Two friends of mine have been lauding an excerpt from this book as exemplary, with the less self-assured one wishing they were as elevated as the anarch and the more self-assured one claiming they had found the philosophy they had been following without knowing how to phrase it laid out before their eyes. My sister, on the other hand, thinks the writing pretentious and unrealistic and believes this fuels my friends' delusions of superiority to and contempt for humanity at large. I understand Jünger opposes the anarch to the anarchist as being truly free by not having to preach about freedom all the time but instead living it, taking what he can from the powers that be instead of hypocritically and/or pointlessly confronting them yet never submitting to any authority beyond his own personal interest at the time. The anarch supposedly lives life on a more primordial level than everyone else, seeking fleeting reality in art mostly. Jünger also opposes the liberal to the anarch in that the first always wishes he lived in a free world whereas the second knows he can be free and makes the conscious decision to be and remain free. While Jünger makes some novel and thought-provoking points, I am reticent to adhere to what I sort of see as sophisticated je-m'en-foutisme and irresponsibility as a "nugget" of wisdom, as my more self-assured friend called it. Has anyone here come across this text before? What did you think of it?
>a female doesn't like the book this must mean it's bad!
Luis Edwards
On the to-read list but haven't got to it yet.
Gavin Sanders
Junger is peak midwit-core—he's like fucking catnip to them
Jackson Smith
>...derive pleasure from what is present and do not toil to procure the enjoyment of something not present >It appeared to Aristippus that the basic principle of all life was to be found in two states of being, the state of happiness and the state of pain, the one the child of wisdom, and the other the child of folly, the one agreeable and the other repellent to every living thing. Epicurus taught that if the mind could be free from anxiety and the body from physical disorders, happiness would inevitably be present. So tame a form of happiness would have been repudiated with contempt by Aristippus, who believed it was possible to plan for pleasures, and in some cases to snatch them from the hands of envious Fate, as a dog will snatch a cold woodcock from out of a pantry window. It seemed to him that happiness was as accessible to the poor as to the rich and was a condition that could be induced by a cunning wisdom. In order that a man should never become a slave to his passions, complete self-mastery was essential. A man should be able to curb his desires or abandon himself to them in accordance with the dictates of prudence and good sense.
Nolan Gray
Your sister is correct. No man is an island. It's a hubris conceit of men that they can defy society that women are instrincally less suspectable to, women needing to constitute themselves at the secure centre of society to safely raise children whereas men can operate on its frontiers and insecure wildlands. Read Fichte, Hegel, and Kojeve on the philosophy of right.
>germany lost war >therefore hide in forest >hide in allegorical forest but stay in city Bravo Junger
Chase Nelson
>>germany lost war I mean how many times are you supposed to put all your human power and abilities in, sacrifice everything, your life and even your own sons to achieve a goal even at the level of a greater society and good and get beat down again and again before you can just dip out?
Nolan Jenkins
anti-jungerfag just won't quit.
Jeremiah Sullivan
Meaning?
Jace Ross
What's the quote in English?
Charles Richardson
That's the problem with Junger, it's therapy for the defeated. All very well for old men who were forced then to live "amongst the ruins", but why ought we in a different era malinger in their historical conditions?
Ayden Fisher
"peepee poopoo"
Hunter Cox
>a liberal and traitor >geriatric Don't you ever get tired of this?
Levi Hernandez
You're malingering in a historical defeat instead of embracing and living in the possibilities of the present. You're taking on another persons historical impotence and the therapeutic techniques he employed to grapple with that impotence.
To be weak is miserable, doing or suffering; why malinger in another's weakness when the conditions that produced that weakness do not apply to you?
William Diaz
“ Whereas the anarchist wants to abolish power, the Anarch is content to break all ties to it. The Anarch is not the enemy of power or authority, but he does not seek them, because he does not need them to become who he is. The Anarch is sovereign of himself—which amounts to saying that he shows the distance that exists between sovereignty, which does not require power, and power, which never confers sovereignty.
“The Anarch,” Jünger writes, “is not the partner of the monarch, but his antipode, the man that power cannot grasp but is also dangerous to it. He is not the adversary of the monarch, but his opposite.” A true chameleon, the Anarch adapts to all things, because nothing reaches him. He is in service of history while being beyond it. He lives in all times at once, present, past, and future. Having crossed “the wall of time,” he is in the position of the pole star, which remains fixed while the whole starry vault turns around it, the central axis or hub, the “center of the wheel where time is abolished.” Thus, he can watch over the “clearing” which represents the place and occasion for the return of the gods.”
Charles Wood
How did Junger linger in historical defeat?
Dylan Perez
It's therapy for losing WW1 & WW2 and being impotent to determining the social form of the society he lived in. The answer is not to forgo society and pretend to be a self-determining atom, but to win the social again and partake in determing the form and nature of the society in which you live. Perhaps that was beyond him, old and twice defeated, but why should others, in a different era, malinger in that impotence, and pursue that same therapy for the weak?
By giving up on politics and therefore giving up on determining the form and nature of the society in which he lived in, and rather choosing to be content with being a self-determining anarch. Perhaps he had no other choice and for him it was not malingering in the true sense, but rather proper therapy appropriate for the historical conditions he was confronted with. But for us, now, in a different time? It is malingering in the deeply negative sense, taking on an impotence and volentarily subjecting oneself to the therapy for the weak before that weakness has been imposed upon you.
Caleb Thomas
There isn't a difference, to posit a difference is to invent a therapy for your impotence in the political field.
Anthony Reed
>bro, just work to get Germany destroyed a third time and lose your grandsons this time lol >surely this time the anglo will understand.
Jonathan Collins
Read the old threads. He wasn't political to begin with
Daniel Butler
Both anarchism and the anarch are strategies of impotence against a society that you can not effect the form or nature of. It's a debate of the weak outsiders over which therapeutic path they will take to accomdate themselves to their impotence against a hostile society they can not change. The anarchist desires to tear it all down, the anarch desires to be self-determining, to form his own internal microcosm of society and state. Both are wrong from their inherent anti-social nature, they fail as social-political policies because they aren't social, they're therapeutic strategies to being outcast alone from society.
Noah Ross
lmao who is this dude sperging out in every Jünger thread?
The technical society and the Christian community are at complete odds with one another
Eli Martin
He retreated from the political because he lost. The retreat is therapy from being outcast, from political impotence. There's no need for anyone else to malinger in his impotence, unless you too are truly impotent and defeated like he was, and therefore you too need his therapy, even then it's misrable.
>you WILL submit to a totalitarian state run by schizos
Joseph Taylor
His post-WW2 corpus is a therapuetic manual. Read the OP, the two friends discuss the book as therapy and therapeutic technique.
Christian Collins
He lost two world wars. He would have been a very different writer with a very different, and very socially responsible state position, if Germany had won WW1.
Joshua Baker
You live in a society. Choose your therapy for how you accomdate youself to the facticity of your social being.
Jacob Flores
Post the quote.
Robert Thompson
Nazis would have killed him.
Blake Allen
It's a critique of Junger that I am making.
Landon Walker
So user's sister doesn't like him and that makes him a bad writer. Got it.
Anthony Brown
So you do believe that there's a difference between society and community then? Surely you are not saying that women must be a part of society to raise children, considering it is this very modern globalized society which has led to the decline of childbirth, and the crisis of raising children in a safe environment as you put it.
Justin Taylor
They had 25 years and didn't, not a good post.
Owen Wilson
The sisters critique is correct, but that's beside the point, all are evaluating is as a therapeutic manual, the two men positive, the sister negative.
Thomas Johnson
No there is no difference. The early Christianity that Hegel beleives could work is an extended family, and once it goes beyond the intimate bonds of common property ownership and close day-to-day friendship it fails because it is anti-social.
David Hall
Stupid people think all art is pretentious.
Cooper Davis
The sister correctly identifies the anti-social nature of the anarch concept and the negative therapeutic consequences of social alienation for the person who realises it >(sister) believes this fuels my friends' delusions of superiority to and contempt for humanity at large
Dominic Jenkins
Who's a non-therapeutic writer who could have saved Germany with heroics?
Daniel Nelson
What does this have to do with the book? It's not about tik tok
Brody Mitchell
Because the book is written and read for a therapeutic purpose, not merely an aesthetic experience.
A better millitary strategist? A better political counsellor against hubris and over-extension? Giving Bismarck a daoist immortality elixer scroll?
Kevin Harris
What about the Amish? They live in multi-family communities.
Carson Green
And depend on the state that harbours them for security and the administration of law.
Isaiah Martin
What do you mean by that? The Amish don't participate in the military or law-enforcement, and most of the issues they have are handled in-community.
Caleb Butler
Emprunté à la librairie, j'ai pas pu aller au-delà de quelques pages. Stirner > Jünger.
Tyler Sullivan
Cringe. Just read Stirner at this point, he's not deluded by a false sense of nobility
Grayson King
This samefag. Why do you hate Junger?
Elijah Hill
The epilogue was probably the greatest twist I have encountered in any piece of literature.
Evan Robinson
Real anarch but they choose to sleep on it reading-books homies fossil shit pre-historic book worming 'yeah I read joong. I read thomas pidgeon'
tell me, what are you going to read when all book sentences will be mandela-effect'd to SNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEE
