I never thought you were a white supremacist. I always saw you were an immature introvert with a lot of emotional and sexual unresolved issues. Your thoughts and your edgy drawings have always struck me as infantile and betraying a tragic lack of experience and clarity in life. Example: You once said you hated only 2 people in the world, and one was Angela Merkel, LMAO.
What does this have to do with racism?
I'd argue a lot of people within "superior" cultures actually lack the spirit that made them great and instead we've relied on an intellectual elite to drive us forward. Discriminating based on that sounds less like old world racism and more like snobbism.
I actually agree with this and fundamentally do not view Faustian culture (there's your Spengler vocab ;) ) as superior here in its winter, hence I do not discriminate on the pretense that we are superior but instead on the truth that we've grown inferior in a multitude of crucial capacities.
Yes all societies rely on the elite to drive them forward but the elite do not drive the culture, the culture drives the elite because culture is a deterministic potential that an elite can only hope to actualize but not change.
Concerning the snob comment, I don't see how that'd matter even if true. I would hope you think my ideals pertaining to culture are not so simplistic as to think I believe "meh we are just better because we are".
Snobbery doesn't have to be simplistic.
Indeed it doesn't, I will clarify what I meant.
If I believed some culture at some point in its being was superior to others at that point one could deem me being snobbish about that culture, but if I have set of thorough and justifiable reasons for that held belief then someone placing me in the category of 'snobbish' doesn't matter because it really doesn't negate argument nor prove the belief as false.
If I were instead to have an oversimplified reason for my held belief, even if the belief is true, then me being snobbish would prove my ignorance.
So you see snobbishness as either ignorance or good taste, depending on how justifiable the reasons based on your own standards of success?
Yes.
Someone can be a snob and present a well thought out argument that explains a phenomena with reasonable accuracy, I wouldn't call it having good taste though. Examples of such individuals that fall into this category are Isacc Newton and Oliver Heaviside, both were snobbish and had good reason to hold their beliefs. Reasons so good that one made Classical Mechanics possible and the other made Quantum Mechanics possible.
Someone can be a snob and have no real reason to hold a belief, ignorance seems like a reasonable label.
Having said this, I do not believe my initial comments in this thread were snobbish given Inq made his comment on the pretense that I hold the belief that my own culture is superior to all others and as I stated this is untrue.
He didn't say that. He said that discriminating based on your criteria is snobbish because certain cultural progressions are not truly of the people but of the influencing minority within that culture and therefore it would be false attribution to assume that an individual within any particular culture must be a certain way in adherence with that cultures accomplishments. Whether or not you do that I can't say but I can definitely see how your original post could be interpreted that way.
I'd argue a lot of people within "superior" cultures actually lack the spirit that made them great and instead we've relied on an intellectual elite to drive us forward. Discriminating based on that sounds less like old world racism and more like snobbism.
I actually agree with this and fundamentally do not view Faustian culture (there's your Spengler vocab ;) ) as superior here in its winter, hence I do not discriminate on the pretense that we are superior but instead on the truth that we've grown inferior in a multitude of crucial capacities.
Yes all societies rely on the elite to drive them forward but the elite do not drive the culture, the culture drives the elite because culture is a deterministic potential that an elite can only hope to actualize but not change.
Concerning the snob comment, I don't see how that'd matter even if true. I would hope you think my ideals pertaining to culture are not so simplistic as to think I believe "meh we are just better because we are".
Snobbery doesn't have to be simplistic.
Indeed it doesn't, I will clarify what I meant.
If I believed some culture at some point in its being was superior to others at that point one could deem me being snobbish about that culture, but if I have set of thorough and justifiable reasons for that held belief then someone placing me in the category of 'snobbish' doesn't matter because it really doesn't negate argument nor prove the belief as false.
If I were instead to have an oversimplified reason for my held belief, even if the belief is true, then me being snobbish would prove my ignorance.
So you see snobbishness as either ignorance or good taste, depending on how justifiable the reasons based on your own standards of success?
Yes.
Someone can be a snob and present a well thought out argument that explains a phenomena with reasonable accuracy, I wouldn't call it having good taste though. Examples of such individuals that fall into this category are Isacc Newton and Oliver Heaviside, both were snobbish and had good reason to hold their beliefs. Reasons so good that one made Classical Mechanics possible and the other made Quantum Mechanics possible.
Someone can be a snob and have no real reason to hold a belief, ignorance seems like a reasonable label.
Having said this, I do not believe my initial comments in this thread were snobbish given Inq made his comment on the pretense that I hold the belief that my own culture is superior to all others and as I stated this is untrue.
He didn't say that. He said that discriminating based on your criteria is snobbish because certain cultural progressions are not truly of the people but of the influencing minority within that culture and therefore it would be false attribution to assume that an individual within any particular culture must be a certain way in adherence with that cultures accomplishments. Whether or not you do that I can't say but I can definitely see how your original post could be interpreted that way.
I stated I agree with Inq on this matter.
My statement pertaining to race can also easily implicate this sentiment because a white person born in Europe may be very negative Faustian traits, especially now, while a person born in Persia can have very positive Faustian traits, I have witnessed this.
I will now be very explicit.
As it pertains to the human element of a culture, I do not believe being part of a specific culture or society makes anyone superior. Those individuals in the culture one could consider superior are synchronice elements between the culture and a moment in time, the synchronicity being history.
As it pertains to the none human element, pure culture, I do not believe any culture is flat out superior to all others or even any other culture. Cultures have only have moments of superiority, usually in the climax of their being. A culture in the climatic moment, which usually lasts only 100-200 years, is likely superior to a other culture in its infancy or in its old age. Superior in this case is merely influential, will-full, and capable of instantiating its will.
The discussion at this point has become me informing you that something I did not state was projected onto my initial statement, and the from that projection an inference was made.
My initial statement was:
AliceInWonderland said:If I were to be categorized as racist it's be a very old world racism, where skin color holds no importance but instead spirit and will mean everything. In such a case the spirit of a culture is what is superior, not the skin color that is predominant in a ruling culture.
Inq then stated:
Inquirer said:I'd argue a lot of people within "superior" cultures actually lack the spirit that made them great and instead we've relied on an intellectual elite to drive us forward. Discriminating based on that sounds less like old world racism and more like snobbism.
I did not state that all individuals in a culture hold the spirit that makes a culture great, nor did I state all individuals in a culture hold the will that made a culture great.
This stance was projected on to my statement which only mentions that will and spirit make cultures great, not who holds that will and spirit, not what that will and spirit are and can be, not when and where the that will and spirit is.
From there, the projected stance inferred my snobbism and if I did hold such a position I admit it would not only be snobbish it'd be ignorant of the complexities of pertaining to the morphology of culture.
but what about the eventual isomorphoism of culture you retards
That'd be just another stage in the morphology.
Isomorphism in cultural developments is nothing new, it's just never had the potential to happen at this scale.
is the faustian culture really superior if it cannot sustain itself? how are we judging its superiority since the chinese culture has evolved and not lost its values since the beginning of time, contrary to the west
Who said it was superior?
