Harmony and development are both sound concepts to value. The concepts of absurdism (freedom, self-destruction, resistance) are a little too loose ended for my liking though, and often times they can end up contradicting themselves/they overstep their bounds (largely by having bounds while attempting to be boundless). I'm more partial to Kierkegaard than I am Camus, although I suppose I can appreciate both in their proper context.
Zen Buddhism still draws upon the notion of impermanence to a certain extent though, does it not? Would you say it is more actively nihilistic in contrast with other forms? Would you even go as far as to say it's not nihilistic, but absolutist?
I fucking hate Rand, I'll be straight with you. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't mind the premise for objectivism, nor do I mind her sense of heroic romanticism, but I highly dislike the way she goes about proving those ideas. It's almost as clumsy as her synthesis of experience and reason. She essentially takes correlationist logic to a point where she conflates what is being correlated instead of regarding both similarities and differences. Within her objectivist philosophy, I hate her naive approval of individualism out of her confidence in the objectivity of innate goodness. I would recommend Nietzsche or Hegel for heroic romanticism over her any day.
I don't mind Utopianism or Platonism, although I think philosopher kings are required for any utopia. As Schopenhauer said (in a rather Hobbesian way), "If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy..."
Absurdism was a precursor to Post-Modernism, and they are very similar in terms of their fundamental premise. Both the absurdist and the Postmodern would claim that reality has many meanings and is essentially meaningless.
I find the emphasis on impermanence within many forms of Buddhism to be quite nihilating. The East couldn't quite conceive of being like us Westerners could. They certainly had a strong conception of becoming though.
If you're a libertarian and an absurdist, you sound like a modernist to me (over a Postmodern). Have you read *faps Ayn Rand *faps at all? She's not attractive, but Libertarians love her.
I've essentially read the Greeks and the Germans, as well as some French and English philosophy. The French largely just have fancy prose and the English can often be too empirical and materialist for philosophy. If I had to choose figures from French and English philosophy to elaborate on where I stand, I'd probably pick: La Rochefoucauld, de Masitre, Baudelaire, Thomas Carlyle, and Thomas Hobbes. Rene Guenon and African Spir are my runner ups for French philosophy. I'm a fan of most Western philosophical traditions with the exclusion of analytic philosophy and certain continental and existential thinkers.
Not too much. Just taking it real easy. I like your profile pic. Lol.
I'm glad my review was able to draw your attention. If you don't mind my asking, where do you stand on those subjects? Are there any particular movements you adhere to or thinkers you're particularly fond of?
Heh. My money is on Post-Modernism and Cultural-Marxism, just because those movements are so predominant. Most people who I come across with an interest in the aforementioned subjects tend to lean that way. I've found Libertarianism to be the second most common leaning.
All Comments (4) Comments
Zen Buddhism still draws upon the notion of impermanence to a certain extent though, does it not? Would you say it is more actively nihilistic in contrast with other forms? Would you even go as far as to say it's not nihilistic, but absolutist?
I fucking hate Rand, I'll be straight with you. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't mind the premise for objectivism, nor do I mind her sense of heroic romanticism, but I highly dislike the way she goes about proving those ideas. It's almost as clumsy as her synthesis of experience and reason. She essentially takes correlationist logic to a point where she conflates what is being correlated instead of regarding both similarities and differences. Within her objectivist philosophy, I hate her naive approval of individualism out of her confidence in the objectivity of innate goodness. I would recommend Nietzsche or Hegel for heroic romanticism over her any day.
I don't mind Utopianism or Platonism, although I think philosopher kings are required for any utopia. As Schopenhauer said (in a rather Hobbesian way), "If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy..."
I find the emphasis on impermanence within many forms of Buddhism to be quite nihilating. The East couldn't quite conceive of being like us Westerners could. They certainly had a strong conception of becoming though.
If you're a libertarian and an absurdist, you sound like a modernist to me (over a Postmodern). Have you read *faps Ayn Rand *faps at all? She's not attractive, but Libertarians love her.
I've essentially read the Greeks and the Germans, as well as some French and English philosophy. The French largely just have fancy prose and the English can often be too empirical and materialist for philosophy. If I had to choose figures from French and English philosophy to elaborate on where I stand, I'd probably pick: La Rochefoucauld, de Masitre, Baudelaire, Thomas Carlyle, and Thomas Hobbes. Rene Guenon and African Spir are my runner ups for French philosophy. I'm a fan of most Western philosophical traditions with the exclusion of analytic philosophy and certain continental and existential thinkers.
I'm glad my review was able to draw your attention. If you don't mind my asking, where do you stand on those subjects? Are there any particular movements you adhere to or thinkers you're particularly fond of?
Heh. My money is on Post-Modernism and Cultural-Marxism, just because those movements are so predominant. Most people who I come across with an interest in the aforementioned subjects tend to lean that way. I've found Libertarianism to be the second most common leaning.