"Truth is a matter of what is and is not reality. Consequences can give us insight into truth, because reality determines outcomes, but consequences alone are not enough. I could believe in a false model that seemingly describes reality in one context and has positive consequences, but that doesn’t mean it is actually a reflection of reality. A perfect example is historical beliefs about the motions of the planets around the earth. Technically they “worked” and they had the “positive” consequence of allowing us to explain the motion of the planets, but that doesn’t mean this model was actually correct"
What is correct is not necessarily true. The truth is not only reality but also what is possible, what might imprint itself upon reality and overturn it completely. Today we have an absolutely correct image of the sun, but no beautiful depictions are possible. Is this image true? The answer depends on another force, a third territory, what is man? This question might throw us into idealist or realist positions.
A further problem, if we do not keep open the possible we are no longer human. All questions of truth are an opposition between subject and object, it is not only the proposition that matters but also the experience. The possible and the real have specific conditions.
Today, everything is corrected to perfected, but there is no freedom. Our will to correctness has created a world in which everything is untrue, that is, where its essence or vitality has been destroyed. We no longer have a sense of duty or consequence - which means even the old kantian conflict is destroyed. Propositions, even the most limited, are not possible. Idealism cannot even have humility.
What is also destroyed is the opposite, romanticist experience. The danger in absolute experience is that the possible becomes all reality, that the idealist world is stamped onto the realist, replacing it. This is what Schmitt called subjectified pantheism or occasionalism: everything becomes an occasion of one's experience. One may think of the man who wants to experience the whole of love, meaning that he must form its aesthetic judgement. He can only act from the outside to experience this whole, and he must bring about the highest and lowest points of love. He ruins the woman in two ways, and she becomes nothing more than an aesthetic residue. One might see in this how even practical relations are destroyed as a consequence.
This was one of Schmitt's greatest achievements, closing the gap between the poetic and rationalist worlds - the romanticist and the positivist are one, or at least they can end in the same position of absolute abstraction. There is inner and outer abstraction, just as experience and opposition can be mapped onto the ideal or real world.
This new movement of force proposed by IP and others is correct in that the moral world is no longer possible, at least for the time being, and that we have to move towards experience and the poetic or non-rational. But it ignores a greater problem, that we cannot ignore the metaphysical and unknown worlds. To assume an absolute force of nature, or simply the physically real, in an absolutely unnatural world can only end in disaster. There is nothing natural about man today, one who forces himself out of a cage has not found nature.
It is not only the Kantian world that triumphed but also the Romanticist. This means the defeat of the idealist world in two ways, both in reality and possibility. And it means, paradoxically, that the ideal world becomes ever more powerful - it is always what is unknown that will have greatest control over us. We are susceptible to all of its decisions, we are mediated by it more and more, and this is how it grows in power. This is why anyone who attempts to imprint realism onto the ideal today will only find themselves absolutely and automatically controlled.
What is correct is not necessarily true. The truth is not only reality but also what is possible, what might imprint itself upon reality and overturn it completely. Today we have an absolutely correct image of the sun, but no beautiful depictions are possible. Is this image true? The answer depends on another force, a third territory, what is man? This question might throw us into idealist or realist positions.
A further problem, if we do not keep open the possible we are no longer human. All questions of truth are an opposition between subject and object, it is not only the proposition that matters but also the experience. The possible and the real have specific conditions.
Today, everything is corrected to perfected, but there is no freedom. Our will to correctness has created a world in which everything is untrue, that is, where its essence or vitality has been destroyed. We no longer have a sense of duty or consequence - which means even the old kantian conflict is destroyed. Propositions, even the most limited, are not possible. Idealism cannot even have humility.
What is also destroyed is the opposite, romanticist experience. The danger in absolute experience is that the possible becomes all reality, that the idealist world is stamped onto the realist, replacing it. This is what Schmitt called subjectified pantheism or occasionalism: everything becomes an occasion of one's experience. One may think of the man who wants to experience the whole of love, meaning that he must form its aesthetic judgement. He can only act from the outside to experience this whole, and he must bring about the highest and lowest points of love. He ruins the woman in two ways, and she becomes nothing more than an aesthetic residue. One might see in this how even practical relations are destroyed as a consequence.
This was one of Schmitt's greatest achievements, closing the gap between the poetic and rationalist worlds - the romanticist and the positivist are one, or at least they can end in the same position of absolute abstraction. There is inner and outer abstraction, just as experience and opposition can be mapped onto the ideal or real world.
This new movement of force proposed by IP and others is correct in that the moral world is no longer possible, at least for the time being, and that we have to move towards experience and the poetic or non-rational. But it ignores a greater problem, that we cannot ignore the metaphysical and unknown worlds. To assume an absolute force of nature, or simply the physically real, in an absolutely unnatural world can only end in disaster. There is nothing natural about man today, one who forces himself out of a cage has not found nature.
It is not only the Kantian world that triumphed but also the Romanticist. This means the defeat of the idealist world in two ways, both in reality and possibility. And it means, paradoxically, that the ideal world becomes ever more powerful - it is always what is unknown that will have greatest control over us. We are susceptible to all of its decisions, we are mediated by it more and more, and this is how it grows in power. This is why anyone who attempts to imprint realism onto the ideal today will only find themselves absolutely and automatically controlled.
The absolute subject has found himself absolutely limited. What is it to add an absolute force to nothing? This demands a question other than the subject. As nothing, man has become his own absolute object - which grows in power with every effort. Without first recognising his weakness there can never be metamorphosis.
This is the paradox, even the physicalist must acknowledge some limited idealism in order to maintain himself. And it is the absolutely limited idealism which is the most powerful and destructive.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/ImperiumPressOfficial/1728
This is the paradox, even the physicalist must acknowledge some limited idealism in order to maintain himself. And it is the absolutely limited idealism which is the most powerful and destructive.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/ImperiumPressOfficial/1728
Telegram
Imperium Press
I've been enjoying this blog for a while now, and it was great to see ideas in it that so closely mirror some of my own thinking.
The author takes a pragmatist view of belief and asks not whether the beliefs are true, but what the effects of the beliefs…
The author takes a pragmatist view of belief and asks not whether the beliefs are true, but what the effects of the beliefs…
Woke is totally against friend-enemy, they criminalise and neutralise foes, individuals - private rather than public enemies. This is a liberal norm: negation of state and the political. The chaotic spread follows dissolution of law and state, neutralising force is then left to individuals, society.
This is why it appears mad. The individual who was 'left to be his own priest, poet, philosopher, and king' is now left to be his own state. The 'cathedral of his personality' grows monstrously. Man is a state to another man.
Otherwise, it is an elemental force of anti-colonialism.
This is why it appears mad. The individual who was 'left to be his own priest, poet, philosopher, and king' is now left to be his own state. The 'cathedral of his personality' grows monstrously. Man is a state to another man.
Otherwise, it is an elemental force of anti-colonialism.
The political and the philosophical are the maelstrom of myth.
"If you think about what propositional identity entails, you can see why the left thinks that words are violence. If you just existentially are your beliefs, they are."
I don't think this works. The woke left don't have existential beliefs, something they would die for. The defense of microaggressions are against confronting anything dangerous, whether opposed beliefs or simply having to struggle in the world.
Often their beliefs were only a political lever used as and against the ruling naive political legalism.
The will to equality is at least a thousand years old. And it was taken up by so many different people, classes, ideologies, and governments it cannot be propositional. Or at the least the proposition has become an undeniable force.
At the same time, the number of Nietzschean thinkers has grown alongside the complete abandonment of the poetic mind. Total opposition to everything but the will does not push them towards poetic thought, but instead to other types of rationalism and physicalism. What is behind this?
https://news.1rj.ru/str/ImperiumPressOfficial/1740
I don't think this works. The woke left don't have existential beliefs, something they would die for. The defense of microaggressions are against confronting anything dangerous, whether opposed beliefs or simply having to struggle in the world.
Often their beliefs were only a political lever used as and against the ruling naive political legalism.
The will to equality is at least a thousand years old. And it was taken up by so many different people, classes, ideologies, and governments it cannot be propositional. Or at the least the proposition has become an undeniable force.
At the same time, the number of Nietzschean thinkers has grown alongside the complete abandonment of the poetic mind. Total opposition to everything but the will does not push them towards poetic thought, but instead to other types of rationalism and physicalism. What is behind this?
https://news.1rj.ru/str/ImperiumPressOfficial/1740
Telegram
Imperium Press
If you think about what propositional identity entails, you can see why the left thinks that words are violence. If you just existentially are your beliefs, they are.
Just a note that the will to equality is an important idea in Tocqueville's political philosophy. It does not imply support for equality.
Even if the sleeping king awakes he may not remember his role until he overcomes the intoxication of his dreams.
Men can struggle to find eternity. Women have it, in monstrous form, by nature of birth.
Socrates was killed because in decadent times great men are feared as titans.
No one would ever cry out, "Dare to be comedic men!" It just doesn't have the same ring to it. Every age and war has its own aesthetic. Tragedy outside of its time could only be catastrophe, life-denial.
Lessing's prophecy of a third, silent Testament is something other than second-religiousness. This is the ground that confronts Nietzsche, and every nihilist, every theologian.
Quantus tremor est futurus - Actaeon Journal
Let's strip away the bullshit. A hairless and near senseless animal has no fear-inducing physiological power. Being able to lift 10% of an ape and having 1% of its natural killing power will never be an achievement. Take the Epimethean Pill.
Anyone who disputes this just needs to read the ancient training manuals for war. They trained through hunting because animals present natural danger, higher instincts. Man training against man can only be an art form or decadence.
Two-hundred years of war and America could not generate a better theorist than a surrender-monkey who visited their country for a few weeks.
When one hears the American there is little more than an accounting of ammunition stockpiles, off on some horizon. He accumulates ammunition to the same degree that he would never bring the stockpile to use.
The American will-to-power can only be understood in this context.
When one hears the American there is little more than an accounting of ammunition stockpiles, off on some horizon. He accumulates ammunition to the same degree that he would never bring the stockpile to use.
The American will-to-power can only be understood in this context.
Well-deserved. And the most honest thing said about America since Tocqueville.
Tocqueville retroactively refuted Nuremberg 2.0.
Extreme: A million monkeys on a million computers.
Sensible centre: A million monkeys on one computer.
Sensible centre: A million monkeys on one computer.
Extreme: Conservatism has conserved nothing.
Sensible centre: 'Insert Token To Play Again' YES!
Sensible centre: 'Insert Token To Play Again' YES!