|
Byde posted:Is Alex Kiergegaard/icycalm an established Dark Enlightenment person? I know somebody actually made an Dark Enlightenment card pic or something at one point, but for obvious reasons like keeping my sanity I can't be arsed to go check through hell itself to find it. Part of me finds it loving hilarious that someone thought taking Kierkegaard's name on as a pseudonym was a good idea. Especially when his personal philosophy is so violently opposite to good ol' Søren's writing. Let's compare: Kierkegaard: The ultimate establishment of meaning is in reconciling the irrationality of faith with the human condition. Fake Kierkegaard: Let's totally misread Nietzsche! Kierkegaard: While faith is the highest point, man can be satisfied with the Ethical or Aesthetic if they are to pursue it fully. Fake Kierkegaard: I am an ubermensch, so wire fraud is cool. Kierkegaard: Pseudonym, irony, and the blurring of authorial identity and viewpoint leads to internal argumentation within philosophy, allowing for a richer discourse. Fake Kierkegaard: Morality is for suckers! Part of me really wonders how much actual philosophy these dorks read, and how much they're trying to Cargo Cult into existence by being contrarian idiots. At the least, I've never wanted to bludgeon someone with a copy of Either/Or as much as I do now.
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
I had started writing up a huge effortpost on Kierkegaard (the Danish philosopher, not the weird HBD/Scientific Racism guy) and the philosophical reasoning why they're examining things through faith, rather than ethics (broadly standing in for reason), but then I realized no one gives a poo poo about philosophical takedowns here. Suffice to say - by embracing a non-provable hypothesis regarding death and the inevitability of AI, they are rejecting both the appreciation of aesthetics (broadly - the humanities and their overall worth) as well as ethics, framing the whole thing as faith masquerading as ethics via a series of redirections and justifications that ultimately tie back to a hope towards extending the aesthetic into the eternal. Seriously, y'all should read Fear and Trembling. Real philosophy is pretty awesome, whereas cargo cult philosophy works in terms of laying out massive screeds that are either hyperfocused on minutia or generalize by skipping important steps. It's the same rejection of the humanities that leads to the delightful irony of poorly-articulated philosophy claiming to be above previous great thinkers without examining the necessary frameworks. I was going to work in a joke regarding Kierkegaard's use of Abraham and Issac, which features Eliezer as a prominent reason why ethics are abandoned for faith, but it seemed like too much of a stretch. They're well-meaning in a lot of ways, but could really use some proper philosophy to at least get the basics down. It's hard as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:Jesus that's some libertarian-to-fascist pipeline right there. I don't see it as a subversion so much as a pretty direct line. Think about your typical mental image of the rhetorically-contrary libertarian: white, middle-class male. The libertarian thesis here is that they'd be successful if not for regulations/restrictions/society in some way. The core point is that it's the individual who then supposedly gains control of all their circumstances - the default is then assumed to be the self, and differing backgrounds are not so much 'different' as 'not normal'. It's an easy jump from there to shift the blame from the vague idea of regulation and government to visibly different individuals who go against the attempt at a universalized sense of self and norm definitions. Combine that with the trend towards ironic detachment in online anonymous/pseudonymous spaces, and you're pretty much in an ideal space for these ideologies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 02:15
|
|