LordCompost (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
LordCompost (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
[[File:Schuma.png|link= Schumacherianism]]{{Glow|[[Schumacherianism |{{Color|#000000|'''TIIKKETMASTER'''}}]][[Hysteria Thought|{{Color|#dec521|}}]]|#dec521}}<br> | [[File:Schuma.png|link= Schumacherianism]]{{Glow|[[Schumacherianism |{{Color|#000000|'''TIIKKETMASTER'''}}]][[Hysteria Thought|{{Color|#dec521|}}]]|#dec521}}<br> | ||
I am compelled to cooperate for a market to function. You claim to like ethics and yet don't want people to be kept alive. Capital, laws, business, etc., are all traditions and norms. Self-consciousness is not rationality. Experience would need to be successful for you to realise that it is deceptive, a contradiction. You are conscious of your experiences, just as much as you are conscious of your thinking, both of which can also be non-conscious, or sub/un-consciousnes. If reality is tangible, and you can perceive reality, then why deride experience as faulty? Another contradiction. If language is without inherent meaning, then reality, as we think about it and communicate it, is also non-objective and relies on language, throwing out both your rationality and your tangible perceivable reality, yet another contradiction. I could go on. | I am compelled to cooperate for a market to function. You claim to like ethics and yet don't want people to be kept alive. Capital, laws, business, etc., are all traditions and norms. Self-consciousness is not rationality. Experience would need to be successful for you to realise that it is deceptive, a contradiction. You are conscious of your experiences, just as much as you are conscious of your thinking, both of which can also be non-conscious, or sub/un-consciousnes. If reality is tangible, and you can perceive reality, then why deride experience as faulty? Another contradiction. If language is without inherent meaning, then reality, as we think about it and communicate it, is also non-objective and relies on language, throwing out both your rationality and your tangible perceivable reality, yet another contradiction. I could go on. | ||
[[File:Hyperfascism.png]] [[Hyperfascism|{{Color|white|'''Duginoid'''}}]]<br> | |||
Intelligent Fascist, however, it would remain a detriment if I weren't to deride your system as both 'developmental' (i.e., teleological) and as well as static and fixed. One is, of course, the ideal side of your thought, what you strive for, while the other is the real of your thinking, what it actually is. I despise both. | |||
[[File:Sogile.png]] [[Sogileism|{{Color|#FF0000|'''Sogile'''}}]]<br> | |||
Inconsistent. Of course, belief ("Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord - But you're gonna have to serve somebody" Bob Dylan) itself, is a subjective attitude or acceptance of something that cannot be proven or disproven rationally, or critically, and thus exists as a leap of faith; in other words, it is something fixed which cannot be questioned, because then one would have unbelief. | |||
=Critiques= | =Critiques= | ||
Revision as of 13:06, 3 March 2024
 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent LordCompost's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
‟Through the heaven of civilization, the human being seeks to isolate himself from the world, to break its hostile power.”
– The Unique and Its Property,Max Stirner
Howdy, I'm 
LordCompost.
I am some sort of 
Post-Civilisationist thing.
I am influenced by a variety of schools (or periods), most notably by 
Antiquity, German 
Idealism & 
Romanticism, 
Reactionary Philosophy, 
Psychoanalysis, and by various 
Post-Structuralist thinkers.
Unlike what my influences describe, my thought is grounded not in 
Political Nihilism nor 
Egoist/Individualist Anarchism, but rather in a very broad 
pragmatic and 
post-modern interpretation of 
anti-civilization and post-civilization philosophy; seeing the subjects relation to the state as just another of the same phenomenon which underpins modern civilisation. I see 
civilisation, 
the state, 
capitalism, 
traditions, or any other 
contingent historical phenomenon, etc., as neither desirable nor regrettable; they are simply existent, and our relation to such phenomena underpins societal ills.
I see civilisation, capital, culture, ideology, etc., as part of a domesticating process through which individuals find themselves under subjectification. However, this does not create oppression by itself but rather leads to opportunities, social relations, and the possibility of fixity and ideological domination. My response to such domestication is simply the constant renegotiation of 
individuals, 
institutions, 
societies, etc., to themselves and their values through the questioning and revision of values as a form of decadence and pragmatism.
My Icons: (///
/
)
Summary
See my Philosophy page.
Beliefs
W.I.P
Writings
Links to my Substack.
On Decline in Relation to Decadence
The Cultural Industrial Complex
Relations
CarrotsRppl2
How is 'The State and Its Property' illegitimate? If you truly held to the principle that property is individual protection, then isn't the state currently the most powerful entity that protects its property? As such, according to you, it is your perfect society already.
Bourgeoisie Destroyer
I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy.
Killer Kitty
Question: If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.' Liberalism, Fascism? Politics...
Kosciuszkovagr
No writings...
Xx godisfaithful xx
Your similarity to postmodern/post-anarchism with your rejection of an 'Arche' or grounding principle is fascinating. This is why I am surprised you disagree with postmodernism so much. However, in your thought, I find the assurance of human rights to be the primary ground of politics; it seems to be a slight contradiction?
HysteriaThought
It is quite strange that through all your insights and some I agree with quite earnestly, post-rationalism is a particular favourite; one then runs into your quite tame and sacred economics. Economic freedom is the same as 'religious freedom' - not freedom from the economy, but the freedom of the economy.
Anthony Bax
I am still yet to understand the existence of altruistic egoism. Where does Stirner oppose altruism? When egoists are social, supportive, associative, etc., why does this entail the conclusion that sharing is a moral ought, and that collectivisation is a sacred duty? It is alien to my will, something that can always be separated from the social ego.
StockMarketCrash
I appreciate the critique of capitalism; I, too, agree that it is a stifle of individuality and creativity. However, I do not support socialism for the same reasons. Additionally, anarchy, even as expression or lifestyle, is still a mode for me to exist within; why can I not act freely and have a me-ism? Why label it and put rules on what I can and can't do; if I idly protested and violently resisted at other times, shall I be shunned as false to the cause?
Borker
Who is the nation existing for? If it is for the nation, then it can do its own work to benefit itself; if it is for the people of that nation, then why are we supporting the nation and not the people? Additionally, if it is voluntary whether people identify with that nation, then it can hardly be said to be a universal shared value. If individuals stop identifying, they can hardly be said to oppose the nation's interests because they no longer accept the nation itself.
Weedium
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Also, please try to improve your writing skills.
Rocksmanylobsters
A collection is not synonymous with collectivism; one is the aggregate of individuals, or merely a multitude of them more so than a total, while the other remains an organisational principle of interests that relate individuals to a supposed shared value. In reality, individuals are connected into a 'collective' through a web of values. Ultimately, if any individual no longer valued what others valued, would you side with the individual or the multitude?
Weedman
A very consistent anarchist, but, also a very principled one; I do not oppose the forms of lifestyle that you propose, but I would, instead of 'living anarchy', much rather have my lifestyle without heed of laws, norms, religion, economics, etc., and have it 'said' that it is insurrectionary. Additionally, I certainly do not wish my life to be defined by abstract concepts imposed on me by society, such as soul or nature; much the same as you oppose essentialism in gender, humanism, politics, etc.,
SkeletonJanitor
The obvious point of contention is simply that your picture of the state, economy, and even social relations is paternalistic in the traditional sense of the term. You believe, and not without justification, that the state (and not even you specifically) knows what is best for its subjects; it treats itself as the 'father'; it is paternal. Obviously, if it goes against the current grain, it is not necessary that it opposes individual interests, but it is difficult to tell without some community mechanism.
Pantheon
Now, you correctly surmise that automation and the abolition of labour in the economy are currently unsuitable simply because, well, beating on a dead horse, we produce more than we need and yet labour more than ever. We have more automation and efficiency, but we have less leisure time. Of course, people are scared about losing their jobs because we certainly do not have structures in place that will allow these people to live without labour. And yet, why is your system of economics required if the solution to your conundrum is just communism?
NeoxTheMonarchic
I have very little to go off, as I prefer not to judge an individual's ideology merely by influences. Thus, there are only a few sections that I can judge: Economics, Markets, Immigration, Conservatism, and Gender. Economics is by-the-by; it is just that, well, any market favours the accumulation of wealth, not just free ones. You then also support 'free market' socialism, so is it capitalism or free markets that lead to large corporations? The rest is just conservative/reactionary scare words intended to win merely by sophistic refutation (Ad Hominem).
TIIKKETMASTER
I am compelled to cooperate for a market to function. You claim to like ethics and yet don't want people to be kept alive. Capital, laws, business, etc., are all traditions and norms. Self-consciousness is not rationality. Experience would need to be successful for you to realise that it is deceptive, a contradiction. You are conscious of your experiences, just as much as you are conscious of your thinking, both of which can also be non-conscious, or sub/un-consciousnes. If reality is tangible, and you can perceive reality, then why deride experience as faulty? Another contradiction. If language is without inherent meaning, then reality, as we think about it and communicate it, is also non-objective and relies on language, throwing out both your rationality and your tangible perceivable reality, yet another contradiction. I could go on.
Duginoid
Intelligent Fascist, however, it would remain a detriment if I weren't to deride your system as both 'developmental' (i.e., teleological) and as well as static and fixed. One is, of course, the ideal side of your thought, what you strive for, while the other is the real of your thinking, what it actually is. I despise both.
Sogile
Inconsistent. Of course, belief ("Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord - But you're gonna have to serve somebody" Bob Dylan) itself, is a subjective attitude or acceptance of something that cannot be proven or disproven rationally, or critically, and thus exists as a leap of faith; in other words, it is something fixed which cannot be questioned, because then one would have unbelief.
Critiques
Duginoid
This is the debate portion where we agree (to disagree). But, I will continue to supply my thoughts in a less verbally critical manner. I don't know whether you agree with the Gentillean notion of 'identifying' with a nation, whether or not the individual was born there or has heritage, etc. A position which I have critiqued in my "essay" Totality and Autonomy. A quick reply would just be that because it is a voluntary identification, it is a form of social contract. It can quickly fall apart if individuals no longer wish to identify with the nation or nation-state, and would quickly result in a sort of civil collapse of that culture. I would disagree with the power of 'form' given by a nation, strictly because, like all other cultural domestication or subjectification, it relies on internalisation and acceptance, and it is the individual's 'choice' barring social determinism of course, how much they manage to accept it; thus, if an individual identified more with their smaller culture then that gives them more form, such as religion. Yes, the state is an objectification of 'culture.' But it exists as a contradictory mess of 'estates' or apparatuses with an outward appearance of unification but as a relation between the populace and institutions, both contradictory. This is not to say that it isn't fixed because it exists as a sacred ideal, an inviolable, unquestionable social fact. It certainly brings stability, forcing a fixed and essential subjectivity onto unique individuals. Now, arguing that the state, a civil entity (not a civilisational entity), secures civil liberties is a question beginning in that it assumes its own answer. If I asked whether the state secured liberty in general, it is a very broad question, but it stands that many individuals would disagree. I do not at all agree with the Kantian doctrine that the state guarantees freedom or ethics. Simply because, as I said, cultures without states still have legal spheres that promote ethical boundaries, and whether that is sophistry on the definition of states is by-the-by. I do disagree, however, that it is the state that secures freedom; it surely has freedom, and it promotes freedom 'within' the state, but a slave could have "freedom" within enslavement. If I decided it was ethical to mistreat slaves because they are subhuman, then they and I are acting freely within ethical boundaries. It is all well and good to use these terms, of which any ideology could, even anarchism, and it would be true; it would just entirely depend on what freedom and ethics are, which entirely circles back to the primary argument. Additionally, why is it the state, which is totalitarian (i.e., a social totality, not strictly a "very authoritarian" state), enforcing ethics and a national entity? Shouldn't it be internalised and accepted by the population that is individually enforced? It would strike me as odd once again to have a conception of national identity that overrides a pluralistic conception of culture if it just violently enforces itself on a population. Lastly, you are committing an 'appeal to nature' in a sort of weird sense in that because the state already exists, it would be rational to support it, and yet I can only reply with my position, which is oppositional to the state, is also existent, and thus would be rational to continue holding, and that your state is non-existent, so it would be irrational to support it.
Notes
Comments
LordCompost - Please comment here if you have questions.
Amism - Would you like to add anything to this page? I understand your field is more philosophy than politics, but I wanted to ask you anyway.
LordCompost - I'll get around to it.
