, go to >>>/reddit/
You know what? Fuck you faggot I don't believe you, give me a fucking summary of your shit tier political philosophy meme book right now.

>>16430006
So, morality (i.e. "the Good") is socially constructed, and we only feel otherwise because of social programming. Which is fine, but then we have no barometer for what we should do.

For example, suppose I want to be a fat, hedonistic slob, and die at 45 after overdosing on cocaine while fucking 12 hookers at the same time (all without ever reproducing). If I had to guess, I'd expect you to be against this, since you seem to believe we owe something to "our people," and this presumably includes perpetuating the subspecies. But if morality is socially constructed, and I don't fear or care for it, there's no reason for me to do anything other than this.

In other words, you can't build a coherent political philosophy around this idea. You need a source of moral truth. Otherwise, you get stuck at the is-ought gap.

>>16428854
>Might is right.
Irrefutable.

>>16430140
>give me a fucking summary of your shit tier political philosophy meme book right now
Why don't you suck my cock first kant sperg?

>>16430067
>NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T DISCUSS GOOD BOOKS YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS GAY VIRGIN BOOKS WRITTEN BY UGLY NERDY PHILOSOPHERS 300 YEARS AGO YIKES MIGHT IS RIGHT IS SO HORRIBLE AND OUTDATED AND NOT APPROPRIATE TO THIS MODERN ERA

>>16430159
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, YOU HAVE TO LIKE MY /POL/ DRIVEL, YOU CAN'T JUST DISCUSS SOMETHING I DON'T PERSONALLY FIND VALUE IN

>>16430105
>>16430140
Reminder that Might is right literally btfo's all the philosophy you have read in your life. you have no argument against the book which is why your backlash is so strong. This book BTFO's every single intellectual work ever written

>>16430067
why r u mad that people are choosing to talk about another book than urs?

>>16430047
>the far seeing thought
This idea that billionaires possess borderline superhuman intellect is demolished every time some tech CEO who makes his public image on being an irreplaceable supergenius gets taken to court and immediately devolves into a mumbling moron. See: Gates, Zuckerberg

>>16430067
lol

>>16430141
>You need a source of moral truth
Yeah the source is literally the innate workings of your tribe (or "family and friends" in modern terms). Of course you CAN do what you want as long as you can live with the consequences. Every social group tends to self-regulate but you can't confuse that with written morals and the law because the natural "rules" are not there to control the people. They exist for your own interests, they don't take away your power.
But of course this is all in the context of primordial natural life. In the context of civilizations and states there is ALWAYS a ruler who sets rules to control the powerless people. That's the whole point of right and wrong then. He takes something takes comes naturally to you (say "do not kill your father") and expands it to EVERYONE ("thou shalt not kill") but this step has no reasoning (-> "we hold these truths to be self-evident").

>>16430231
Let's assume we're in a tribal context, since you seem to think that's preferable, or at least more honest. If morality is socially constructed and not universal, then the statement "You should be moral" has no grounding. A tribe's "rules" are only suggestions, so, again, there is no source of truth.

>>16430187
>See: Gates, Zuckerberg
I don't thinking he had some autistic programmers in mind when he talked about strong men

>>16429730
Even the nazis had social safety nets

>>16430265
Do you feel safer when someone writes the rules on paper? You realize that this doesn't stop people to break them right? The law is also a suggestion, they can't stop you from breaking it. But their trick is that people don't realize it. For most people it is something holy, the forefathers who wrote them are kind of mystical figures, the flag has a deep meaning for a lot of people. That's part of the programming, they don't want you to realize that they're just words on paper written by people who are rotten and eaten by maggots. It has no meaning.

>>16430324
I'm not claiming that a legal system is a source of moral truth, either. I don't care if anyone breaks the law, because I believe the law is (often) unjust.

I'm just making sure I understand you correctly. Your conclusion is "There is no such thing as moral truth. What most people call 'morality' is an arbitrary set of rules imposed by power (or, in tribal settings, the tribe)." Is this right?

>>16430340
Yes

>>16428977
>he thinks war is honest
based brainlet

>>16430342
Your position is exactly the same as Thrasymachus. If you can't be bothered to read the Republic, at least look up the SparkNotes. Thrasymachus makes all the arguments you just made, and Socrates whittles his argument down to the same basic points.

The rebuttal is too long for me to type out here, but the basic gist is that practicing injustice causes disharmony within your own tribe, as well as psychological damage to yourself. It also gives you a bad reputation, which could hinder you in the long run.

Someone (I forget who, it's been a few years) proposes a thought experiment called "the Ring of Gyges," which lets the wearer become invisible. This way, he can get away with doing any unjust deed. Assuming someone had this ring, he could avoid any material consequences. And assuming he was a really Tough Guy like Thrasymachus, he wouldn't feel bad about committing injustice.

The rest of the book explores these ideas in greater depth. But some basic points are:
>Practicing justice enables you to live a rich inner life, since it requires self-control and introspection.
>Practicing justice is one way for you to see higher truths, which is a richer pleasure than winning a fight or claiming material wealth.
In short, a just man is happier than an unjust man, so if you value your own happiness, you ought to be just. There are other, more spiritual arguments, but I assume you'll reject those.

>>16428854
The main problem with “Might is Right” is that it is used as an oxymoron by those who believe it, and seen as an argument that militant political action is superior to all other forms of action by those that do not believe that might is or makes right. Arguing against a believer that might is right is like arguing with someone that says “Winners always Win” you’ll never get anywhere because they aren’t interested in exploring greater ideas, they’re just stuck on a single point.

>>16430443
>justice
>injustice
You just throw these words around and act like I'm against it. But I don't have any idea what they mean to you. And I also don't know if you think there is a definite source of morality. If yes, how do you proof it? Because every culture and religion has their own.

And having might doesn't mean you go around slaying people 24/7. In fact Redbeard writes that things like manners were the consequence of rulers who showed mercy.

>>16430503
Plato eventually says that the just man prioritizes knowledge over honor or material gain. This is why he chooses Socrates as a protagonist --- Socrates did work and go to war, but he spent most of his life pursuing knowledge, and was poor.

So, many of the things Redbeard advocates for (conquest, tribal loyalty, etc.) turn out to be unjust, since they're material goals we pursue at the expense of knowledge.

The argument for these things is complex, and too long to summarize on 4chan. I'm going to bed, but I want to encourage you to read the Republic so you can understand it yourself. It's a marvelous book, and even if you disagree with some points (as I do), you'll be better off for it.

>>16430577
I wanted to read it anyways. But you should also read Might is Right.
>So, many of the things Redbeard advocates for (conquest, tribal loyalty, etc.) turn out to be unjust, since they're material goals we pursue at the expense of knowledge.
Doesn't make sense really, who says you can even achieve wealth without knowledge?
And seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge is just an empty activity and there are a lot of philosophies out there that have zero compatibility with reality and are just intellectual masturbation. I mean you can do it when that's your thing but don't act like you're better than someone who pursued real knowledge that helped him in life.

>>16430067
>this thread discussing fucking might is right
it isn't though; judging by the responses, not a single person ITT has read the book, but they can easily pretend to so they do by discussing things they believe are tangential to the themes it might have expressed within it
I was disappointed

>>16430630
>judging by the responses, not a single person ITT has read the book
Your judgement is not very good. Not only have I said multiple times that I have read it but you can also see screenshots of specific passages here.

>>16429890
Callicles also won that debate.

Might isn't right because moral truth doesn't exist.

More like Mite is Rite.

>>16428990
>Speer
Rat trying to save his own skin

>>16428894
So whenever one group becomes more powerful than the other, the less powerful group should just give up?

>>16428977
which nuclear weapons make obsolete

>>16429035
>>>few years later most blooming country in EU
>Yeah, I don't think so
you know nothing about history post ww2, holy shit you are an american fatso

>>16429753
rationalists have nothing of value to say about morality

>>16430067
>My serious question on Kant motivated by my readings of His Critiques and Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals doesn't get a single (you) or response, but this thread discussing fucking might is right has this many replies?
Yeah and what's the difference, seething little monkey? Those two are intellectuals going on their ramblings, ie parasites who could not even life what they preached.

>>16430443
>but the basic gist is that practicing injustice causes disharmony within your own tribe,
Only if other people discover this and see it this way.

>>16428854
The ideology brings only ruin and destruction; nigger cannibal "societies" are build upon this.

>>16430857
The weak should fear the strong

>>16430269
He meant mentally ill fat basement dwelling neckbeard incels.

>>16429490
Oh no he posted my face with my quote right next to it. How will i ever recover.

>>16428854
Because you post about it every single week and it won't change if I read it.

>>16431460
there's nothing wrong with being a high t raider cannibal savage. civcucks like you think some servile life is better LMAO

>>16432354
You are always free to go back into the jungle, the opposite is not possible for them.