Im looking for good critiques of individualism, in particular the necessity of supra-individual concepts or tribes...

Modern evolutionary take is socio-biology of E.O. Wilson, in particular On Human Nature and Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.

An alternate name for the topic is Group Selection Theory, the idea we select and evolve as groups rather than as individuals.

Attached: onhumannature.jpg (405x595, 27K)

More recent take on sociobiology and group selection theory applied to contemporary politics.

Attached: Salter.jpg (327x500, 36K)

Ortega y Gasset, The Rebellion of the Masses

Isnt this venturing into pseudoscience, or is it just 'uncomfortable' science?

Can group selection theory be salvaged from it's crumbling foundation of wrongheaded neodarwinian presumptions?

Attached: 1566557303429.jpg (456x311, 30K)

>hurr durr being individual must only mean materialism, dissolution and american consumption
Start with Kant, Goethe, Schiller, Novalis, Stirner, Nietzsche, Hartmann, Steiner and rid your mind of empty labels.

Start with Sociobiology: The New Synthesis if you have scientific doubts about its rigour, a textbook of animal studies. If you can put aside the "no no danger wrongthink" alarm bells then skip ahead to On Human Nature where it gets applied to humans.

Attached: Sociobiology.jpg (1490x1500, 316K)

From biology, Eco-Devo and Niche Construction may interest you. These are ideas that the environment determines (in part) the phenotype, and that the phenotype creates the environment in which it lives. Basically a modern and scientific update of holism.

Attached: Sultan.jpg (368x480, 28K)

Please, group selection is a joke and is neither needed to explain any evolutionary phenomenon nor is it supported by the majority of evolutionary biologists.
If a phenomenon can be adequately explained through simpler means then it's unlikely the more complicated explanation is true, as per occam's razor and as per statistics.

ALL SPOOKS

Attached: Max_stirner.jpg (200x237, 11K)

Nice contribution to the thread brainlet

unironically negative dialectics

>appeals to authority
>taking occam's razor as an axiom instead of as a suggestive heurestic
Not gonna make it. Sociobiology explains phenomena vulgar neo-Darwinianism can not. Wilson started with ant societies and their specialised caste systems.

Explain multicellular organisation

>NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY

I'm not that poster but the one who asked if "group selection" can be salvaged from it's neodarwinian presumptions (I think not). Read Hoffmeyer, J. Biosemiotics (2015) 8: 153. doi.org/10.1007/ s12304- 015 -9236 -1 and stop posting Pomo neodaw cringe

Take out the spaces in the link
Introduction: Semiotic Scaffolding

The fuck bro you're posting cringe

Attached: 1561060956369.jpg (1007x1200, 62K)

You are a liar and a sissy

Stop projecting

based gay chad worshiper poster

Vile pleb, if you werent a dirty rogue I would challenge ye to a duel o' wits. Then we would see who is "cringe"

Wrong pic, the thot seems to be enjoying the stuggle.

>bla bla bla bla
Shut the fuck up already schizo

Pseudoscience

Stop projecting, sissy la la liar

I remember the row that pic related kicked off but really, who among us, given a perfect body and a shitton of money, would not walk naked amongst the global poor?

SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP

Silence sissy

What a fucking cunt

>NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY

hope the muslims decapitate her or something

>This is how the world ends, not with a bang but with a filter
based and tseliotpilled

>trunked
that webm has been shared so many times, but it makes me chuckle every time

Whats interesting and somewhat sad is that an elephant, totally different species than us find thin white girl attractive enough to hump her, is european homo sapiens truly the pinacle of evolution and if thats the case then we are screwed if the best we have are instagram thots.

Isn't "Why Liberalism Failed" in parts about this?

generative anthropology

White women are trash-tier.

Attached: 1566673460671.jpg (750x403, 177K)

europeans are the mid-wits of evolution

who are the high-brow then

The will is universal. Trying to make arguments for a social absolute is futile, much in the same way as arguments for absolute egoism are futile.

Yes, except every other race wants conciously or not to be white or as white as possible

Nope. Have you ever been around modern white women, or any group of non-white women?

East Asians.

Yes, daily

And this is not in America?

So a bunch of angsty douchebags lambasted her profile with derogatory comments I gather? I've seen the original post, it wasn't offensive and it didn't make any claim of superiority over the guy working in the field.

I'm here and good example of Male, trying my best, don't hurt

Attached: 1566168536524.jpg (510x624, 208K)

Who is she?

Literally any other philosopher other than Rand

God I wish that were me.

Tribe

>RUN YOUNG MAN I WILL HOLD HER

youtu.be/KTMFBYXmvMk?t=1573
26:13

Attached: images.jpg (225x225, 5K)

He actually looks like he's trying to break her neck

>Ive been trying to start with Hegel's philosophy of Right, but its daunting because it's hegel. What should i read of Hegel before it, or can i just go in? Ive read some Kant and, ironically, Marx' critiques of Hegel's philosophy of Right.
Use this as secondary while reading it: archive.org/details/LectureCourseInHegelsPhilosophyOfRight

Attached: 1564784362817.png (600x453, 187K)

kys

If she's getting shit its cause she's using someone's daily struggle to show off her ass while playing it off like she's got sympathy for him

30 years outdated.
Although Katz new book hopefully refurbishes the ideas.

More elephant on girl stuff please

Elephants are in it, they get something in exchange.

Attached: 1563787211765.webm (480x480, 2.92M)

People posted a lot of good recommendations, so here as a thank you

Attached: I love travelling, teehee.webm (1280x720, 2.04M)

Cope

thot status: patrolled

She don't understand that if she can do half naked pictures posted on instagram like this, someone has to bend his back on this rice field.
At least she should have had the decency to post a picture where she's dressed.

be more specific

whats it called?

Can we get sources on these please? At least the first one?

twitter.com/fritocorn1/status/1144755062004228096?s=21

Stupid western whore. Unafraid when you should be cautious.

I want an elephant bros

Read Hegel on freedom's necessity of the state.

I'll be damned if hot white girls can't post pics of their asses to end world hunger.

Attached: 942px-William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_After_the_Bath_(1875).jpg (942x1920, 218K)

longer version?

Attached: 1563695745036.jpg (621x976, 470K)

>implying without the ass shot the contrast would have half the impact in the pic
She might be a sloot but you're impulsive

fuck this I just want front mission to be real

Attached: 20.jpg (728x1070, 197K)

How is that related to the topic at hand senpai

it's related in my head
instead of rich heiresses who travel the world and fuck around with elephants I want giant mechas and synthetic islands, do you understand?

Attached: ggg.jpg (332x152, 8K)

He looks like a little vampire with his little tusks

group selection is top cringe
Chad anarchs like Junger blow cringe neodarwinism out of the fucken water

But Jünger specifically symbolizes this.
Whatever he might have written in his later years he DID voluntarily join one of the worst conflicts of human history and bravely fought for his nation it and at least somewhat thrived on it.

If there is any one group embodying the argument for genetic group interests it's the soldier of the 20th century.

Junger's post-WWI actions hardly substantiate that he acted out of group selection or national love, for starters he initially joined the FFL. He fought because he was a born fighter. To say that he was acting out of group selection in WWII is absurd, even. It's not reaching to say that his later work was specifically about abandoning group selection

Junger self-sacrificed for his group and wrote manifestos about why other men should do the same.

But your argument is absurd.
Disregard his publicly voiced opinions and just look abstractly at his actions.
Because what he undeniably DID was risking his own life for his country, voluntarily and whatever post-hoc rationalizations he gave are kind of meaningless.

To understand how a person thinks you firstly have to observe how he acts and especially what he does when his convictions are tested, that is much more important then anything the person could ever say.

You got me then. However, Junger conflicted with himself many times over the course of his life
I don't believe his motivation for fighting was simply for his country at all

>I don't believe his motivation for fighting was simply for his country at all
But the point is, motivations do not matter at all. What matters is what people do.

I can not see into the souls of the millions of Europeans who gave their lives up in the 20th century but their actions are undeniable they died for the sake of their countries.
And I see no other explanation for this then selfless group interests, what else could keep a million men in their trenches, yes mutinies happened, but there simply was nothing that kept them in the trenches. At any point they could have got up and left, who would have stopped them, who even could have?
And yet they didn't, even their self preservation instincts were overridden, which is to me nearly incomprehensible.
What other explanation is there?

If you consider WWI Junger in isolation as the archtypal soldier, then sure, the main component of the soldier's fitness is in group selection. But Junger was far from archtypal. Just look at how he acted in Nazi Germany, which is essentially founded on the principle of group selection

>If you consider WWI Junger in isolation as the archtypal soldier, then sure, the main component of the soldier's fitness is in group selection.
His actions certainly put him far above average among the soldiers, but based on his actions, he was just more selfless more brave and more determined then the rest.

>Just look at how he acted in Nazi Germany
Going by his actions he did exactly what one would expect, he joined the military again and participated in the war.
He obviously didn't agree with the Nazi regime, but not because he was against German interests, but because he (correctly) identified what doom it would bring over Germany.

>Nazi Germany, which is essentially founded on the principle of group selection
You can have two opposing groups who both believe that they are doing the best thing for their group.
This is not a paradox, but quite natural and infact what one would expect if one believes in group selection.
The disagreement between Jünger and the Nazi Regime wasn't "should one act in Germanies interests", but "what are Germanies interests." Which is again evident by him initially putting the disagreement behind him and serving in the military eventually joining the Staufenberg Plot, which I do not believe can be characterized as anything but "Hitler has to go, for the sake of Germany".