/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17465596]

Tradlarpers on suicide watch

"The defense of morals is the battle-cry which best rallies stupidity against change.”

"It is really not sufficient to direct attention to the best that has been said and done in the ancient world. The result is static, repressive, and promotes a decadent habit of mind"

[Anonymous No.17465608]

>>17465596
Based Whiteheadbro.

[Anonymous No.17465652]

>>17465596
Certainly, some changes can be good? But how can change be a universal good?

[Anonymous No.17465665]

>>17465652
Change is constant, not good or bad

[Anonymous No.17465671]

>>17465665
Gold doesn't change.

[Anonymous No.17465701]

>>17465671
gold is the result of nuclear reactions in the core of stars. It will be changed in the next core it finds itself in. Change is constant

[Anonymous No.17465707]

Read Evola's "Ride the Tiger." Traditionalist don't defend morals. They defend principals.

[Anonymous No.17465714]

>>17465701
I don't think you're using that word right. If something happens once, doesn't happen for a long time, and then happens again, one cannot call that constant change.

[Anonymous No.17465737]

>>17465714
Picking out different episodes in a series does not establish permanency

[Anonymous No.17465744]

>>17465707
Didn't realize trads were into wealth management or educational administration.

[Anonymous No.17465748]

>>17465714
Something need not be constantly changing for change to be constant

[Anonymous No.17465767]

>>17465671

I'm not that guy and his Eastern bullshit is tedious (see his dubious answer >>17465701
), but change is constant indeed at the subatomic level. Regardless of us being able to extract expected values/averages which appear to have been constant during the time of measurement, fluctuations are always present in any physical system whatsoever. Assuming a level of hierarchy above that of constant change to say that the averages are the "real" and therefore change is not constant would be quite cope-ish.

[Anonymous No.17465775]

>>17465652
Yeah to classify cultural/social developments merely as “change” and those who are against them merely as “change-haters” is ridiculously reductive. “Change” isn’t really the operative factor, or an important factor at all, it’s about what is changing and what it’s changing into. Is it good that we no longer practice slavery? Yes probably. Is it good that we now accept trannies and faggots? No probably not. In each case we base our analysis on the objects of change, never on the change itself. This argument is quite absurd and yet people always use it against right wingers.

[Anonymous No.17465827]

>>17465671
Gold was created via a process
The value of gold changes
The uses of gold changes

[Anonymous No.17465830]

>>17465775
>Is it good that we no longer practice slavery? Yes probably. Is it good that we now accept trannies and faggots?
you are the stupid person in that quote
>right wingers
the largest group which harnesses stupidity

[Anonymous No.17465851]

>>17465775
>Is it good that we now accept trannies and faggots?
you are the stupid person in that quote
>right wingers
the largest group which harnesses stupidity

[Anonymous No.17465866]

>>17465744
He thinks wealth management is new!!!! toplel.

[Anonymous No.17465877]

>>17465866
Books about defending principals? I liked Evola's The Doctrine of Investing

[Anonymous No.17465879]

>>17465596
>dae traditionalism is moralism?
>dae old world is bad?
How do these two incoherent assertions btfo anything, exactly?

[Anonymous No.17466005]

>>17465665
If change is constant, doesn’t that mean that change itself never changes?

[Anonymous No.17466036]

daily reminder whitehead's god is satan. you've been psyopped

[Anonymous No.17466041]

k

[Anonymous No.17466047]

>>17465775
>>17465596
it's funny how these people have their worldviews and cultures, the work of their entire life, inevitable shat on as they are used to justify social decay, generations of subtle development, a lot of it hard to put into words, thoughtlessly thrown out. they would absolutely hate it yet they share the inclination that made it. they cannot even conceive it given how alien their societies are now.

everyone is a socially inept aggressive animal whose default mode is autistic shaming and hierarchical glee? most people lack basic cleanliness and fashion standards? 'politics' is like a reality TV caricature and everyone is braindead? no one is cultured, even the elite, more like vulgar animals? they'd be horrified.

also, i find there's more original and innovative thought in things that are at least 300 years old than anything after. everything after is derivative, simplified, commercial- while aping originality.

[Anonymous No.17466080]

>>17466005
You may be getting closer

[Anonymous No.17466542]

>>17465596
>The defense of morals is the battle-cry which best rallies
Wth is he even talking about? Who is he talking about? Why do leftoids think it’s profound to prop up phony caricatures of real viewpoints in order to tear them down?

[Anonymous No.17466828]

>>17466542
>Who is he talking about?
it is pretty obvious. the fact that you are being obtuse about it and use the word "leftoid" says that you are probably one of those stupid people.

[Anonymous No.17466852]

>>17466542
Small souled moralist serving the agenda of long dead despots in trying to map the river of reality
>>17466828
Based detector of stupid people

[Anonymous No.17466857]

>>17466828
>it is pretty obvious.
not really since as I previously said, true traditionalism is not concerned with morality but with principals. I'd go so far as to say that after political correctness became mainstream, traditionalist became the "amoral" ones.

[Anonymous No.17466872]

>>17466857
Are you just not going to back down on these principals? Teach me your secrets, great finance master

[Anonymous No.17466874]

>>17465879
>traditionalism is moralism?
It is
>old world is bad?
Not in an objective sense but it was kind of a shitty place to live.

[Anonymous No.17466879]

>>17466872
deflecting your midwitism with unfunny jokes is cringe bruh.

[Anonymous No.17466882]

>>17465879
>dae old world is bad?
not what that says

[Anonymous No.17466933]

>tfw people are still wanking between being and becoooming

[Anonymous No.17466958]

>>17466933
The foundation of Whitehead's thought is becoming is for the purpose of being (signification in the universe), and being is for the purpose of novel becoming (the emergent individual self).

[Anonymous No.17466964]

>>17465707
You meant to say principles, not principals. Also read Kant.

[Anonymous No.17466968]

>>17466879
Try defining your stupid terms since you are so hung up on them. What distinguishes morals from principles? Explain your position instead of asserting it over and over again.

[Anonymous No.17466972]

>>17466828
Then be specific for me, anon. Who is he talking about?

>>17466852
Cringe unjustified and predictable rhetorician

[Anonymous No.17467084]

>>17466968
principle : a noun
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."the basic principles of justice"synonyms: truth, proposition, concept, idea, theory and postulate
a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.

moral : a noun
a lesson that can be derived from a story or experience."the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"synonyms:lesson, message, meaning, significance, signification, import, point, precept, teaching"the moral of the story"
standards of behavior; principles of right and wrong."the corruption of public morals" synonyms : moral code, code of ethics, moral standards, moral values, principles, principles of right and wrong, rules of conduct, standards/principles of behavior, standards, morality, sense of morality, scruples, ideals


Morals and principals are similar. however, if one was to look at the meaning of the two words in depth they would realize that there is a difference.
morals cover what is right and wrong of whereas principles covers not only right and wrong but all standards of behavior.

Examples of the difference in sentences,
"he has no morals and cannot be trusted”
Vs
“he has no principles and cannot be trusted”

which one makes more sense?

another example

“it’s not one of my principle to take money from others”
Vs
“it is not one of my morals to take money from others”

which one makes more sense?


Curtesy of google search.

Now that that’s out of the way. Trad principals are those of authority, hierarchy and conservatism as well as philosophical systems of metaphysics, ethics and epistemology.

[Anonymous No.17467269]

>>17467084
>Trad principals are those of authority, hierarchy and conservatism
So tradition is having a set lawgiver and the preservation of those laws by those rightly empowered to do so, and these principles are presumably set towards the achievement of something considered moral by trads. Based on interactions with trads itnl would be moral to have a really based and redpilled autarkic Prussian war camp that breeds progressively more based and redpilled people; these principals are just supermorals change my mind
>philosophical systems of metaphysics, ethics and epistemology
Every -ism has these. Please don't google them for your response, they are just components of a worldview, same as morals and principles

[Anonymous No.17467313]

>>17465596
It's a static metaphysical foundation from which one can make an anagogical ascent to noetic realms. Movement happens up and down.
In the modern world there are no axi or focal points. Its pure chaos. Whitehead BTFO.

[Anonymous No.17467721]

>>17465596
seethe AND cope

[Anonymous No.17468871]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17468938]

>>17465596
Based Whitehead poster

[Anonymous No.17468991]

>>17466874
>It is
No it isn't, if anything traditional principles are "amoral" nowadays. Morals change.

[Anonymous No.17469006]

>>17465596
>anglo faggot
Don't care.

[Anonymous No.17469482]

bump

[Anonymous No.17470295]

>wowwwwww bro, why dont you just stop resisting change bro its inevitable
>moral principles? you're just a dummy maaaaan
Yet another retarded fucking take from an english philosopher. Having no moral standards to defend or uphold is fucking pathetic and is an easy way to get stepped on by somebody who does. Every single fucking time some fuckface whines about people with morals resisting change, its because they're mad someone is telling them no. It's a literal temper tantrum that someone dares to tell them their ideas aren't good and shouldn't be implemented. Even worse are the ones who try to characterize social change as some nebulous force that just appears and should never be resisted. No dipshit, societal change doesn't happen in a vacuum. Somebody, somewhere is pushing for it and they can be told no. Don't be a bitch and get stepped on because the personification of reddit told you having a line in the sand is bad.

[Anonymous No.17470312]

>>17470295
NOOOOO THE HECKIN WESTERN CIVILIZATION OUR HECKIN JUDEO CHRISTIAN VALUES THOSE HECKIN BROWN PEOPLE
t. stupid
He's right

[Anonymous No.17470337]

>>17470312
I was thinking more along the lines of abortion, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. The point stands, societal change can be stopped dead in its tracks if enough people decide to say fuck this. I suppose you'll just lay down like a bitch and become a slave to a corporation and never resist because hey its change bro and you cant resist

[Anonymous No.17470343]

>>17466874
>It is
Haha, yeah okay, here's your (You).
>Not in an objective sense but it was kind of a shitty place to live.
I wouldn't know, I've never lived in it. All I know is that living in the modern world is shitty.
>>17466882
It literally is.

[Anonymous No.17470351]

>>17470343
it's not what he says. you have bad reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.17470362]

>traditional morality is decadent!
lol if only this fag could see where this kind of logic lead the world

[Anonymous No.17470369]

>>17470351
>"iT's NoT wHaT hE SaYs. yOu HaVe BaD rEaDiNg CoMpReHeNsIoN."
You are a snivelling homosexual and if you claim you are not then you have uhhh bad reading comprehension lol because you are a snivelling homosexual xdddddd

[Anonymous No.17470371]

>>17470369
grow up

[Anonymous No.17470384]

>>17470371
Stop being homosexual.

[Anonymous No.17470390]

>>17470362
again, not what he said. key words in that sentence: "sufficient" and "habit of mind."

[Anonymous No.17470395]

>>17470362
again, not what he said. key words in that sentence: "sufficient" and "habit of mind." become a better reader.

[Anonymous No.17470614]

>>17465596
>muh progress
When will the Myth of Progress finally die?

[Anonymous No.17470632]

>>17465596
>"The defense of morals is the battle-cry which best rallies stupidity against change.”
Evola's whole thing was the destruction of all morals, not just the ones that you think are "enlightened" and progressive. Whoever penned those quotes was either writing against a strawman or someone totally different.

[Anonymous No.17470633]

>>17465671
Gold literally decays, like all matter.

[Anonymous No.17470634]

>>17466005
change... change never changes.

[Anonymous No.17470777]

>>17470384
remove your pants

[Anonymous No.17470993]

>>17470384
Let me guess, you masturbate freguently?

[Anonymous No.17471104]

>>17465665
This

[Anonymous No.17471111]

>>17466964
>You meant to say principles, not principals
reddit moment worthy of basedjack

[Anonymous No.17471149]

>>17470295
>what do you mean there are standards other than moral sentimentality
>every belief operates on the currency of unjustified prejudice and everything else is a contrivance
oh boy I wonder if this is a crosscuck
>>17470337
every time

[Anonymous No.17471243]

>>17465596
>"The defense of morals is the battle-cry which best rallies stupidity against change.”
Sounds like he didn't find out about the baby torture tribe that mutilates (changes) genitals.

[Anonymous No.17471305]

>>17471243
The defense of morals is the battle-cry which best rallies stupidity against change.

[Anonymous No.17471402]

>>17465596
>decadent habit of mind
then it is change too

[Anonymous No.17471429]

>>17465596
>thousand yard pedo stare
>don't judge me stupid plebs!
this guy and Bertrand Russel definitely did some degenerate shit

[Anonymous No.17471514]

>>17471429
>if you're not le based and tradpilled you're a pedo!!!
Pathetic cope