Zeitgeist Clusterfuck

I know this is a very broad question, but I'll ask anyway. If I want to cultivate a functional understanding of our current society, that is comprehending the weft and wane of modern man, which books or other resources should I consult?

Other urls found in this thread:

charlierose.com/videos/5401
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The book of death, you can read it after you kill yourself.

we have lots of current societies. which one do you mean? the vapid selfie generation? the underclass which is too busy working to find enjoyment in distraction? the hamptonites and their illuminati meetings? be specific.

So my endeavor is completely pointless and I should neck myself? Cool.

The West. The first two more than the third. Selfies and class systems are more relevant to me than upper Echelon tinfoil.

From Dawn to Decadence.

Also
>Inventing the Individual
>Revolutionary Ideas
>The Making of the Modern Mind
>Civilizations: Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature
>The Great Chain of Being
>The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

charlierose.com/videos/5401

Read Kierkegaard’s journals. The dude was right about literally everything and nobody listened because they thought he was insane. It’s pretty sad actually. Then after his death they still misinterpreted him and turned him into some ‘great philosopher’ using his pseudonymous work to jack themselves off in classrooms. Really, the doom Paul memes that are popular should have been doom Kierkegaard memes, but then again, I fucking hate memes.

Read SIEGE by James Mason, Read SIEGE faggot

Do you have an edition/translation recommendation? Also is fear and trembling worth reading?

>Read Kierkegaard’s journals.
Which?

The English Hong translation volumes 1-5 are the only comprehensive collection that I know of. He regarded Fear and Trembling to be his masterpiece, but you could probably skip it and go straight to the good stuff in the journals provided you fully understand the point of the book - that the genuinely religious supersedes all ethical considerations and begins at the point where you find yourself in literal Fear and Trembling because you are so conscious of yourself as a sinner before God. (This is the point where you paradoxically begin to love God.) His journals contain his personal views about everything from politics to science to, of course, religion. I’ve been reading for quite some time and I’ve yet to find something he wasn’t absolutely right about.

>I’ve yet to find something he wasn’t absolutely right about.
The part where he believes in an bronze age belief system that comprises beliefs and ideas that are completely at odds with modern science.

Plato's description of Democracy in The Republic will do

How about the part where he says that atheists aren’t interested in the pursuit of truth but only insurrection against the supreme authority of God?

That's a baseless assertion, but I'll give you that it could apply to some. But to categorise all atheists as people rebelling against the sky daddy is nonsensical. I'm assuming you don't believe in Thor or Odin, are you rebelling against them?

>right about everything
>believes in demons

(it's kind of a cliche around here but) Simulacra & Simulation and Society of the Spectacle

Thanks. I'll search for some of these.

Pleb here, I much prefer the Penguin/Hannay translations to the Hong editions. The Diaries, Either/Or, Sickness Unto Death and Works of Love are essential. I hope more of the diaries get published in the next few years... on an unrelated note I'm excited to read the new extended Book of Disquiet.

I'm tempted to believe he was insane. Are his journals entertaining or are they theological masturbation?

I can’t really do much to bring you from the ethical sphere to the religious sphere it takes Faith for that on your part to do that. Without God, all you’re left with is moral relativism and utilitarianism, but don’t worry, if you’re ever about to have your organs harvested, the only Body w/o Organs that exists, Jesus Christ, will be there along with the triumph of deontology to save you.

I'm a satanist. Give yourself over to the dark side. Have a bit of fun, don't be such a bore.
>LaVeyan Satanism is a religion founded in 1966 by the American occultist and author Anton Szandor LaVey.
>LaVey established LaVeyan Satanism in the U.S. state of California through the founding of his Church of Satan on Walpurgisnacht of 1966, which he proclaimed to be "the Year One", Anno Satanas—the first year of the "Age of Satan". His ideas were heavily influenced by the ideas and writings of Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.
>The religion's doctrines are codified in LaVey's book, The Satanic Bible. The religion is materialist, rejecting the existence of supernatural beings, body-soul dualism, and life after death. Practitioners do not believe that Satan literally exists and do not worship him. Instead, Satan is viewed as a positive archetype representing pride, carnality, and enlightenment. He is also embraced as a symbol of defiance against Abrahamic religions which LaVeyans criticize for suppressing humanity's natural instincts and encouraging irrationality. The religion propagates a naturalistic worldview, seeing mankind as animals existing in an amoral universe. It promotes a philosophy based on individualism and egoism, coupled with Social Darwinism and anti-egalitarianism.

I’m a diagnosed schizo, dude. I know what it’s like to be in Hell because I’ve literally sat in my room for hours feeling burning sensations utterly convinced I was already in Hell. I’m not taking any chances on that front, brother.

>schizo believes in Christianity literally and believes Kierkagaard is right about everything
Who woulda thunk

>I'm excited to see capitalist tack on random pessoa texts onto the Book of Disquiet and sell it
>I also don't own a proper copy of Pessoa's complete works
The absolute state of this board.

>he fell for the Lavey meme
The worst meme ever to fall for. You'd be better off following literally anybody else.

I'm trolling you autist

>The religion is materialist, rejecting the existence of supernatural beings, body-soul dualism, and life after death. Practitioners do not believe that Satan literally exists and do not worship him. Instead, Satan is viewed as a positive archetype representing pride, carnality, and enlightenment. He is also embraced as a symbol of defiance against Abrahamic religions which LaVeyans criticize for suppressing humanity's natural instincts and encouraging irrationality. The religion propagates a naturalistic worldview, seeing mankind as animals existing in an amoral universe. It promotes a philosophy based on individualism and egoism, coupled with Social Darwinism and anti-egalitarianism.
>doesn't like the "irrationality" so creates their own pseudo god building project full of spooks
>uses this ritualistic framework to justify their hedonism
why not just be a regular hedonist and admit you're worshipping a base existence with no self-control or moderation than giving it the trappings of some edgelord religious philosophy

Are you 13?

The thing about what we call schizophrenia though, is that you only get diagnosed if you’re the only one who holds the beliefs (which is basically Kierkegaard’s whole deal about the single-individual). For example, if I would have spoken out about child-trafficking networks when I was concerned about them, they would have used that to support the diagnosis. Now there’s a billboard in my town ‘raising awareness’ of the issue and everyone is on edge about it, but that’s normal because they are the many and I’m the individual. See what I’m getting at?

>See what I’m getting at?
No. Your mentioning of child sex trafficking would have mostly been based in delusion or your obsession with it would have been to the point of insanity. That's where the line is crossed.

What is the ‘healthier’ response to the thought of a child trafficking network in the area - to not be bothered by it or to be so troubled by it that it causes many sleepless nights? Modern psychology says it would be healthier to ignore it so that it didn’t cause any ‘psychiatric distress’, but the Christian, who does nothing but suffer in this world, would indeed find it very troubling indeed.

If you have actual evidence for it, take it to the police or community organisations.

Nah, I’ve come to realize that the only ‘child-trafficking network’ that exists in the area is Catholic Adoptive Charities, and that is operated under the authority of God.

And you're not going to give the evidence you have for it to the police? A bit immoral, no?

What are you talking about? It’s not like the Catholic Church is a secret society. They’re very public about the adoption services they provide. If I went to the police over that, would there be any doubt left over my insanity?

There's a big difference between an adoption service and a secret paedophile ring. You're claiming to have knowledge of the latter.

Unironically learn some economics

The fact that we know an other's pain in some way as a given is such a ridiculous notion as well. That someone's distress over an animal being hurt goes to some "insane" degree because the way they understand that animals pain is much different from your own, that it's much more pronounced to them than you, is disturbing. But that people come up with the aesthetic reasoning for their sympathy and so cannot find it in things which don't conform to that aesthetic is a fucking atrocity. And even more atrocious is how this empathy has evolved to this point that we still can't seem to acknowledge the day to day ignorance of all the horror of life. That it's ridiculous is exactly what makes it as horrible as it is. And I think that our language and outlook on life doesn't make room for that idea that something as stupid as the unknowable pain of a horse getting beaten might be experienced in empathy by someone as equivalent to whatever height of horror you want to imagine. That pain is so unknowable and that another's empathy is even more unknowable is the very reason it's sometimes better to accept the frame offered by one in psychic distress so that you can evaluate the accuracy of your empathy. A sort of deep ecology, existential psychology practice.

Adoption is literally child-trafficking. The only difference between the terms is connotation. One is good (this is what happens under the authority of God who is completely good). And secondly, I never claimed to have knowledge about it, only that I was unnerved by the possibility. If you aren’t aware that the possible is a category completely distinct from the known, you should read Kierkegaard especially since “through God all things are possible.” Even in my most delusional states, I remained skeptical of my thoughts and feelings, and I never really accepted them as the truth, but the subjectivity of them was true and I kept them in hidden inwardness from the psychiatrists. So yes, I’ve learned a lot from Kierkegaard.

I agree with this post, basically my illness was caused by certain conflicts between interpersonal groups I witnessed driving around my state. I became so frantic that my parents got afraid too and had me committed (which actually makes paranoia worse who’d have thunk). Then I tried to explain to the judge and psychiatrist that I was in “a state of extreme hyperarousal caused by inter-group conflict, essentially what they call Jerusalem syndrome.” And they didn’t understand me, and I guess it was more comforting to label me a schizo than to accept that our society might be facing certain dangers. Then I realized that the authorities were fucking idiots and that didn’t help any either. This was about two years ago though. I hardly ever leave town now so I don’t know what it’s like out there now.

You actually do something with the information or you dont. Being troubled by it wont save a single child, its just say 'poor me im so troubled by this thing'.

Calm down Joao not everybody speaks Portugrease