I decided to take a chance with the Goon-Pill and I am quite glad I have done so.
He takes Nietzsche's "will to power" and "Apollonian and Dionysian" concept and reconfigures them into a concept called "the duality of human nature", in which people can act either destructively or in the "way of building". The origin of this duality comes from the fact that we are not "All-Powerful" and that we are defined by our powerlessness, and through our free will, we can act in a way that strives to create a feeling of power in ourselves (will to power) and connection with existence, or we can reject the conditions that produce the powerlessness and act destructively. Where Goonan differs from Nietzsche is that he says we have to strive for a nuanced and balanced power, highlighting that people collectively cooperating and working together create more power for all instead of people acting individualistically and achieving less. He talks a lot about how "excessive power-seeking" is destructive.
He then applies the concepts of the original philosophy into the construction of all areas of society. Each area deserves it's own thread. They are that good. Except some will seem simplistic if not for the previous understanding of the core philosophy. Revolutionary ideas, and it seems like Goonan is trying to start a revolution of some sorts. Highly recommended to anyone looking for something fresh, visceral, and outside of the status quo cannon.
You know these threads have started to really water down the board. If your book was worth reading we would all own a copy already.
/thread
Nicholas Young
We wuz kangagetss and sheeeit Pass them up Goonan
Austin Russell
Bump for interest...who is Goonan? I saw this on Amazon a few weeks ago and has good reviews.
Charles Hernandez
>"Complete animalistic sexual behavior in women is characterized by the pursuance of a man or many men for only their high sexual prowess with disregard for the creation of a strong family due to: A. The desire for the woman to put off raising a family in this pursuit, which also contributes to a long-term negative effect in the creation of a family in section C. B. The unlikelihood that a man with high sexual prowess will settle down and raise a child with the particular woman given the fact that he has many other options and may be animalistic himself. C. The elimination of the possibility of raising a strong family with a man who has less sexual prowess than any man the woman has had sex with before. The reason for this is that a woman will only remain submissive and desire to be with the man who is the top alpha male in her sexual past. The alpha male creates in the woman feelings and pleasure that is unmatched by others, and is the only man that can truly command respect from the woman in a relationship. A man who remains in a relationship with a woman in which he has no possibility for becoming the top alpha male in her sexual history is a beta and therefore weaker and inferior to the actual alpha male from the perspective of the woman and her feelings. If the woman disregards her sexual hierarchy and starts a family with a beta male, the partnership is doomed to be weak and they will fail in remaining together and fail to create strong offspring. The woman may have chosen the beta for his provider status because of her inability to hold down an alpha male. The beta is a provider of both monetary and emotional support for the woman. The woman is the dominant person in the relationship with the beta male because she holds the locus of the power in the relationship- her sexual feelings and needs that are not being met."
Seems like pol-tier puritanical ramblings. What can you say about Section 3 of the book? The stuff about power has me interested, I have been writing lately about the concept of power myself, but I don't want to waste my time with the millionth analysis of the Chad/Beta/Stacey dynamic.
Adrian Morgan
fuckkkk no not this shill again GEt out and go have a baby with Kevin Macdonald
Austin Ross
His analysis on dating and sexuality is at times crass, but he has some original ideas that go beyond the typical /pol/ copy-pasta.
Andrew Smith
>He takes Nietzsche's "will to power" and "Apollonian and Dionysian" concept and reconfigures them into a concept called "the duality of human nature", in which people can act either destructively or in the "way of building" Reading this made me cringe so hard that for a moment my body produced visible waves.
Jose Peterson
I'm gonna buy this seems actually decent
Bentley Morales
Sure it does, Sean
Adrian Nelson
>see this book shilled for ages >actually sounds good >look up Sean on GoodReads >reads great authors and has a constellation of books right up my street >philosophically aligned
Im sold
Angel Clark
Damn I remember these threads from /pol/. Based Goonan is Goonan.
Jeremiah Lee
>be user >see this asshole professor scribbling away about elves or some gay fairy shit >"You know, Tolkien, if your book was really any good, we'd all already own a copy of it."
Adrian Gutierrez
Get out of here with this trash shill. You fucked off for a while, so just continue to fuck off. Go make a pol thread, they can identify with your redpilled juvenile On Women shit.
