This is good. A common error boomers fall into is conceding some premises to the left. Do not take prisoners, do not surrender. This is a good rundown on axioms, which are fundamental for philosophy and law.
The further point for consideration arises when we contemplate the structure that replaces the old. If new guiding principles, such as an emphasis on the "will to power" or the development of "higher forms of life," are to be the new bedrock, what prevents them from suffering the same fate as the axioms they supplant? If their validity rests primarily on assertion, or on the strength of those who currently champion them, they might lack inherent, lasting stability against future ideological onslaughts or internal decay.
A system built purely on the negation of its predecessor, or solely on a dynamic principle like power, could find itself perpetually defending its own legitimacy without recourse to a more fundamental, external validation. For a new moral architecture to possess enduring strength, to resist the deconstructive acids that you so adeptly apply to the current order, its own core tenets might benefit from being anchored in something less mutable than human will or strategic advantage alone. The question then becomes: what objective framework, what immutable principles, might provide such an unshakeable foundation for the post-egalitarian world you envision? This is a crucial consideration for the long-term viability of any new order.
Splendid. What I preach is compatible with Christianity as the religion holds God's law above human happiness and only prescribes equality insofar as that all are equal before God.
I agree with the gist, but I'd nitpick on the details. Problem is humans are complex animals, and our intuitions (and preferences) hardly ever reduce to a neat little set of consistent axioms. Just to put the finger on one example: I don't believe equality is a good and an end in itself, but (axiomatically?) I do believe in equality of opportunity and (pragmatically?) that very unequal societies end up generating a lot of resentment and, ultimately, violence and instability.
The only axiom that truly needs to be dismantled is that there is a universal value system that needs to be achieved. If we can get rid of that idea then people will naturally pursue what they view to be in their own best interests, whether that be money and power, futurism, attaining global equality, etc. Granted there are some circumstances where people's interests come into conflict so you need some kind of international code of conduct to deal with those situations (that's where I think leftists/neoliberals have the strongest point), but the majority of the time people can pursue different agendas while mutually respecting each other's right to their own agenda. I think this problem can be traced back to Christianity/Judaism, where the idea of a global brotherhood was first introduced and the concept of differing but simultaneously legitimate interests became axiologically intolerable to the west.
I list several possibilities. Divine law, technological progress, or will the power. What I offer here is a strategy to attack the present order, but you have to fill in the prescription for what comes after.
This strategy is good at humiliating boomers and the terminally online. But if you say these kind of words in public, you'll be viewed with hostility. The world has been filled with natural slaves. And the old aristocracy that Nietzsche liked still preferred to serve divine law.
Some kind of mutation needs to happen to let these things leap easier from online to offline. We've seen the Trump administration struggle and falter when testing the reality of these new attacks and then having to describe their motivations in online speak to offline-Americans. But what mutation that would be, what it would look like, I lack the imagination to describe.
I don't know if any such political mutation is necessary or likely. Real life used to be more political than the internet but now it's very much the reverse. I just see the internet being the battleground for politics for the foreseeable future.
In a nutshell, the Enlightenment can go fuck itself. Huzzah.
This is good. A common error boomers fall into is conceding some premises to the left. Do not take prisoners, do not surrender. This is a good rundown on axioms, which are fundamental for philosophy and law.
The further point for consideration arises when we contemplate the structure that replaces the old. If new guiding principles, such as an emphasis on the "will to power" or the development of "higher forms of life," are to be the new bedrock, what prevents them from suffering the same fate as the axioms they supplant? If their validity rests primarily on assertion, or on the strength of those who currently champion them, they might lack inherent, lasting stability against future ideological onslaughts or internal decay.
A system built purely on the negation of its predecessor, or solely on a dynamic principle like power, could find itself perpetually defending its own legitimacy without recourse to a more fundamental, external validation. For a new moral architecture to possess enduring strength, to resist the deconstructive acids that you so adeptly apply to the current order, its own core tenets might benefit from being anchored in something less mutable than human will or strategic advantage alone. The question then becomes: what objective framework, what immutable principles, might provide such an unshakeable foundation for the post-egalitarian world you envision? This is a crucial consideration for the long-term viability of any new order.
https://substack.com/@blissproductions/note/c-116927857?r=5489oh
https://open.substack.com/pub/magane/p/what-is-the-woke-right?r=2354sx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false I think this is a good article to cross-reference.
Thanks. Will read
Excellent article. As a Christian, I believe that Christ and Divine Law should be the center, but I’m willing to call you ally.
Splendid. What I preach is compatible with Christianity as the religion holds God's law above human happiness and only prescribes equality insofar as that all are equal before God.
Great view on the philosophical underpinnings of the argument.
I agree with the gist, but I'd nitpick on the details. Problem is humans are complex animals, and our intuitions (and preferences) hardly ever reduce to a neat little set of consistent axioms. Just to put the finger on one example: I don't believe equality is a good and an end in itself, but (axiomatically?) I do believe in equality of opportunity and (pragmatically?) that very unequal societies end up generating a lot of resentment and, ultimately, violence and instability.
The only axiom that truly needs to be dismantled is that there is a universal value system that needs to be achieved. If we can get rid of that idea then people will naturally pursue what they view to be in their own best interests, whether that be money and power, futurism, attaining global equality, etc. Granted there are some circumstances where people's interests come into conflict so you need some kind of international code of conduct to deal with those situations (that's where I think leftists/neoliberals have the strongest point), but the majority of the time people can pursue different agendas while mutually respecting each other's right to their own agenda. I think this problem can be traced back to Christianity/Judaism, where the idea of a global brotherhood was first introduced and the concept of differing but simultaneously legitimate interests became axiologically intolerable to the west.
ive got three questions for you:
what do you have as a base moral value if you dont believe in the importance of humanism
whats the point of discussing all this for you?
who hurt you?
“Human happiness is not the highest good. There shouldn’t be equality.”
This is not a worldview, it's merely the negation of one. To have a worldview it is not enough to be against things, one must be for things too.
I list several possibilities. Divine law, technological progress, or will the power. What I offer here is a strategy to attack the present order, but you have to fill in the prescription for what comes after.
Have you read Brett Stevens? Your ideas and writing remind me a lot of his.
https://www.amerika.org/
He’s a prolific writer. Been around for over two decades. There are some foundational articles towards the bottom of the front page.
Appreciate it. We'll read
*will
Never heard of them. Drop a link
This strategy is good at humiliating boomers and the terminally online. But if you say these kind of words in public, you'll be viewed with hostility. The world has been filled with natural slaves. And the old aristocracy that Nietzsche liked still preferred to serve divine law.
Obviously use discretion. This may not be something you want to discuss at the water cooler. But most of it happens online anyway.
Some kind of mutation needs to happen to let these things leap easier from online to offline. We've seen the Trump administration struggle and falter when testing the reality of these new attacks and then having to describe their motivations in online speak to offline-Americans. But what mutation that would be, what it would look like, I lack the imagination to describe.
I don't know if any such political mutation is necessary or likely. Real life used to be more political than the internet but now it's very much the reverse. I just see the internet being the battleground for politics for the foreseeable future.
> The world has been filled with natural slaves.
Like all of Nietzsche's followers.
Nigga you just get off on being a loser in my comment section?
Sounds like you're rather a natural slave yourself.
You're the one who interacts with me not the other way around.
If I never saw you again after reading this comment I wouldn't think about you ever again.