/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16000503]

Any books that refute Egalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.16000510]

Doesn't have much to stand on to begin with unless it's equal under God.

[Anonymous No.16000537]

most marxist literature will argue that egalitarianism, if it does exist, will only exist for one generation, and then the children of the succesful will begin life with an unfair head start due to wealth and connections made by their genuinely talented or successful parents

thus egalitarianism is a self-defeating system (at least under capitalism)

[Anonymous No.16000542]

>>16000503
That's a very broad concept. Be more specific.

[Anonymous No.16000545]

>>16000537
I'm not really looking for a refutation of economic egalitarianism, I'm looking for a more philosophical one

[Anonymous No.16000548]

alexander scott siskind

[Anonymous No.16000557]

>>16000542
Social and political egalitarianism

[Anonymous No.16001016]

>>16000503
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

[Anonymous No.16001030]

>>16000557
You mean the democratic principle of one person one vote?

[Anonymous No.16001113]

>>16000537
>(at least under capitalism)
Your first point was exactly what happened in the soviet union once the revolutionary generation either died out or got older, and most of the people didn't remember life before communism.

[Anonymous No.16001121]

Come on OP, you're on /lit/ you already know the answer

[Anonymous No.16001130]

>>16001113
>It didn't work under state capitalism
Ok

[Anonymous No.16001137]

>>16001130
That's right anon, this time it will be different.

[Anonymous No.16001150]

>>16001137
Glad we agree

[Anonymous No.16001160]

The most decisive argument against democracy can be summed up in a few words: the higher cannot proceed from the lower, because the greater cannot proceed from the lesser; this is an absolute mathematical certainty that nothing can gainsay. And it should be remarked that this same argument, applied to a different order of things, can also be invoked against materialism; there is nothing fortuitous in this, for these two attitudes are much more closely linked than might at first sight appear. It is abundantly clear that the people cannot confer a power that they do not themselves possess; true power can only come from above, and this is why— be it said in passing— it can be legitimized only by the sanction of something standing above the social order, that is to say by a spiritual authority, for otherwise it is a mere counterfeit of power, unjustifiable through lack of any principle, and in which there can be nothing but disorder and confusion. This reversal of the true hierarchical order begins when the temporal power seeks to make itself independent of the spiritual authority, and then even to subordinate the latter by claiming to make it serve political ends. This is an initial usurpation that opens up the way to all the others; thus it could be shown, for example, that the French monarchy was itself working unconsciously, from the fourteenth century onward, to prepare the Revolution that was to overthrow it; it may be that we shall have the opportunity some day to expound this point of view adequately but for the moment we can only refer briefly to it in passing .

[Anonymous No.16001166]

If the word ‘democracy’ is defined as the government of the people by themselves, it expresses an absolute impossibility and cannot even have a mere de facto existence— in our time or in any other. One must guard against being misled by words: it is contradictory to say that the same persons can be at the same time rulers and ruled, because, to use Aristotelian terminology, the same being cannot be ‘in act’ and ‘in potency’ at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship of ruler and ruled necessitates the presence of two terms: there can be no ruled if there are not also rulers, even though these be illegitimate and have no other title to power than their own pretensions; but the great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves; and the people are the more inclined to believe this as they are flattered by it, and as, in any case, they are incapable of sufficient reflection to see its impossibility. It was to create this illusion that ‘universal suffrage’ was invented: the law is supposed to be made by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided and modified; it is always possible, by means of suitable suggestions, to arouse, as may be desired, currents moving in this or that direction. We cannot recall who it was who first spoke of ‘manufacturing opinion’, but this expression is very apt, although it must be added that it is not always those who are in apparent control who really have the necessary means at their disposal. This last remark should make it clear why it is that the incompetence of most prominent politicians seems to have only a very relative importance; but since we are not undertaking here to unmask the working of what might be called the ‘machine of government’, we will do no more than point out that this incompetence itself serves the purpose of keeping up the illusion of which we have been speaking: indeed, it is a necessary condition if the politicians in question are to appear to issue from the majority, for it makes them in its likeness, inasmuch as the majority, on whatever question it may be called on to give its opinion, is always composed of the incompetent, whose number is vastly greater than that of the men who can give an opinion based on full knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16001175]

This now leads us to elucidate more precisely the error of the idea that the majority should make the law, because, even though this idea must remain theoretical— since it does not correspond to an effective reality— it is necessary to explain how it has taken root in the modern outlook, to which of its tendencies it corresponds, and which of them— at least in appearance— it satisfies. Its most obvious flaw is the one we have just mentioned: the opinion of the majority cannot be anything but an expression of incompetence, whether this be due to lack of intelligence or to ignorance pure and simple; certain observations of ‘mass psychology’ might be quoted here, in particular the widely known fact that the aggregate of mental reactions aroused among the component individuals of a crowd crystallizes into a sort of general psychosis whose level is not merely not that of the average, but actually that of the lowest elements present. It should also be noted, though in a slightly different connection, that some modern philosophers have even tried to introduce the democratic theory, according to which the opinion of the majority should prevail, into the intellectual realm itself, principally by claiming to find a ‘criterion of truth’ in what they call ‘universal consent’. Even supposing there were some question upon which all men were in agreement, this agreement would prove nothing in itself; moreover, even if such a unanimity really existed— which is all the more unlikely in that, whatever be the question, there are always many people who have no opinion at all and have never even thought about it— it would in any case be impossible to prove it in practice, so that what is invoked in support of an opinion and as a sign of its truth amounts merely to the consent of the majority— the majority of a group moreover that is necessarily very limited in space and time. In this domain the bankruptcy of the theory is even more obvious since it is easier to remove from it the influence of sentiment, which almost inevitably comes into play in the field of politics. It is this influence that is one of the chief obstacles in the way of understanding certain things, even for those who in themselves possess an intellectual capacity sufficient to understand them without difficulty; emotional impulses hinder reflection, and making use of this incompatibility is one of the dishonest tricks practiced in politics.

[Anonymous No.16001177]

>>16000503

[Anonymous No.16001189]

>>16001160
>higher can not appear from the lower
>this is a mathematical principle
what does guenon think happens if I add one and one? they stay one?
philosophy is such dogshit, I swear lol

[Anonymous No.16001209]

>>16000503
nigga why do you need a book for that
just go outside retard lmao

[Anonymous No.16001342]

>>16001189
Yes? The ones stay one, together they are two. 1 + 1 = 2 means two is one plus one. It is a statement. Not a process.

[Anonymous No.16001409]

>>16001342
but this is semantics; the value of the symbol that is one can be, in a sense, perpetual and unchanged, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of mathematic implementation. Whether I measure a distance, quantity or etc. I can express an actual change in it, the physical thing, by representing it mathematically and employing mathematical principles.

[Anonymous No.16001703]

>>16001409
Wrong

[Anonymous No.16001710]

>>16000503
Why do you need to refute something that clearly doesn't work in real life?

[Anonymous No.16001740]

>>16001342
Not anon, but as a STEM Graduate I also thought that mathematical arguments of that sort sound fallacious. Human relations and inspiration to achieve greatness as a society is not comparable to abstract mathematical concepts. Sure you could build a mathematical model that explains this and that, but until then stop pretending to be a scientist that uses cOoL mAtHs to prove a point.

Mathematics are a tool, not an argument.

[Anonymous No.16001836]

>>16001703
Cope

[Anonymous No.16001927]

>>16001740
>>16001189
>>16001409
>>16001836
Not that anon, but the argument is very simple:
If you have one apple and I ask you to have two apples, you cannot.
If you have two apples and I ask you to have one apple, you can very easily have just one apple (eat one, discard one, hide one, give me one, etc.)

The argument that
>1+1 = 2
Illustrates that the greater can come from a lesser is incorrect. You are adding two independent lessers together. In my original example, this would be
>You have one apple
>I ask you to have two
You cannot produce the desired result with what you have. You will have to purchase, find, or create the second apple from whole cloth. This is the "+1."

However, the statement
>2-1=1
is more illustrative of Guenon's statement that:
>People cannot confer a power that they do not themselves possess.
If you posses two apples, you can "confer" one (or two). If you have one apple, however, you cannot confer two.

[Anonymous No.16001934]

>>16000537
>at least under capitalism

Hurr durr it wasn’t real communism

[Anonymous No.16001943]

Equality is a false god preached only by the weak. Now go read Blood Meridian.

[Anonymous No.16001944]

>>16001927
>you CAN'T have more apples
>those apples growing off the tree, or sitting on the shelf next to the apple you just bought-- NOPE. they don't count
>getting rid of one?
>oh yeah, just toss it out, it's no prob

holy fuck, this is like the uncanny valley of IQ: you've finally become sophistic enough to be a complete fucking moron, lol

[Anonymous No.16001974]

>>16001927
>If you have one apple and I ask you to have two apples, you cannot.
why? presumably, since I am not an apple tree, I did not merely achieve apple-owning status by mere conceptual actualization. I got it from a source, and can likely get more.
the rest of this is just gobbledygook, and it's evading the point already brought up: mathematics as you present them bear no relation to reality, and this further extrapolation can't compensate for that

[Anonymous No.16002018]

>>16001944
>Those apples growing off the tree or sitting on the shelf don't count
If you had apples on the tree or sitting on the shelf you wouldn't just have one fucking apple, retard. Have you had a single original thought in your life?
Enjoy hell, pseud.
>>16001974
Fine, replace apples (I was trying to be simple for our other simple friend in the conversation) with something unique and finite. If you had the world's only Mona Lisa, you couldn't give someone two Mona Lisas. If you had two of the world's only original Warhol stencils, however, you could give someone one (or two).
The act of drawing more "lesser" from a source to become a "greater" is not the argument Guenon is making. You are explicitly saying that the lesser alone was not enough to create the greater.

[Anonymous No.16002021]

>>16002018
>now things are necessarily unique and finite because I’m getting my shit pushed in
lol kys you fucking abysmal retard

[Anonymous No.16002028]

Anarchy, State, and Utopia

[Anonymous No.16002035]

>>16002021
It's okay to admit you are incapable of comprehending abstractions, anon. Or you can continue to embarrass yourself. I changed from apples because you chose to invent a fantasy wherein despite "having one apple" you actually "have more than one apple" via a tree or a shelf.
Like I said you've admitted that you cannot create the greater from the lesser alone--you need more of the lesser.

[Anonymous No.16002037]

>>16002021
your problem for taking the apple metaphor too literally, idiot

[Anonymous No.16002038]

>>16002018
>mona lisa
what?? so now you've completely negated any point made with the apples; you can't cut the Mona Lisa in two and get two paintings you fucking idiot.
also how is giving something away any different from getting something in principle as you use it? sure I can give away the Warhols, but again, I presumably GOT THEM FROM SOMEWHERE. you're trying to make the mundane reality of exchange something otherworldly by misinterpreting the math implemented.
you're a joke anon, tell me another.

[Anonymous No.16002048]

>>16002035
>Like I said you've admitted that you cannot create the greater from the lesser alone--you need more of the lesser.
holy fuck, are you god damned empty in the head? how is this statement not an affirmation of the functioning of democracy, whi the guenon quote was deployed to rebutt? if MORE PEOPLE (more lessers) come together, then they should make the greater, which is what literally everyone here is telling you
fucking 4chan incels, I swear to god...

[Anonymous No.16002053]

>>16002037
your mona lisa metaphor has even less bearing you fucking mong
you seem to have a huge problem with metaphorical thinking. I'd advise you to stop.

[Anonymous No.16002106]

>>16002038
This is really not a good look for you. In both cases I showed that if you only have 1, you cannot give 2. If you have 2, however, you can give one. This is why I said:
>If you had the world's only Mona Lista, you couldn't give someone two Mona Lisas
It seems your reading comprehension could use some work.

>>16002048
>Affirmation of the functioning of democracy: MORE PEOPLE (more lessers) come together.
This is not what Guenon is saying. He is not simply counting heads, because if that were the case the "monarch" or the "spiritual authority" would be the lesser that he is railing against (There are less monarchs than peasants, I assure you). He is speaking about power and legitimacy. Even if the lessers all come together to decide upon authority, they ultimately put a lesser in power--yet no lesser has the intrinsic power to rule in democracy, so how can they give it?

Again this is very abstract thinking and you might not be capable of processing it. You might want to consider going back to Dick and Jane books, which, I understand, can be taken at their face value.

[Anonymous No.16002114]

>>16002106
so basically you've been switching your metaphor as your arugment has been deconstructed and proven fallacious? I can tell, it's pretty fucking embarassing

[Anonymous No.16002124]

>>16002106
>it's not bull crap, it's "abstract thinking"
haha holy shit anon you're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.16002132]

>>16002048
again this is you trying to think in "processes", which is wrong -- 1 + 1 = 2 is a relation. Let's take a look at it. On the right-hand side we have 2, ok, that's a symbol signifying a mathematical object, the number two. On the left-hand side we have an expression, one plus one, the plus here is signifying the binary operation (this term has a processlike clang to it, but it is misleading, do not be mislead) of addition, and two operands, both number ones, which fyi is the same object, all number ones are the same single number one. What does the relation say? It says that "1 + 1" signifies the same as "2" because = is an equivalence relation. The plus sign, which signifies the binary operation, maps 1 and 1 to 2, but again this is not a process even though we use the verb "maps" which sounds like a process, this is how we merely speak of things, but really mathematics is purely declarative, 1 + 1 is not just an expression that is in some sense "radioactive" so that it reduces to a simpler one just by looking at it funny, it is an object in itself that is the same as "2". So no you cannot argue for democracy, saying that MMORE PEOPLE (more lessers) come together, they are now greater, no, they are still lessers, just a whole bunch of them, they are not the same as the greater, any more that a pair of number ones is not the same as number two, i.e. in mathematics (1,1) ≠ 2

[Anonymous No.16002136]

>>16002114
>so basically
Ah, I see you are, in fact, a literal pseud.
I switched the metaphor because you were incapable of understanding simple examples without inventing fantasy workarounds that were in categorical conflict with the premise.
>>16002124
And by the way, you can stop samefagging. Every single one of your posts has "fucking" in it and it's really obvious that an idiot is typing in a desperate attempt to save his self-image. Try to calm down and actually understand the argument, instead of letting your ego hijack your rationality.

[Anonymous No.16002137]

>>16002106
>I showed that if you only have 1, you cannot give 2. If you have 2, however, you can give one
you patently did no such thing, as was obvious to everyone.
it has been shown to you repeatedly that these are simply measures of quantity, and as such, can be altered. each of your examples bears no relation to reality EVEN AS YOU POSE THEM (you have no explanation for why one cannot simply get more apples, or why the mona lisa has anything to do with anything other than itself)
this is just tiresome. you're lucky I'm just goofing off at work rn and have the time to feed you (You)s

[Anonymous No.16002146]

>>16002132
>a symbol signifying a mathematical object
we discussed already
>>16001409
it's semantics. if you want to use mathematics to comment on reality you have to be prepared to back it up with actual relevance.
>>16002136
yea no shit I'm samefagging, I'm bored and you're impressively stupid. I also pick at scabs and chipping paint, it's a problem I suppose, but at least I'm not the subpar sophist who can't even obscure their own backtracking

[Anonymous No.16002159]

>>16000503
Rothbard "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Human Nature"
Nietzsche "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
de Jouvenel "Ethics of Redistribution"

[Anonymous No.16002161]

>>16002137
>You have no explanation for why one cannot simply get more apples
Because getting more apples would not mean you'd be creating a greater from a lesser. it would mean you were creating a greater from multiple lessers. You can go get all the apples you want, but don't pretend that if you have just one, you can give me two.
>>16002146
You're a sperg, but you're not even an intelligent sperg. I would guess that you have ADD or anxiety, and you probably struggles with finding a reason to continue living.
I do hope you find a path out of the hell you feel yourself trapped in. Sincerely.

[Anonymous No.16002198]

>>16002161
>Because getting more apples would not mean you'd be creating a greater from a lesser.
which is the requirement set out by Guenon, which I am doubting, anon. I STILL GET MORE APPLES. your detemrination of "greater" is effectively meaningless if it doesn't correspond to the change in value. getting greater from multiple lessers-- it's just making more arduous something that need not be. it's not math, it's semantics.
also seethe a little bit less, next time; it's hard not to read all this belligerent and useless ad hominem without visualizing you with tears in your eyes

[Anonymous No.16002252]

>>16002198
>I STILL GET MORE APPLES
I've already authorized you to have as many apples as you like. But if you have just one, you cannot give me two. If you have more than one, you don't have just one. These truths are inescapable.

>Seethe a little bit less, next time
This is some serious projection, anon, and you should reflect upon it. You've flung nothing but insults and fury in every single one of your (many) replies. I can tell my appraisal of your character was correct, because your tone softened in that last post, as if you were recoiling and covering a wound. You even addressed the argument (for half of your post, at least) sincerely and without lobbing insults or profanity. Like I said, I sincerely hope you can get better from what you're suffering from.

[Anonymous No.16002270]

>>16002252
>These truths are inescapable.
but they are not conveyed by mathematic principles in and of themselves, and the semantic hairsplitting you are interested in only separates them further from reality, thus making the metaphors and Guenon's mention of this perspcetive entirely irrelevent to the process of leading a nation, be it by democracy or monarchy.
you need to focus, anon, this will be something like the seventh time I've come back to this.

[Anonymous No.16002282]

>>16002252
>2/3 devoted to smarmy ad hom
Yikes

[Anonymous No.16002283]

>>16000510
or the law, but i guess that's basically just saying the same thing.

[Anonymous No.16002371]

>>16001927

Based. So sorry you have to speak to the mouth breathers.

[Anonymous No.16002403]

You're all missing the point of Guenon's comments by talking about quantity when he is obviously speaking about quality. You cannot get a greater quality from lesser objects unless the latent potential for a seemingly higher quality is hidden within a potential unified arrangement of some quantity of the lesser (for example, chemical molecules from atoms). However, this seemingly higher quality is not truly higher - chemicals are still mere atomic matter in the end, for example. No arrangement of atoms will give those atoms more spiritual quality than that which they already possessed.

Likewise, in the case of democracy, simply by unifying many spiritually un-actualised people, one cannot create legitimate spiritual authority, no matter how many people you put together and how much they collectively try to enforce their will onto yours.

The mathematical principles he speaks of are more logical or algebraic in nature. You cannot get Z from any amount or arrangement of X if Z is of a fundamentally different nature to X.

You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.16002405]

>>16001016
based

[Anonymous No.16002445]

>>16000503
My diary desu

[Anonymous No.16002493]

>>16000503
the genealogy of morals and Thus spoke zarathustra. Nietzsche disregards rights as a mere rethoric tool of power and places the value of any given human on it's aesthetic value and no longer any basic, moral inherent value.

[Anonymous No.16002507]

>>16000537
There's always going to be inequalities as long as man is finite, the simple fact of being born from this place instead of another already makes you different than an other, only through abstraction does equality exists

[Anonymous No.16002510]

>>16002403
nice try NOT replying to anyone, but I'll spell it all out for you again, since you seem to be determined in your stupidity:

no one is doubting the 'consistency' of this idea of a distinction between quality and quantity. what is being questioned is (1) the apparent mathematic principle confirming this to be the case, and thereby, implicitly (2) the relevance of a distinction between "quality" and "quantity" when it comes to the formaiton of national power.

(1) using math as a tool of real-world relevance implies one would use it so assess values, found in the real world. from there, one can express more real-world processes (the accumulation or disintegration of certain values of measure or general quanitity, etc.)
this is the extent to whihc mathematical principles have any relevance on a discussion of reality-- which, it must not be forgotten IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. the semantic delineation of certain symbols being immutably expressive is fine and dandy, but it means nothing to our conversation of reality.

(2) as for quality, this is the ultimate begged question: what is quality in terms of leadership? is it brute force, which can be expressed by quantities of weapons and manpower? is it intellegence? is it reputation? whatever it is, if it is some 'value' as in a quantity, it can be expressed mathematically as Ive described. if it is about some intransient otherworldy value, thats up to you to convince people of and don;t sully math by holding it as an example of your logic functioning, it isn't.

YOU'RE welcome ;)

[Anonymous No.16002542]

>>16002510
You keep saying this stuff. Math as a "tool", math as used to figure out something about the "real world". First: how is math separate from the real world. Second: how is it a mere "tool", is it not FUNDAMENTAL TO THE ORDER OF THINGS?

[Anonymous No.16002562]

>>16002542
(1) the real-world consists of many things other than disembodied quantites and values floating in space; math is an aspect of the world.
(2) no one says it isn't, I'm saying it doesn't work the way you insist it does; real-world values change over time, it's irrelevent which timeless symbols we use to express values at certain points.

[Anonymous No.16002584]

[Anonymous No.16002592]

>>16002562
>real-world values change over time
They don't?

[Anonymous No.16002615]

>>16002592
They do?

I used to be short, I grew: the value of my height changed over time due to processes of the real-world, not inherently expressed in mathematics, but which mathematics can be used as a tool to quantify and, dare I say it, 'qualify' in a sense

[Anonymous No.16002648]

>>16002615
Your height did not change, but you think it did because you think your height is a number: it is not, your height is a function. For simplicity let us say that your height h is a function of time t, i.e. your height is the quantity h(t). Now h is indeed a pure mathematical function in its eternal and unchanging nature. If we fix t, h(t) is the same quantity no matter what the week day is. Process-thinking has rot your brains.

[Anonymous No.16002713]

>>16002648
>Your height did not change
incorrect, and to be clear, I laughed when I read this
>you think your height is a number: it is not
no, my height can be EXPRESSED as a numerical value, which can then be utiliized mathematically
>your height is a function
fair enough, BUT
>If we fix t,
why and how would we do this? like, sure, in a mathematical realm we COULD, but we would then be leaving any form of relevance when applying math to reality. even if you could determine value h, it wouldn't mean anything, my height if effected by the time, and any conceptaul value I could recognize in it would necesitate considering this.

[Anonymous No.16002774]

>>16002713
When I illustrated what happens when we fix t, I did it to show what it means for h to be a function, but sure -- we don't have to fix t, but so what? The point still stands, your height is a function that plots a quantity (called "height" in ordinary speech) in spacetime (invariant in space but not in time) but do not think that there is some kind of "process" here, that as the quantity t varies from some point in time to another -- no, this "process" is an illusion, your senses incapable of witnessing the unity of being in a single "mouthful", instead you see spacetime unfolding as a continuous process which is ILLUSORY. get it together

[Anonymous No.16002829]

>>16002774
and now we go backwards again. it's my mistake, I forgot you were being petulant and forgot to spell everything out, so let's do this once more:

>but so what?
so what is the whole point for the conversation were having is because Guenon erroniously (in my view) relies on 'mathematical principles' to express the inability of the convergence of value in the real-world. it is of fundamental importance that we do not leave the real-world for the realm of pure mathematical thought, as ultimately what we are doing is seeing whether or not these principles properly illustrate real-world value.
in the way I've expressed (by assessing certain values as mathematical values and applying logic to them) it works.
as you insist on doing, stripping the functions of their real-world constraints and relevance, they function differently. even if it makes some semblage of sense, its completely meaningless to our discussion or value in the real world.
find your h value, even if you get it right it would mean nothing to my height as it actually is, and as it's value is perceived.

[Anonymous No.16002838]

>>16002053
Is this what stem retards are like?

[Anonymous No.16002843]

>>16002838
>seethe
also cope, desu

[Anonymous No.16002871]

>>16002843
You shouldn't be on /lit/ if you're this dense and you just shitpost.

[Anonymous No.16002883]

>>16002871
see>>16002843

[Anonymous No.16002943]

Why is everybody who takes Guenon seriously so dumb?

[Anonymous No.16002954]

>>16002943
guenon is a sophist

[Anonymous No.16003186]

I've never seen a thread any dumber

[Anonymous No.16003261]

>>16003186
i couldn't read through any of those long posts due to how retarded they were