How do you reconcile the idea that you're an intellectual with the refusal to acknowledge that change is an inherent part of any medium?
I see this on Veeky Forums a lot. Anything that deviates from an established literary rubric will get fucking lambasted. It'll get reamed, for being any assortment of meme buzzwords.
Isn't endorsing stagnation an antithesis to intellectualism?
Other urls found in this thread:
prb.org
twitter.com
Innovation is degenerate Jewry
Civilisation has already peaked. We are now in an age of weakness, degeneracy and effeminacy.
This. It peaked in the 50s with racial segregation and women in the kitchen where they belong. Happy families everywhere. Until the Jews.
>hey Veeky Forums why are you so fucking retarded haha?
two-digit IQ retard
Change being inevitable doesn't mean any change is good. Most change is shit because most people just fucking aren't good writers. Your freshly baked OC-doughnutsteel isn't good just because it's special and unique. The fact is that when you sample the entirety of human history, you're going to find more good writers than you are on an internet forum, because the former is a much larger sample space than the latter.
If you want to understand the usefulness of dogma go read Khun or something. There should be fringe people, but if they aren't actually treated as fringe then that defeats the whole point of their role in the field.
That's fantastic.
Like a wild fire, all the weak shit gets burned down, and then the strong grow back.
Dark souls 3 is that you?
>Change being inevitable doesn't mean any change is good. Most change is shit
typical 1 digit IQ dipshit
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's shit. You're arrogance is disgusting. You're using your opinions as a standard. Smart people mock you behind your back.
I agree with your line of thinking OP. Maybe you already realise this but you should dissociate literature from books in general and then realise the arc of all art forms as they go from hobbyist experiments, increasing popularity among neckbeards and eccentrics, a mainstream golden age, colonisation by women, taste gatekeeper pseuds, and money makers, then a brain drain and decline in to irrelevance.
Think about it, lit is the first to talk about "muh young people 2 dumb to lyk books lyk me" when physics, mathematics, computer science, engineering etc are more popular than ever. And these require huge patience and a lack of special effects. So this idea that literature is dead mainly because of technological reasons is bullshit.
Literature has suffered a huge braindrain due to the rise of other stuff but also it's decline as feminised academics and moneygrubbing publishers perpetuate tastes among the weak willed conformists (most of lit) that promote only books that facilitate literary theory bullshittery or boring as fuck books about upper class Hillary voting white people problems.
Pic relevant
I hate to use cliches but
"Strong men create strong societies
Strong societies create weak men
Weak men create weak societies
Weak societies create strong men"
I think we're on the last part of the statement. This unprecedented level of depression in the world at the moment I believe will lead to a time of great art.
>Smart people mock you behind your back.
I don't mock myself behind my back user.
>Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's shit.
>m-muh onion is valid too because it's muh onion :(
You haven't refuted anything I've said. I could just as easily say to you that just because you think something isn't shit doesn't mean it isn't shit. That isn't an argument.
I think there's definitely an argument to be made for /pol/ and redpilled people in general being the strong men created by society today. We are trying to turn the tide of degeneracy, and you have to imagine that our struggle will win out in the end and we'll be celebrated when the white race has regained its foothold.
Seems like you summoned the /pol/tards.
I embrace change, but I do think that it takes time for art, literature or otherwise, to prove its worth once it survives a bunch of years. So the snobbishness of the past is a bit justified. I'll never bother much with the Greeks though. Because - Veeky Forumstards need to get if you want have some niche, snobbery doesn't do it: snobs read what other snobs read. I'm looking to really make myself stand-out, and I'm not going to limit myself by reading out of the snob approved pool of literature only.
And yes I'm assuming the people I describe exist here which might not even be necessarily true.
>"Strong men create strong societies
>Strong societies create weak men
>Weak men create weak societies
>Weak societies create strong men"
MMMMMMMMMMMMM
I don't believe this. It's too fatalistic. There's something inherently violent in humans that can't be stamped out. I think more like
>war
>everyone is immediately aware of the repercussions of war and mellow the fuck out
>peace
>people forget what war was like and get all cocky
>war happens again
Peace is an ideal. Saying you rather have war because men in peacetime aren't "man" enough is... well, I mean that's shit, right?
Oh yeah, and just to finish it off, this stagnant colonisation by women and academics is felt by everyone whether they know it explicitly or not.
That 13 year old boy who is good at maths who annoys his teacher by asking "Why Shakespeare? Why boring stuff? Why not other stuff?" He can smell the BS.
Poetry is even further gone than literature. A pathetic castrated art form 100 % drenched in feminisation and academicia. I don't even like rap but I can clearly see that rap today is what poetry was many years ago.
>n-nuh-uh
cry harder, bitchbaby
>using the word "snobs"
on par with using the word "normie"
>Most change is shit
But user, this is also true for writers/artists who don't deviate from the literary conventions of their time. The vast majority of everything is shit.
Keep retreating, bitchbaby :^)
Can't refute
Yeah. That's exactly why most change is shit. That's exactly what my line of thinking is. But when you're picking out the best authors from history, you're getting the froth off the top. Like I said, when you sample the entirety of human history, you're going to find more good writers than you are on an internet forum, because the former is a much larger sample space than the latter. If I've got millions of authors to craft a a dream team with, I'm probably going to make a better dream team than someone who'd picking exclusively from modern day authors just because I'm going to have way more actual people to choose between than the other guy.
What does red pulled mean anyway?
It seems like pol is too racially collectivist for any semblance of hard men.
We haven't even begun to see "weak society creates strong men." And it's weak societies create hard times not strong people. Hard times create strong people. And that's what I mean, we haven't begun to see hard times at all.
Strong men > good times.
Good times> weak men
Weak men> hard times
Hard times> strong men
You lost me half way through.
The absorption of women into a male dominated industry may be skewed by consumerist biased, but it's still change. Everything needs a while to mellow out, not just literature, but it's not the fault of women, and addressing contemporary issues is the very heart of literature. That's always been the case.
Entertainment has always had the function of reflecting what the general public is reacting to. It's one of the reason's I love movies so much. If you read between the lines, you can see what was important to the consumer at the time.
Robots in the early 90s in response to a huge influx of technological advancement. The whole zombies-vampires as metaphors for democrats-republicans thing. The switch from russian bad guys to middle eastern bad guys. The change from benevolent, goofy military, to malicious omnipresent cia states.
That's what literature was for.
But somewhere along the line, literature became academic (more so than before) and suddenly modernization in literature became vilified.
Am I making sense? This is very important to me.
>And that's what I mean, we haven't begun to see hard times at all
I disagree. Yes, the West has yet to literally fall apart yet, but I sense a great amount of social upheaval and existential weight occurring. It's not that people are fighting for their lives, it's that their internal world is falling apart.
>"Strong men create strong societies
>Strong societies create weak men
>Weak men create weak societies
>Weak societies create strong men"
Ah, there it is...
There it is.
Here the /pol/ mind replicates the mythos that fits his predispositions in his brain. It is like how the now-no-longer-used-in-ecology r/K selection got butchered to fit into rightwing thought; how robots butcher evolutionary psychology to justify their failure with women; how leftypol keeps reading out of their selected repertoire, the 'theory', and ignores anything else that conflicts with M*rxist thought. The human mind truly finds a way.
yeah like harry potter you fucking faggot
msn u trluy are one step above normla people
that's the point retard
Not from /pol/ and the way you took that totally literally implies it's you that's the one that's projecting.
I agree
But I feel my use of the word was justified because it still brings up assocations
Normie and snob are both terms to describe people you don't like for what they signal, but that's not necessary how I used it
Weak men tell themselves they're strong men, and then vote a literal angry diaper-baby into the highest office. Thinking about it makes my skin crawl.
It's a huge burning dumpster fire domino effect.
You get Bush, and everything is fucked. Okay.
Then you get Obama, who can't fix it.
So everyone get's pissed and uses him as an excuse to flock towards the other extreme.
Now you have Trump, who has systematically replaced governing bodies with his friends, has actively fired people for disagreeing with him. Has refused to address the rising nationalist problem to the point that WOLFENSTEIN is "too political".
He doesn't say anything of merit. There's a man in office who tweets petty insults at people for calling him stupid, like he's twelve years old. He does that. As a man in office, he goes on social media and calls people stupid.
Regardless of your political inclination, only the stupid aren't nervous. I mean com'on. I have family in the states. I'm really fucking nervous.
the point is trying to interpret reality through video games and bottom of the barrel stories?
No of course not
By all means I'm normal, and even if I'm not I should fall to the same bias because it is an universal feature of the human species
This comes from psychological research it applies to me too, and if I am projecting I don't care because it should be clear that I'm indeed mocking people, so the mocking of I got was justified
(Me)
>someone who'd picking
*who's picking, I mean
and to extend my point, look here:
prb.org
The population of the entirety of the past is 15-to-1 with the present day population. No shit the past is going to have more good authors in it. Even if 90% of present day authors are top tier, the past can match that even if only 6% of their authors are good. It would be downright retarded to act like the modern day has more good work in it.
The point is that's what I was accusing people of doing, you super mega turbotard. Never post again.
Things falling apart are not hard times imo.
Once they have fallen apart those are hard times. People being a bit uncertain about the future is understandable it's very chaotic right now but not close to hard times.
Fair point
You can interpret reality through fiction like the archetype of the Phoenix is Harry potter stories. Why do these stories grip people in the first place? Just because they want to escape reality for a while? I don't buy it. I believe in archetypes and you're connecting with something very ancient and deep within you.
I also agree with parts of your post about societal upheaval and existential crisis. Things are pretty bleak right now and definitely heading toward hard times if we don't get our shit together. People's internal world are falling apart is a good way to put it.
Just throwing this out there
I think that archetypes are just that which fits nicely with our sensory system, maybe another system, and the rest of it is just associative learning. But of course that doesn't sound magical enough.
Try to make a point as humbly as I can.
What kind of fuckhead identifies as an intellectual?
Veeky Forums I guess
Go away
Can I get a quick rundown on what I am allowed to identify as or not? And it is not like I'm openly advertising myself to be an intellectual. Give me some input.
This made me burst out laughing
more like one society becomes peaceful, the men become useless cucks who can't defend themselves or anything else, and they promptly get invaded by foreign men who aren't useless cucks. it happened to rome, and it's happening to us.
>it happened to rome, and it's happening to us.
except rome fell because the rich fucked up and they used lead in their aqueducts?
Everyone seems real eager to blame "cucks" but that's completely undefined. Define a cuck.
It's a completely new kind of thing, that as far as I see it, is being set up to counteract this idea that men don't have to be embittered war heroes.
Like, suddenly, people (mostly feminists) are pushing for this idea that men don't have to constantly prove they're men, they can have emotions, and be soft, and then suddenly there's this whole movement, vilifying the idea.
Yeah, being a doormat is bad, but being empathetic, and peaceable, isn't the same as being a doormat.
>except rome fell because the rich fucked up
you don't think that this applies to the modern world at all? the rich are the ones who benefit from the mass migration we're experiencing today. in the short term, it depresses wages and increases housing prices, and in the long term it divides and subverts the working class and prevents them from uniting for any political purpose.
>Define a cuck
the type of man who is perfectly happy to give away what he inherited from his ancestors and that he should preserve for his descendents. basically, a weak man. a doormat (that's a good word for it). a man who doesn't respect himself.
>men don't have to constantly prove they're men
>they can have emotions, and be soft
this is just an indulgence. at this point, we can't afford to be soft. we have to be tough, or our descendents will be a powerless minority in their own lands. that's just the situation.
What the mainstream considers "change" they call "progress," and what they call "progress" is really a downwards spiral towards the lowest denominator of expression in a medium.
Why do you think that?
Isn't art a communication? What's the point of speaking latin if nobody else speaks latin?
How can latin be considered the ideal if it's primary function is no longer applicable?
Not all people on Veeky Forums are like that, it's just the retards. That said, I'm not about to start praising mediocre art just because it deviates from an established rubric, either.
>I think there's definitely an argument to be made for /pol/ being the strong men created by society today
u r dum
No. The poor are the ones who benefit from migration. The rich are people like you when believe that you should have more than the poor because you were lucky enough to receive it for nothing.
>Why do you think that?
observing the past 20 years worth of art work makes this fact obvious. art of merit is produced in the margins of culture and society for the most part.
>Isn't art a communication?
nobody disputes this; you're phrasing this question like it is being disputed. regardless, look at what is being communicated in the mainstream.
>How can latin be considered the ideal etc.
i don't see how this is in any way relevant to what i posted. i never mentioned latin.
>what I am allowed to identify as
yourself
I can't care less about such defeafist and spineless cucked ideas