Do you think nationalism is philosophically justifiable?

Strict political nationalism is just the last gasp of humans' inherent need for an in-group to function properly. You can tear it to pieces easily but the inherent need doesn't go away.

Question for religious fags. Do you feel a closer connection to your countrymen or to religious brethren?

Pretty much this.

Also some country's cultures are objectively superior (i.e. The West vs China/Arab) so the superior countries have an interest in preserving their nation state

i hate nationalism. So not to me.

Thank you for your contribution, user!

No

And also have a consistant view of morality?

No. Not at all.

Politically it's conveniant, but shortsighted.

inb4
>"cuck"

>objectivity
>desire for superiority
Pick one, faggot.

This is interesting. Can you back it up in any way though?

Its been long docunented that humans are social/group-oriented creatures.

Nations are just one type of group, and a relatively new conception at that.

absolutely not.

Yes but how is the nation state an inferior group to, say, organised religion?

I never said anything of the sort so I don't feel the need to address that. IMO a group is only as good as the people within it, I dont care what type it is.

A rational argument in favor? Absolutely not. Perhaps a continental argument based on emotion and general confusion

> Strict political nationalism is just the last gasp of humans' inherent need for an in-group to function properly

Why is it the last gasp? I thought you were implying that because it was the final struggle to form a group it was somehow the final option after all other conventional groups have collapsed (religion, the family, etc.) meaning it is inferior

Oh, I'm not that user. Hopefully he or another might be able to answer your question.

No, traditionalism is though. Nationalism actually destroyed more traditions in the past than it preserves today in its drive towards cultural homogenization of the lands of the state. Nationalism, especially when combined with democracy, is the ultimate poison for high culture. The democratic herd animal is the lowest form of life which this world is capable of supporting as far as I am aware.

It's purely intuitive, I can't give you a solid reason for it. I've just come to believe that the only reason to care what happens beyond self-interest is to feel fiercely protective of your own group, which necessitates hostility toward other groups. If you can't think "we look after our own" then what can you think?

Cultural nationalism, yes.

> I can't give you a solid reason
Then it's not intuitive.

The rest of your post all reads like someone with a poor grasp on philosophy, not to mention it doesn't even attempt to answer what I asked you about. Maybe actually try to read something on the subject before shitposting

Well it's the only real kind of nationalism

Racial "nationalism" is idiotic and not even actual nationalism
In fact it's the main reason nationalism has bad rep

what would you recommend I read?

If you have cultural nationalism one race will eventually emerge in most cases. Aberrations are exceptions. Then it becomes both. The biggest bullshit the modern race movement doesn't get is that race is a consequence, not actually something in itself. It pisses me off to no end. unban eugenics reee

Start with the Greeks

Western teenagers actually believe race isn't central to everything we're talking about here.

Oy vey.

>caring about lines drawn on the ground
>actually killing people for crossing those imaginary lines

We're all from planet earth.

>caring about rocks strewn about the universe

If there were human beings on other planets I wouldn't mind them coming over.

>necessitates hostility

No it doesn't, it only 'necessitates' it if your group is under threat by the other group. Nothing prevents different groups peacefully interacting.

Why would it be if we're talking about nationalism and not racism

It isn't. See: civic nationalism. "We're all equal citizens of the state, no matter our colour or creed" &c.

Me too, but your argument isn't very constructive.

Morons like you depress me sometimes. You know how easy it is to trivialise anything along similar grounds?

Is x philosophically justifiable?

x=property rights
>caring about material things
>actually killing people for taking those material things

x=parenthood
>thinking a genetic coincidence necessitates affection
>actually being upset when parents don't treat children nicely

x=love
>love isn't just brain chemicals
>actually filing for divorce when your spouse acts on natural impulses

x=capitalism
>caring about pieces of paper
>actually wasting your life acquiring pieces of paper

x=anything
>caring about arbitrary things
>actually defending your interest in arbitrary things

Can you relativist idiots no just fuck off so we can actually start solving some social problems rather than brushing them under the rug while you bask in your lazy sophistry. Fuck.

>caring about anonymous basketweaver posts
>actually wasting your life getting triggered

ITT: people can't agree on what nationalism is

>caring about other people caring about anonymous basketweaver posts
>actually wasting you life doing anything other than quietly contemplating

This board might not be for you.

That's because there's different kinds of nationalism.

Are wemon philosophically justifiable?

Nationalism is a relatively uncomplicated concept without many caveats. What could you possibly be struggling with?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_nationalism

Like different colored shirts? Or different shaped blocks? Or different kinds of vegetables...?

How will we all agree and push the magic policy button to try out our nationalism on the country?

wew, really stumped me there. I suppose we can't agree on what books are either?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_type

What's your point?

People are arguing nationalism with their own definitions, when the reality is there's different meanings to the word. What does books by type have to do with this? They're not equivalent.

Yes.

Wow, a fucking comic, you sure showed us

He dose t know how to think. He only knows how to memorize definitions. It's ok.

live laugh love

>the overwhelming majority of points made by the far right are made with infographics or comics

hmmm...

superior form of communicating ideas

there's nothing inherently superior in strings of characters

Same with the left.

It's as says.

>there's nothing inherently superior in strings of characters

That's not a philosophical justification.

>answers with meme picture

bait nano dess

Distinct lack of /pol/ shitposting ITT. Pretty disappointed ín you guys.

/pol/ hangs out on /r/the_donald nowadays

>They're not equivalent
Come on, m8, it's not that difficult.

You said that we can't agree on what nationalism is because there are too many types. When I asked what you were struggling with, you simply pasted a wiki link to different types of nationalism. Facetiously, I followed your odd choice of "logic" and suggested that we therefore can't agree on what a book is, given that there are so many types, before pasting a wiki link to different types of books.

Like I said, the concept of nationalism is relatively uncomplicated. Although it has many applications and a rich history, conceptually it shouldn't really pose any difficulty to this board.

So, why is the heterogeneity of nationalism barring a coherent discussion of it and --- I'll ask again --- what exactly are you struggling with?

>You said that we can't agree on what nationalism is because there are too many types.
No. I said that's why we hadn't agreed, or couldn't agree in reality, not why we couldn't agree in concept.

>Like I said, the concept of nationalism is relatively uncomplicated
This is blatantly false. You're not going to reconcile ethnic nationalism with civic nationalism, because they are mutually exclusive. Nor are you going to be able to determine which is the "true nationalism", because not even the most autistic prescriptivist would think it necessary. Sometimes, words have different meanings. That's why we added "ethnic" and "civic" to the second word "nationalism".

You could justify it, I guess, but unconvincingly.

It makes no sense to take pride in the fact that you happened to be born in a certain area of the earth. It doesn't mean anything.

>you're not allowed to love your parents because you just happened to be born from them

Hegel thought it is. I bet he's smarter than me.

Responsible for more death and suffering than any other ideology ever conceived by man.

Prove me wrong.

No. We are citizens of the world, and we should be ready to go against whoever wrongs any of them, even if the wrongdoer is your own country.

You're allowed to love your parents no one is stoping you if they deserve it but your parents can be manipulative cunts or sick fucks and if that's the case you really should reconsider.

Nation states are pure fluid collective abstractions so trying to compare them to actual concrete entities is stupid.

Yes.

This, one serves their country (and the world) best by being (constructively) critical of it.

You didn't just happen to burn from them, because you couldn't have born from other parents. Your parents are not something that just happened, but your nationality is.

Not with my values it ain't.

Because reddit.

Heidegger is a really shit example here.

Why? Despite the obvious Nazi connection he was associated to many radical nationalists in the conservative revolutionary movement like Ernst Junger

Nations have a history of fucking their own people into the ground, so I dont see any reason to love or hate them. They're just a thing.

...How? Have you read any of his political or social philosophy?

No, it's arbitrary as fuck.

>Oh let's create some random ass borders
>Woah guys everyone within these borders is now SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE OUTSIDE
>I'm better than you m8, I lived within these arbitrary borders and existed within this arbitrary gene pool for an arbitrary number of years!!!!

Uhhh, Heidegger wasn't *really* a nationalist. Thanks for proving that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about

Heidegger takes direct inspiration from originally Herderian Volk and the at times mind-numbingly nationalist historicism the Droysen/Dilthey-era Prussian Historiker, which was itself constantly informed by the idea of Volk. The idea of a community grounded in (Heideggerian) tradition and Mitsein is obviously implicit in the idea of an historical tradition itself, and even within BT Heidegger leaps from the individual Dasein to the explicit idea of Volk, and more explicitly makes this determination in his address in 1933.

>When the contemporary reader of Being and Time encounters the concepts of heritage, fate and destiny, and places them not only in the context of the political climate of mid-to-late 1920s Germany, but also alongside Heidegger's later membership of the Nazi party, it is hard not to hear dark undertones of cultural chauvinism and racial prejudice. This worry becomes acute when one considers the way in which these concepts figure in passages such as the following, from the inaugural rectoral address that Heidegger gave at Freiburg University in 1933.

>"The third bond [knowledge service, in addition to labour service and military service] is the one that binds the [German] students to the spiritual mission of the German Volk. This Volk is playing an active role in shaping its own fate by placing its history into the openness of the overpowering might of all the world-shaping forces of human existence and by struggling anew to secure its spiritual world… The three bonds—through the Volk to the destiny of the state in its spiritual mission—are equally original aspects of the German essence."

He's also prototypically nationalist and Volkisch in his rejection of liberal cosmopolitanism and techne. This isn't surprising at all for his milieu:
>For Heidegger, the massive technological feat of remilitarizing Germany will somehow allow for a return of the essence of the German ethos or Volk lost in the “technological frenzy” of twenty-first century civilization.5

Also:
>“the origin of all political action is not in knowledge, but in being. Every Führer is a Führer, must be a Führer [italics in original], in accordance with the stamp in his being, and simultaneously, in the living unfolding of his proper essence, he understands, thinks, and puts into action what the people and the state are.
cf. Hegelian idea of the State.

All typical of German national milieu: duty, Volk, transcending the pettiness of the individual via the ontologically-grounded whole people.

>SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE OUTSIDE
Thats jingoism you retard.

Hate to break it to you lad but it makes no sense to take pride in anything, and amazingly we CHOOSE what we take pride in

Taking pride in a group you belong to helps with the cohesion of this group, and nationalism could be a potential remedy to so many social issues we are facing nowadays

>random borders
>confusing nation and country
lmaoin @ ur stupidity desu senpai

also you're thinking in the strawman this guy highlightedOn a side note I believe nationalism is a very justifiable idea except it's on the decline and will disappear all together since people of a same culture are no longer living in the same place due to how easy travel is today

>Taking pride in a group you belong to helps with the cohesion of this group, and nationalism could be a potential remedy to so many social issues we are facing nowadays
>being so cucked you want to help society instead of yourself, or anyone who isn't a spook

Were in a thread talking about philosophical justification so stirner posting doesn't belong here

Why not?

>stirner
>philosophy

>Stirner
>Not philosophy

>ism

Yes, a global and holistic nationalism.
Soon...

>Putting is hands on the Camel Rider's hips
GAAAY

>Feeling nationalist attachment to a nation you are neither from nor have any ethnic connection with.
For true patricians only.

Protecting your in group from lesser beings is a natural instinct

Every standpoint can be justified philosophically and have been, throughout history. The interesting thing is to look back and see how different historical actors have thought about and legitimised their actions.