Is reading Spengler a curse?

>Platonic forms aren't coming back.
Spengler doesn't really take away the archetypal structure of our perception. In fact, he obliges it. Be the hero, the soldier on Pompey.

However, Spengler most definitely takes the rug from underneath extreme dogmatists and of course, progressives. Post-modernism has largely rendered facts meaningless - but it doesn't have to be so. It's simply the solace and escape most take. Have vision. Formulate the foundations of the new world, or a new tribe, a name to remain for longer, and give that name your power.

Liberal-progressives leverage PoMo arguments against their opponents while not adhering to them themselves. "That thing you want is an oppressive, arbitrary social construct", while actively implementing arbitrary, oppressive social constructs. It's a smokescreen meant to disarm and distract their enemies (which, I would argue, is what Derrida was trying to do to Western civilization generally; Foucault and Deleuze seem more honest to me). So I don't think that's the correct reading of these authors at all; it's just a lowest common denominator power-grabbing application of similar ideas.
Spengler was clearly unhappy about the way things were going and relishes some glories of the West's past, but there isn't an institution standing today that I would be the soldier of Pompey for. Just is what it is.

This.

Even if Spengler is wrong in some of the historical events he describes (particularly about anything that is not the West), his philosophy and ideas remains vital and defying.

Civilizations are organisms with life cycles. The problem with putting it like that is how little it actually conveys the brilliance of Spengler. So you start talking about morphologic fields and Goethe's biological work and at some point they ask you how this is related to history because you can't just fucking summarize Spengler. They'll go "nuh uh we have uh more gdp and higher standards of living how does Spengler explain that" and at that point they're so irredeemably missing the point that you need far more than a casual conversation to unfuck their brains from whatever dogmatic fucking slumber they're in

>I sense echoes of Spengler in Foucault and Deleuze.
Foucault, Heidegger, and Adorno were all influenced by Spengler.

Deleuze is deeply in the morphology-becoming tradition as well, but I'm suspect if he ever actually read Spengler

>They'll go "nuh uh we have uh more gdp and higher standards of living how does Spengler explain that" and at that point they're so irredeemably missing the point that you need far more than a casual conversation to unfuck their brains from whatever dogmatic fucking slumber they're in

this pretty much sums up perfectly the frustration that I wanted to convey in my OP

>turned from a nazi into a cuck
whatever Spengler did, he did not make you smarter

Going from Hitler did nothing wrong, to we need to wait this thing out while it eats itself because what Hitler did didn't work is just maturation

You talk like an absolute faglord

pro white sjws out in full force

If I thought you were wrong, I would've said so. You weren't wrong, you just sound like a utter faggot

>muh Post-modernism
post disregarded

god bless Yea Forums. we'd probably be friends irl.

The Internet culture is postmodern, like it or not.

This

I know a hundred percent well how you feel user. Eerily similar but feels good to know I have frends out there. Anyway, I advise you to read the books Spengler cites. Read history books, military fortification books, religion, poetry, zoology, fucking the book about the relationship between weather and great historical events. It's a very isolating path but you gotta take it. Also, if you've only read decline you have to read Man and Technics.

I feel the same way after reading this nigga but it goes for everything. Definitely didn’t help my minor schizophrenic characteristics.

Attached: EE5C5EFB-26CE-4594-BDAC-4E8A9FB375C5.jpg (300x300, 13K)

>Formulate the foundations of the new world, or a new tribe, a name to remain for longer, and give that name your power.

This, this is the answer to the modern worlds wows, the formation of a new tribe, it's been in plain sigh all along, why fight each other when we should detach from one another and create a new people, there's no better time than now.

The worst is when people think they understand him because they saw The fucking Matrix. He's one of the most talked-about but least understood modern philosophers. It's infuriating. That people think they understand him just because they can go "dude, The Matrix, bro," makes the situation fucking unbearable.

>Baudrillar
>most talked about
not really

Most people are corrupted by their flesh, whether that’s beauty or ugliness, it doesn’t matter since the faults in the human condition will feed on what it gets. It’s hyper individualization, capitalism, and rephrasing Lasch, middle class culture becoming bleached African American culture which makes any form of real discussion impossible. People are stuck inside a hyper real bubble, a bubble given to them by the economic system and culture they are within. There they are shown the world and can create their own reality within the boundaries of the bubble. You know bubbleman in megaman 2? Yeah, it’s like that. Stuck in room full of water, surrounded in bubbles shooting bubbles at a robot who believes he has free will but he’s controlled by doctor light. They’re all controlled by doctor light and you’re me bubbleman, bubble bubble bubbleman.

Attached: 6104C8AD-D763-41F9-9B35-55B5C8F6B6E9.jpg (640x640, 76K)

Well, at least you can expand from there, although redpilling people is considered impolite in good company

How do I into Spengler, fellas? Is it just Decline or has he a better tome?

This except ironically and evreryone EXCEPT me is bubbleman

I've only read Decline and that was already a fucking massive undertaking. No prereqs, just go at it buddy

decline - prussianism and socialism - man and technics is the basic pipeline

>a fucking massive undertaking.
Isn't is just two books? Is he difficult or something? He can't be that bad, he isn't a French philosopher from the second half of the 20th century, after all.

It’s like I had a stroke writing that last sentence and I’m really tired but basically what I was trying to say is bubbleman is based but it didn’t really come of like that. He shoots bubbles at megaman who’s surrounded in a hyper real bubble made by dr light. This makes any grasp of megamans reality false but the bubble is abstract so bubbleman shoots bubbles at him to try and save him. Showing him just how many hyper real bubbles exist. You all have too shoot those bubbles at megamen and hope they won’t kill you with a saw blade. But bubbleman is stuck in a room, a limited room of water and many different bubbles. I don’t know how I can ascend that.

Attached: 0AC00E67-C960-4947-9699-CC8F6B84DC68.jpg (500x651, 111K)

>he isn't a French philosopher from the second half of the 20th century, after all.

No he's who they aspire to be

None of those things are real lmao I'm ideology free for 3 months and I did it with this one weird trick (doctors hate him).
1. Summon a schizo-demon into your flesh-vessel
2. Get out of the desert
3.????
5. Ideology free life with personal freedom (although I still hate kikes and niggers but for aesthetic, not ethical reasons)

Reading Anti-Tech Revolution by Kaczynski had an effect similar to this on me. I came away from that book being very convinced by his skepticism of human agency in history and not very convinced at all that crippling the technological apparatus is possible or capable of stopping human kind of evolving to Borg-like inhabitants of a hell world.

It's fucking 500 pages of quasi-random shit stringed together in an absolutely bombastic metaphysics while making overreaching ethical claims. This book is PACKED and not some "oh let's stretch this 3000 word article into a book" modern nonfiction

He's mentioned all the time amongst middle class uni people

>bombastic
>overreaching
So you're saying you don't like it?

I absolutely LOVED it, the guy clearly was a genius

Has anyone ever tried to refute Spengler?

nigga you wild

>what Hitler did didn't work
it woud have worked if germshits wouldn't have gone full autism and attacked invaded several countries within a time frame of 5 years.

I can refute him in 5 seconds.
His work has no scientific merit or objective basis, it's just opinion.

Self refuting argument, neither does this post.

holy yikes

>some dude from the 20th century rambling about history and peeling unscientific abstractions from it has understood the nature of human reality

>I can refute him in 5 seconds.
Okay, what is your refutation?

Neither does your counter-argument.

His work has no scientific merit or evidence. It's literally epic fantasy world building.

Which explains why it is so good.

Who the fuck cares about facts?
The only reality is spiritual.

I understand that, you said so in your first post. But you also said you could refute Spengler in 5 seconds. What is your refutation?

Can you explain why Baudrillard had this effect on you? I don't know much about him. What should I read?

>muh scientific merit
>muh evidence
>muh objectivity
please die.

READ MARX, YOU ALIENATED KEK.
THE ONLY REAL THING ARE MEN AND RELATIONS AMONG MEN!

History is not a science. What’s your point?

My refutation is that his worldview is not scientific, so by definition, it cannot be proven scientifically. If you are making claims about the real world and how it functions, you need to have scientific evidence. Otherwise, it's fiction, on par with Hegel. It's very cool fiction, though.

>so I just gave up because i'm a faggot

someone post a reading chart on spengler

Attached: 73dea9c80f58f9b953f93a4ff18b9cdc877288abb39fa670465b5ae41d6875b1.jpg (1200x1200, 1.02M)

pick up decline and read it, faggot. you're not going to get around that no matter how many charts you save in your folder.

>refutation

So essentially you're saying that anything that is not scientific cannot be correct?

>falling for the le reddit scientific meme
oof

i fucking love science ;-)

Exactly. Hence why grand unified theories about human history are retarded, on par with fan-fiction in the sci-fi/fantasy general.
No, unlike you, I actually enjoy my life. Manchild.

Read Decline first then read pic related. Spengler's Man and Technics is a worthwhile read as well.

Attached: 243604.jpg (308x475, 28K)

maybe it's because you're too retarded to invent a good metaphor of your own

No, I am not saying that. I'm saying it cannot be examined or proven scientifically and since science is the best method we have for understanding the real world, so it's largely useless as anything other than fiction.

No worldview is scientific. Science defines its own worth on its productive force value. The only way to justify a proper science is by its product. A scientific theory is valid if it produces a replicable result or a tangible object. Beyond that, there’s no greater, totalizing scientific worldview. Positivism, empiricism and pragmatism are all still philosophies bound by the same limitations of any idealism.

thanks sempai

>Look mom, I mentioned reddit, haha!
Science isn't the most important thing in life, but it's the only thing that we humans have that comes close to producing at least a semblance of objectivity.

imo the biggest blackpills come from comedies of manners. the upper classes are all about appearance rather than substance.

Y'all need some Feyerabend in your life

Let me rephrase that because you misunderstood. There is no scientific basis for his worldview and many of his claims cannot be examined scientifically, so it's practically useless to us. It's nice as speculation and philosophical masturbation. I am aware that every field of science rests on axioms that cannot be proven scientifically.

There ever gonna be a new full printing of decline?

>I'm saying it cannot be examined or proven scientifically
That's all fine, well, and good but that's not what I asked. You obviously cannot refute this book in "5 seconds" and you seem to not have any information on anyone who has refuted it. If you cannot answer the question you should not have responded to me in the first place.

How did you determine that science is useful? Once you've answered that, how did you determine that science is more useful than sorcery?

>There is no scientific basis for his worldview and many of his claims cannot be examined scientifically, so it's practically useless to us.
Was every correct discovery made prior to the advent of the scientific method "practically useless"? I know that you've said that you don't believe that everything that is not scientific is factually incorrect, but you certainly seem to be implicitly working under that assumption. Something that is not scientific is...not scientific. That it's not scientific says nothing to whether it's factual.

We are communicating through the air from thousands of kilometres away. Surely that's pretty useful? It's always amusing when you fags start these silly arguments that are nothing but meaningless word games just to "win". The fact your alive right now and didn't die in childbirth is because of science. I'm presuming you believe being alive is quite useful to you.

>There is no scientific basis for his worldview and many of his claims cannot be examined scientifically
>so it's practically useless to us
There is a glaring contradiction in this statement that goes as far back to the very core of an epistemology. “Usefulness” as you called it is what i referef to as being justified by an outcome, in the case of science that outcome is either a replicable result or a tangible object. There are no replicable results or tangible objects in History. You are asking to reduce a field a thought into a mode of thinking where it doesnt belong. The endeavor of History is not one of science. You’re criticism is “useless” because it misunderstands the whole project. Imagine a man, walking to a concert and proclaiming music useless because it doesn’t advance a scientific understanding.

Arktos is working on a new translation.

>Was every correct discovery made prior to the advent of the scientific method "practically useless"
Men discovering fire or learning to tame animals by trial and error is just primitive science.

>500 pages
My German edition has 1400 pages.

Holy brainlet

>We are communicating through the air from thousands of kilometres away. Surely that's pretty useful?
Yet it’s also useless.

>The fact your alive right now and didn't die in childbirth is because of science. I'm presuming you believe being alive is quite useful to you.
Imagine thinking this in 2019. Did you skip the whole 20th century?

Really really hope its unabridged

I dont believe you, could you scientifically prove to me that men learning to tame animals 1000s of years ago was primitive science?

Is science and culture even compatible anymore?

only if you're a transhumanist lgbt person.

>Imagine thinking this in 2019. Did you skip the whole 20th century?
Are you retarded?
Without science becoming a thing, the 20th century wouldn't be the 20th century as we know it. Without advancements made by science, many of us would be dying in child birth. Whether in the 20th century, 21st, or 25th. If that development didn't occur, thanks to science.

>Men discovering fire or learning to tame animals by trial and error is just primitive science.

Hmm. That sounds like an unscientific interpretation of history with zero experimental evidence and completely unfalsifiable to me. Are you sure you know whay science is?

Checked wiki for the figure, I read only on Kindle and thay displays shit as percentages. That explains why it felt so long

Basic things like that don't need to be proven scientifically, you can deduce them with intuition, a basic modern education, and an IQ above room temperature. I'm sorry that you can't do it, user.

Fucking lol

>claim that spengler is useless because hes unscientific
>back this up with unscientific claims
Wow who woulda thought that the guy trying to refute spengler with science is a windowlicking retard

You're merely providing examples of usefulness without explaining what usefulness is or how you judge things to be useful. Could you please help me understand?

>Without science becoming a thing, the 20th century wouldn't be the 20th century as we know it.
So, without the specific events that happen, things would be the specific way they are. Neat observation.

>Without advancements made by science, many of us would be dying in child birth.
Okay, what does this have to do with what you’re quoting? I was making fun of your reference that being alive is useful when there is no logical argument for that claim. Usefulness, in the way your using at least, being a metaphysical notion that does not logically justify anything.

>Whether in the 20th century, 21st, or 25th. If that development didn't occur, thanks to science.
Yet this same science creates weapons of mass distraction, gives rise to new diseases and conditions and engenders wars and suffering around the globe. Should I thank it for that too?

Still, that’s not really what we’re debating.

Spenglers claims don't need to be proven scientifically, you can deduce them with intuition, a basic modern education, and an IQ above room temperature. I'm sorry that you can't do it, user.

wew, yikes, oof, what else can anyone possibly add to r/IfuckingLoveScience x r/atheism incarnate

this is scientifically proven cringe

Hey science shill, why haven't you acknowledged this user's counterargument?

>art is useless because it isn't science
Don't give them any ideas ffs

There's a myriad of different usefulnesses. Some objective and some subjective. One subjective usefulness is that I get to argue with autists for fun and one objective usefulness is that it facilitates communication.
>wew
>yikes
>oof
>implying these are not buzzwords used by redditors
You're not fooling me.
>comparing crazy fan fiction mega theory of history with intuitively understanding that people would have captured animals and interacted with them over time in various way to tame them

You see, that’s not true. You have to situate the object before you can make claims about what’s objective first. An event that has happened is pretty objective. For example, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, that’s an objective determination. In fact, it’s likely considerably more objective (in light that it will remain an unchanged and determined fact forever) than most contemporary scientific theories that will undergo transformations in the centuries to come. Yet this historical factoid is not deduced by any science. History is full of objective determinations that aren’t scientific.

The solution is to burn all this shit down and begin again at a more reasonable place

Read Land and Ligotti

Since the one retard who answered me claimed that Spengler was useless for being unscientific had to resort to unscientific claims to back up his argument, we can safely say that rebuttals aimed at Spengler's avoidance of scientific rigor are self-refuting, paradoxical, and altogether ineffective at refuting Spengler. So I ask again, has anyone ever tried to refute Spengler?

Attached: 1539566524582.png (657x527, 46K)

So there are multiple usefulness, and there are none under which Spengler is useful?

Based

>linking your own post
I agree with you, and I think I made it clear myself that I don't believe human history can be studied scientifically in the same sense as a hard science. But that's exactly my point. If it can't be studied or understood scientifically in that manner, then why should I take grand theories of history seriously? Especially when those theories are used to make objective claims about the past, present or future.

I already said Spengler is very interesting and that is subjectively useful to me. It's entertaining and I do enjoy entertainment.

Why haven't you seen the uselessness of arguing with a bunch of Spengerlists on an anonymous Chinese buffet enthusiasts imageboard? Why haven't you unironically kys already?

Gee you’re right user! I’ve been thinking about how we live in an nominalist void filled with ugliness, where the ties to land have been broken, where the pillars of nation, faith, and family have been shattered, where our traditions of architecture, art, and music have fragmented. But then I read your post about how we can watch Japanese cartoons of on our high-speed internet connections and realized things are really pretty great.

One can refute Spengler, but in the same language and order of Spengler’s thought. You have to use the logic he used.
Ultimately, Marxism trumps Spengler’s view. They’re not incompatible, but Marxisms can just swallow and assimilate Spengler within the dialectic

>If it can't be studied or understood scientifically in that manner, then why should I take grand theories of history seriously?
Because they’re part of the project. The building of human knowledge is an eternal task. A theory of history has political, and social implications. These are as much part of our real condition as our material and physical fact.

>Especially when those theories are used to make objective claims about the past, present or future.
Well, philosophy hardly works in this way, it’s not the point. Sartre called it the grey emminence of science, it is the fiekd where we attempt to totalize our knowledge.

>Ultimately, Marxism trumps Spengler’s view
I don't see how this is true at all, do you know of any books or papers that attempt to do this?

I'll reiterate my point one last time.
My refutation is this: he can't be refuted because of the nature of his claims. But his claims also cannot be examined or studied in an objective manner (with science) despite his claims making objective claims about the world. As far as I'm aware, science is the best method we have for understanding the world and how it functions. So for that reason, I don't find grand metaphysical claims about reality or history convincing or worthwhile. In the same vein, the lore of The Lord of the Rings cannot be refuted. Lotr could actually be true. I can't refute that claim completely (for basically the same reasons why Spengler can't be refuted), but there's very little reason for me to believe it's true.

tldr; there's no point in taking it very seriously as it can't be proven either way.

>any books or papers that attempt to do this?
Not directly, but you can read Lefebvre‘s Dialectic Materialism. It isn’t too long.

Consider reading Imperium by Yockey

You are and have been talking this entire time as if I asked you to scientifically examine Spengler's theories. I haven't for obvious reasons. You don't seem to be able to get out of this little thought loop you're in. Science is not the proper method to use to look at Spengler's ideas. Please stop repeating you're little "BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IT SCIENTIFICALLY!" mantra. Your argument is self-defeating and paradoxical and it's already been acknowledged and moved past.

I mean I've read Marx, I'm familiar with their framework I just think Spengler's is better. Does that paper directly address Spengler?

this is arguably one of the dumbest comments I've seen on Yea Forums in my 3 or 4 years here

Brainlet here, I've only ever read The Republic and Meditations on First philosophy by Descartes. What do I have to read to get into spengler?

Nothing, just jump right in.

So are middle and lower class.

Maybe reading Goethe's Faust, but knowing the gist of it is good enough, but not required. Just dive right in.

Well, at that point you need to throw in the Bible and Nietzche as well as some Hindu metaphysics ect ect ect. Spengler generally explains everything thoroughly enough. Read Faust eventually though, it's the greatest work of fiction written in the last millennium

Thanks guys, I'll try to check out Faust by the summer. I've been attempting to learn German in my spare time anyway, haven't made much progress however.

>Basic things like that don't need to be proven scientifically
Scientific evidence for this please?

I think it was empathy with wolf pups, not science.
Then there's this: youtube.com/watch?v=XJQh22sCTZI

yeah but they dont control anything. trust me i dont believe the 'peasant authenticity' meme.

bumping thread

Attached: ronda rousey literary muse2.jpg (1977x2085, 808K)

What edition/version is recommended

Do I need to read Decline before I read Imperium?

>Read Decline first then read pic related.
read the post first first, though, maybe

You can kinda see what the nazis were trying to do with their larping: laying the seeds for some transcendental superman idealist culture on roids and starting a new warrior-aristocracy with the SS, etc etc; It's just it never got off the ground as it was pincered between the modernist-materialist ideologies of communism and capitalism. Maybe it would have collapsed on its own though, who knows really; interesting to think about.

it's basically one fucking book

>snarky bitch response

do you have your answer, or no?
can you rise above this?

Yeah after reading Evola/Guenon, contemporary politics and culture began to feel like a joke.

It makes you think that there are forces at work that are bigger than you or anything that is happening. It takes the weight of responsibility off your shoulders so that you no longer feel the urge to react to anything that happens outside of your own private life.

Reading their books while blackpilling, was also liberating in some weird ways.

No, I'm asking if you NEED to read Decline in order to understand Imperium.

I am more interested in reading Imperium than I am Decline so I'd like to skip Decline or read it later. Is it necessary to read Decline in order to understand Imperium?

just skim the wiki dude, jesus
do whatever you want

I mean the biggest problem is that Spengler is a peak modernist who spergs out too much on vast metanarratives controlling how reality unfolded(s). Doesn't mean there isn't some actual insight and things to consider, and I sympathize with his general rejection of the optimistic pride of mainstream European modernism, as well as his attempt to create a nonlinear historical analysis.

This is very fascist art, empty and meaningless.

capeshit is fascism

Bump

youtube.com/watch?v=yDVIrp8XaWI

For example? Any favorites? Can be any medium but preferably literature.

>just give up. Optimism is cowardice. In fact trying is cowardice. Only the blackpilled impotent ruminating over hopelessness is virile.
How absolutely buttblasted were krauts by having lost the great war?

you're a brainlet who doesn't know how fascinating history can be, or how important the present is. spengler is fine for teaching you some perspective about your place and your nation's place in the world, but he is hardly the final word on how to think about humanity.

don't fall into the trap of fatalism. most of europe died during the black death, it was very literally the End Times. but your ancestors survived and here you are being retarded. the future will be fine. or it won't. read a canticle for leibowitz.

Attached: 1000yearslater_alandalus.jpg (1024x702, 365K)

>Marxism trumps Spengler's view
it really doesn't. On the contrary; Spengler can see Marxism as yet another expression of a certain cultural symbol, and nothing more. And Spengler's predictions were more accurate than those of Marx, including the ultimate decline of communism into just another form of capitalism.

You never read Spengler

This, also ironic how Marx, with all his methods and empiricism, failed to predict that capitalism would learn to regulate itself to survive. Spengler, on the other hand, used pure intuition, analogy, and the physiognomic tact to correctly predict the last 100 years of Western history. Spengler was writing about climactic changes and the revenge of the third world in the decolonization independence movements in the fucking 20s and early 30s.

>being this spooked by muh human nature

man is something to overcome, only retards hold on to "humanity" and that sort of spook

Post body

i'm a BwO

you're right, we're fucked

>man is something to overcome
yeah.. when you're a genetic fuck up who's been bullied all his life I guess it's hard to accept Man for who he is.

Has anyone ever realized that all the technocrats and transhumanism proponents were all autists who were bullied in school? Literally all of them, kek. Kurzweil, Gates, Musk... Elon should've died in those stairs hahaha. Kids and women are the best eugenists in the world.