Let Dugin Live

i in no way definitively stated that we aren’t spirits in the material world. for all i know, natura naturata could very well include one such mode of being.

this might come as a surprise to you, but standing on your back porch smoking cigarettes and contemplating platonic hyperdimensional mirrors is not something your community, or mankind for that matter, needs you to do. you’d be a much more productive citizen if you took that job working the register at taco bell. i’ll have a beefy frito buritto, a chicken soft taco, a nachos supreme, and a water cup… which i will fill with pepsi when you aren’t looking.

we usually define ‘work’ as a force applied over a distance. i’m not sure if this guy is doing considerably more work than anyone else putting one foot in front of the other.

the value of production is not necessarily evaluated only according to how much ‘work’ is done doing it. the amount of resources employed in developing a skill as well as the demand for it, are also to be considered. this judgement is made by the people. a brain surgeon doesn’t do a fraction of the work a lumber jack does, but that doesn’t mean the brain surgeon is less important and valuable.

refuted.

i do more work in one day than you do in one month, and could out-philosophize you on a fifteen minute lunch break if i so desired. it’s not to late to redeem yourself, E. subway is always accepting applications. if you want to help humanity, become a sandwich artist.

The panic disorder example went way over your head.

Another example in that line is chronic fatigue syndrome.

There’s something called existential work, working the suicide, homicide, rape angles, suffering angles above and beyond examples like the one above.

The married people are using self contradiction to vampiristically suck power from the species to not have to do the existential work of the species in order to maintain existential value. Putting one foot in front of the other with less existential effort.

What’s the difference between a shaman and a psychologist? As another example to bring up?

Emotional work, dream work?

A councilor?

Working with aggressive populations, like criminally oriented teens?

Etc…

The whole of what you wrote is patently idiotic. Aristocracy is the name of the regime type where people are chosen for offices for competence rather than on the basis of property qualifications (oligarchy) or by lot (democratically).

What you write is an interpretation, claiming to be best, aristos, therefor it is aristocratic.

These problems didn’t arise in antiquity because economics and politics (so far as politics, the good of the country, is non-philosophic, and not connected to a pursuit of wisdom attacking the spirit of civil-social tradition) were not theoretical pursuits, but empirical, they did not become theoretical for interested reasons, but through necessity because of essential changes in the realities of life such as the industrial revolutions and the rise of commercial societies.

" legislative or administrative power"

There must be teachers of the legislators. The depredation of the lawmaker’s art, political philosophy, has produced the problem of a terrible lacuna of political intelligence, such that only interest bartering, compromise (i.e., corruption), is left. Legists cease to understand the meaning of deliberation even theoretically, not to say in practice.

PS
You make yourself laughably odious, or whatever is still worse, by cyber stalking and giving low-brow literary advice, derived from authoritative manuals produced by mediocrities (which cover you and your imbecile contempt for whatever deviates form the idiot authorities), to your betters, they who have a sense of language of their own and who, in vast contradistinction to you, can think.

"then at the other end of this spectrum is marx, who represents the correction of this irreconcilable conflict that capitalism has created, and a solution to the stirnerite conclusion (on which capitalism unwittingly rests). the great ‘meanwhile’ of the world is spent approaching one or the other, as there is simply no other direction it can go. "

If Stirner had gone to the limit, he would have found the ego to be a spook It’self , therefore, may have supposed some kind of transcendentalism, to be of use.
It may have occurred to him, but dismissed it, to limit the concept -alienation- within a then current philosophically pregnant understanding.

As a New Heglelian, he dissolved the failing idealistic formula, for Hegel’s appearant short sightedness, caused by his lack of predicting vast changes.
Never the less, it is the ego, with it’s lack of insight, that is incapable to overcome it’s limitations. The ethical problems, as a nod to Nietzsche, appear irreversible and as such, limit Marx’s claim, to begin with history.
It may as well continue with an eye toward a vast semblance of mirrored images, hoping for a few occultist gifted to glean an intended idea.
To sustain a dressed up idealism in ways which could pass the mustard to those anarchists, who don’t for a minute think that metaphysics is all sown up.

I love it when you talk dirty to me, guide.

Anyway you two lads just hold tight and I’ll get back to ya. Long day at work and I’m beat. I got soft sitting on the couch for two weeks and today really kicked my ass because of that. It’s 7:00 here and I’m ready to crash.

Everyone thinks better on a nights sleep, so, I look forward to it.

This means you don’t understand the thesis of Hegel. One must say, the old Hegeleans were surely correct so far as confronting the teaching of Hegel goes (his thesis, too, is obviously correct [properly understood, of course]). And Stirner was not a new Hegelian (attending some lectures of Hegel’s does not make him even an unspecific Hegelian). The fiasco of the most dishonest pimple, Zizek, operating on the university crowd, to make one believe that a remark taken down in lecture notes by students proves Hegel did not believe his own principle is the secret mad passion of nihilistic frivolity come to share “the news” with all. All that can be expected of a political thesis beyond that of Hegel is the dissolution of the human being to the stage beyond civil society, where that is already understood as a stage beyond nature. Marx does not change Hegel’s thesis at all, except verbally, in his claim that we are not yet in history. Since Hegel understood the already arrived at principle as the motivator (which, in the case of Engels Marx is patently true). A post-history as the emergence of another kind of being is the only thing, but then, it would no longer be rational. Also, very likely so. Of course, Nietzsche does suggest this, as does Stirner. For there is no nature (knowledge), but only essence (Denken). It is a rejuvenation of early nature (pre-theoretical phronesis, Socrates, knowing as [practical] virtue rather than principle) and encouragement for the kill shot of everything worth burning oneself down for because it is what one lives in and by. Sysypus as relief as Camus saw it ultimately. Perhaps it won’t be like that at all.

Premature synthesis prior to judgement opens the door to fallibility of belief in the possibility of truth value in either the one or the other, before judgement.

Multiple ideas, is what characterizes insecurity in the development of the ego, its like the philosophical notion of the psychological concept of multiple personality.

Just a general comment, regarding the.task of Hegel and his followers, who had to contend with the exact nature of Kant’s unresolved duplicity, of getting out of it while mired in it.Hegel solves this by relating the infinite to an undefined absolute.

this is the order of exchanges that got us to this present dispute.

first you mistakenly assume that the transition into capitalism was an escape from paternalism in general, in the way that it existed in feudalism and the monarchy:

then i claim that a qualitatively similar kind of paternalism evolves in the new capitalism:

next we start quibbling over the definition of ‘aristocracy’, and this takes you away from the direction i was heading to show how aristocracy is just another form of paternalism:

these distinctions are well and good, but what i’m saying (and explained in that last post) is that regardless of how these aristocrats are put into power, the end result is the same. the role the aristocrat plays in relation to the ordinary citizen, in all cases, becomes another form of paternalism based either on some authority granted to them by citizens who were deceived into believing they are necessary (in government), or on the power gained by owning the means of production (in capitalism).

i then went off on a tangent explaining the farcical history of traditional philosophy and how it was intimately related to establishing governments. you, being a philosopher, would obviously object to that. but part of that objection is my fault, since such a radical new interpretation of what traditional philosophy is would require much more than what i provided. you might say i just threw that out there to see if anything would ‘click’ in your head, and save myself some time. alas, it did not.

i should probably also give a little clarification about my position or point of view, here. i’m coming from a unique position, ‘philosophically’, which gives me a vantage point many others don’t have. from the analytical perspective i share the view that a large percent of philosophy involves linguistic confusions rather than conceptual confusions; this means that most philosophical activity is innocuous and benign, a practice consisting of occupying oneself with asking questions that can’t be asked about problems that don’t really exist in the world (but only in the head of the philosopher). next is my stirnerism; not only do i agree that man is not something that can be fully comprehended… i’m also not alarmed by this. i don’t need to understand, care, or justify why i want, and do, what i do. i share the view with stirner that the only thing ‘certain’ is just this, and i need not bother with trying to figure out ‘why’. i leave that to the ‘philosophers’. as an anarchist, i do not involve myself with worrying about the future of man. and finally, as a spinozist, i cannot believe that at any moment the universe is anything but perfect. when you roll all this into one, you get a free spirited fellow who can only ever approach ‘philosophy’ with a light heart and an eye for the comical. really, it is the only attitude one can have when in the company of people who are so confused it’s impossible to remove even a single misunderstanding. a philosophy forum then becomes more of a study in psychology than anything else; ‘why is this one making this particular error in reasoning? what is it about him/her that ties them so tightly to this kind of nonsense?’ and out of this approach one can gain some great insight into human nature. what i personally find much more interesting than philosophy is the kinds of philosophical trends i find repeated over and over again, and the type of people these trends are practiced by, or styled by, rather. i’ve got this down to such a science i could almost devise a personality-type system that would rival even myers-briggs.

Promethean,

A little insight here:

Until you actually answer one of our posts, this is kinda a thread killer.

You replied to guide a bit.

I ask you, what’s the difference between a shaman and a psychologist ?

Who does more work? Someone who pushes through with chronic fatigue syndrome or someone without it?

HE… IS… THE THREADKILLER!

THIS… IS… THE THREADKILLER!

AAAAAHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! :music-deathmetal:

I didn’t asume, I gave a specific example of what I meant. You’re inracinating your brain with verbal trash.

What you write is a waste of time since you’re begging the question. I don’t accept the fundamental buried claim that your interpretation is not aristocratic.

You’re just talking around that emptily while the tangles grow in the black earth.

There is a blind world, and there is a enlightening revolt against the intellectual powers of civil life. Socrates is the most clear, shining and absolute, example, but he is not its origin, rather he is its most dominating representative and articulator. All such revolt is an attempt to educate. You present an interpretation meant to be the best education. Ergo, an aristocratic statement meant to educate. Tacitly you unearth the roots of the regime types because you want a total aristocracy, one where everyone, so far as innate ability allows, is the best educated. I.e., that they accept your account and act on it. The democracy then is identical to the aristocracy, because all are the best educated and any one, chosen at random, will suffice to occupy a position of administration just as well as might any other.

I think relatively short answers in the Socratic style of dialectic is the only way to approach this issue. I don’t find any sense to what you write, since it is manifestly an aristocratic, or in your own vague sense (you give no exact example) paternalistic manipulation.

No, it is defined. It is the forgetting of morality as the: each one is equal to each other under the law. This has, indeed, occurred. The notion of rights has become like the humming of a bee. One takes it as simply human.

i’m not an ‘aristocrat’, dude. i’m a noble savage. big frickin’ difference.

Ahh … yes.

The “noble” savage who avoids debates because it is ignoble …

Magic tricks are harder to figure out than this

Someone who pushes through , its probably harder: but I suppose psychologists may have been shamans as well, but the vast majority avoid it like the plague, nevertheless they work equitably, in the Marxian description : each according to his need and ability.

This not strictly to entail dogmatic concepts as the economy of the ID, and other hypersuppositions, meaning they are merely topical Lewin type inscriptions, yet to near closer to actuality and functionality if they ever come and overcome the obstacles in their way, as they are marginalized as well.

Guide,

The idea of Hegel revisionists pairs with Your objection , since they limit Hegel’s limitation up to the Absolute , however , they are near but so far as not seeing the ego, as yet another ‘spook’. Hegel himself subordinated human will and freedom thereof under this Absolute. I have not read Hegel for a long time, but I can reference something.

“The state is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.”

From:
A: Constitutional Law B: International Law C: World History

But pro and con these dualistic issues, I don’t see the merit in supposing how either way, the solution, if there is one, can flush out how Dougin can save us, there need to be more connectivity between the premise and conclusion or /and goal. The middle sub stance can thin out so as to reduce the forum to meaninglessness. And such, as to mirror the entropic collapse of factual information it’self.

That has to be needed up, otherwise we will have to ride Biggy back.

Because, in the planetary existential attitude purposed or discovered by Duign, Da-sein as what overcomes universal European technology (= fact/value as fundamental world interpretation), form the planetary position of the heights of what fighting for one’s own gives as a sustaining born of the exploit of grabbing the ring, there is a world state (i.e., what is parallel to the Hegel statement you adduce). Within the world state (established, de facto, by the substantive morality) Nations are chosen according to the universal substantive morality’s freedom to vest each one in its own bent.

As, one of the few living persons with a sense of thought, Dugin must be restored to the top of the estimable Guide forum.