Did Spengler answer all philosophical questions?

Evola thought Spengler was a retard

But in reality, it was Evola who was the retard

based

Lmao the other Spengler thread was deleted as cope. Hope the person appeals it.

And yet a lot of Evola's ideas come from Spengler and an entire chapter in Ride the Tiger is about one of Spengler's ideas

Wasn’t it just responding to Spengler? Not praising him

Evola got his ideas from Guenon as far as I know

Evola had a stick up his ass about Spengler for some reason, I remember in Revolt Against The Modern World he referenced fucking Giambattista Vico several times over Spengler when talking about historians of cyclical history

test

>as far as I know
As far as watching philosophy tube informed you, you wanted to say.

one cannot ignore after the protestant reformation things went downhill and the 11th and 12th century were peak of human civilization

mammoth hunting and ooga boogaing in your cave was peak humanity desu

>bro what if I read Nietzsche but add the parts of religions I like and remove the parts I don't then claim that's what they believed in Atlantis and shit

Unironically this

>The cyclical history view that people like Spengler and Evola use pretty much answers all philosophical questions.
This statement is astonishingly ignorant.
>Does it tell me whether numbers exist?
>Does it tell me if there's a difference between the "truth" in the logic of a novel and the "truth" investigated by scientists?
>Does it tell me if humans can know certain things merely by derivation a priori?
>Does it posit a final definition of "being"?
>Does it prove or disprove the existence of a world other than the material world?
>Does it show that time is a physical feature of the universe, or only a product of the way our thoughts are structured?
>Does it define "art"?
>Does it complete the system of German Idealism?
>Does it give us a set of axioms from which we could derive the current axioms of set theory?
>Does it give us a toolkit for deconstructing our own ideology?
And so on.

based

No faggot he said it in his book

>>Does it tell me whether numbers exist?
>>Does it tell me if there's a difference between the "truth" in the logic of a novel and the "truth" investigated by scientists?
>>Does it tell me if humans can know certain things merely by derivation a priori?
>>Does it posit a final definition of "being"?
>>Does it prove or disprove the existence of a world other than the material world?
>>Does it show that time is a physical feature of the universe, or only a product of the way our thoughts are structured?
>>Does it define "art"?
>>Does it complete the system of German Idealism?
>>Does it give us a set of axioms from which we could derive the current axioms of set theory?
>>Does it give us a toolkit for deconstructing our own ideology?
Yeah, Evola claims these abstract questions are being raised because of the "epoch of dissolution", or the lack of a totalitarian traditional religion. because of the dissolution of totalitarian religion, philosophers have to ponder these questions without the mediator of a transcendent static truth.

>This statement is astonishingly ignorant
pic related

Attached: 1531793820634.jpg (647x740, 54K)

>"Yeah, Evola has a hand-wavy explanation as to why people are asking these questions, but doesn't answer them."
Epic.

>teleology

Nope

These questions only exist in a secular or gnostic perception of the world, they don't exist within a totalitarian religious framework.

These people will never answer these questions either. Look at the 19th century philosophers, they are basically just rolling around in their own shit and mentally jerking themselves off without any solid answers. If one claims to have an answer, it will just be overturned by the next "philosopher" who responds to it with an even more abstract explanation, followed by the next philosopher until infinity.

>These questions only exist in a secular or gnostic perception of the world, they don't exist within a totalitarian religious framework.
Have you ever read the scholastic monks? They're about as totalitarian religious as it gets, and even they debate Plato's theory of the forms. Even Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian of his time, wrote literal tomes on the philosophy of mathematics. These tomes went on to cause tremendous disagreement between his peers.

>These people will never answer these questions either. [...] If one claims to have an answer, it will just be overturned by the next "philosopher" who responds to it with an even more abstract explanation, followed by the next philosopher until infinity.
That's the point. There is no final philosophy, because whenever we answer a question, that answer raises more questions. We make obvious progress (derivation a priori is universally accepted among academic philosophers), but we always have further to go.

>Look at the 19th century philosophers, they are basically just rolling around in their own shit and mentally jerking themselves off without any solid answers.
Could you tell me which philosophers you read to come to this conclusion?

To be honest, "totalitarian religious framework" just sounds like a euphemism for "someone big and strong forcing people to agree with me." Curious why you'd think this is a good thing.

Spengler, I noticed, has been receiving a ton of hatred from this board as of late. I will assume that JDIF is becoming more and more active herein, as Spengler is the most important think who came forth during the Conservative Revolution in Germany. He properly addressed the issues of technology as well as the movements of history. Break from your linear shackles and that you must ultimately accept that we our currently in our death throes as a civilization.

Very ironic pic. Korea don't have translation of Spengler.

You had better get to work on that user!

Well, actually, Korea didn't even finished the full translation of Plato. That should be first isn't it
Although very strangely Deleuze is all translated 15 years ago. Seriously.

didn't even get banned

Attached: 1565385265981.png (498x710, 390K)

>Korea didn't even finished the full translation of Plato
seriously?

Korea is a very strange place. I can't really wrap my mind around Kpop, how it's perceived, and what it's supposed to be exactly. I only know that I like it

Attached: Jihyo2.jpg (1000x1500, 315K)

Based and Schizopilled.

Attached: ZizekVapourwave.jpg (1663x1080, 297K)

YOU WHAT

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 14K)