Optimism is Cowardice

Everything I see from him seems to be filled with historical inaccuracies

>You have to believe (or "delude yourself into believing," if that makes you feel better) in some higher philosophy, mythology, or religion and ignore Spengler in order to live fluidly.
His own arguments present as pantheistic; he recognised the value of divinity, but made no special claims for any "organised religion". Pantheism is quite compatible with typical scientific thinking, too. In the past many great thinkers have tended towards pantheism, deism or pandeism. Of course cultural upbringing would still colour world-view. Plenty of present-day STEM types seem fine with their irreligiousness, though; even if that is quite bland.

>His theories do not carry over into actual living, even though he was a huge champion of "being-there."
His views can carry over into politics and history writing quite well, even if they won't be of much concern to the average person. If you just want to be "literary" and write a novel, or something, for entertainment there might be possibilities there, too. He covers a lot of areas that may be of interest to specialists.

Elaborate or read what he actually wrote.

I haven't done a systematic analysis of his work but every time I see a quote from him there are many points within that just seem to be simplified historically.
For example, last thread there was something comparing Alexander and napoleon in a political sense, which is beyond retarded

>comparing Alexander and napoleon in a political sense, which is beyond retarded
They changed the era through a rapid conquest and ignored past conventions. Sure enough, hellenism and Enlightenment ideals are quite different, but the similarities are obvious.

The similarities are minuscule. The actual spread of Hellenism outside of Greek communities was very small, whereas the enlightenment and revolutionary ideals did get spread. (Not to mention napoleon had an entire civil side that Alexander never did, and that napoleon took over a revolution that had already happened whereas Alexander was the true founder of the "Hellenistic age")

>I haven't done a systematic analysis of his work but every time I see a quote from him there are many points within that just seem to be simplified historically.
That might be the issue. I remember when I first heard of his work it looked somewhat like mystical gibberish from reading an overview. Like some kind of fantasy cooked up by a psychiatrist to make them self relevant. You really have to read at least his main work (The Decline of the West) to see how certain conclusions make any sense. He later reflected that many readers were failing to look at the bigger picture, which makes his work difficult to grasp for those not looking at it intuitively and critically. I don't think it can ever be truly "popular" with this certain amount of inaccessibility.

>For example, last thread there was something comparing Alexander and napoleon in a political sense, which is beyond retarded
Alexander and Napoleon are held as being figures who appear at a similar stage within their respective cultures and played a similar role. Alexander after the age of Pericles and Napoleon after the Ancien Regime. The "in form" perfection of the high culture is shattered, in both preceding examples a strongman rises up to carve out the world for himself accompanied by a certain formlessness. It matters not that Alexander succeeded Philip of Macedon or that Napoleon usurped power in the French Revolution. Or that Alexander died in Babylon, while Napoleon was exiled twice. It's not supposed to be a case of them being virtual clones, that has to be born in mind. It's more of an analogy than the kind of exactitude one would expect with mathematics or physics.

>The actual spread of Hellenism outside of Greek communities was very small, whereas the enlightenment and revolutionary ideals did get spread.
This is a matter of scale of the given culture expanding itself. Yes, the Greeks largely stuck to themselves even with the diadochi realms. The West has managed to exert its influence across the globe, within varying degrees. Spengler explains the difference between the Classical worldview and the Western worldview quite well here (Classical tendency to nearness and the bodily, "man as puppet of the gods"; Western tendency to infinity and incorporeal, "I will impose my will upon others"). Again, you should give his work a serious chance to see how he has come to his viewpoints.

>That might be the issue. I remember when I first heard of his work it looked somewhat like mystical gibberish from reading an overview. Like some kind of fantasy cooked up by a psychiatrist to make them self relevant. You really have to read at least his main work (The Decline of the West) to see how certain conclusions make any sense
I can understand where he gets his idea (decline narratives are nothing new), I just think that his overall narrative is based on faulty individual points, and therefore inaccurate.
>Alexander and Napoleon are held as being figures who appear at a similar stage within their respective cultures and played a similar role
And I think that's just false. Alexander (and Philipp II) came from the outside the core Greek world and rose up and conquered those core lands before turning to the East. There was no crisis in the Greek world during either of their times. The closest analogue to Napoleon in Ancient Greece would be Alcibiades probably, who rose up in Athens during a period of crisis, was very popular and charismatic, and eventually ruined himself and his achievements by an overly ambitious military plan (and even then, this comparison is kinda silly).
>The "in form" perfection of the high culture is shattered
In the French case, this period was still happening whereas in the Greek case the "golden age" had ended a long time ago, by other people. Like I said, Alcibiades (or even Lysander I guess) would be far more accurate in comparison.
>Again, you should give his work a serious chance to see how he has come to his viewpoints.
I see how he came to it, I just think it's wrong. In general, trying to find analogies between histories seems pretty stupid to me, and ignores the actual core of proper historical study.

I'm thinking about picking this up. Is the abridged version alright, or will I get cucked out of anything important?

>There was no crisis in the Greek world during either of their times
Isn't it the Spenglerian perspective that crisis is always lurking and waiting to mature into catastrophe?

Maybe? Like I said, my knowledge of him is from posts here.

I was going to ignore you, but feel I should write a reaction anyway. No I have not read him and you will use that against me. I've come across him in secondary sources. However, I think that (historical) analysis, unless by models and data, cannot predict the future in any meaningful sense. Turchin attempts to do that, and while I think he is too confident in his model, it can be falsified.
I might give Spengler a chance perhaps, but he seems like one of those intellectuals seeing patterns that fit his belief. Fun for a philosophical exercise, but not much else.

>I can understand where he gets his idea (decline narratives are nothing new), I just think that his overall narrative is based on faulty individual points, and therefore inaccurate.
The overall narrative is more about the development of various cultures, not just decline. Reading Spengler for yourself is better than reading some anonymous second-hand interpreter, by the way. The facts themselves are all there, whether you agree with the conclusions or not.

>There was no crisis in the Greek world during either of their times.
Greece suffered immensely through war prior to Philip II. Not just the Peloponnesian War, but also the likes of Epaminondas.

>In the French case, this period was still happening whereas in the Greek case the "golden age" had ended a long time ago, by other people.
The example I gave earlier of Pericles was the one given by Spengler to represent a high point of the autumnal phase, the earlier figure was Themistocles. The example given by him for France was Louis XIV, but of course the dynasty continued with the less well-liked XV and XVI. In spiritual development the Classical autumnal phase ends with Aristotle, tutor of Alexander.

>I see how he came to it, I just think it's wrong. In general, trying to find analogies between histories seems pretty stupid to me, and ignores the actual core of proper historical study.
If you recommended Thucydides to me then I didn't actually read his work, then that wouldn't make much sense to me either. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've never read an abridged version. You can grab an electronic copy at archive.org if you wish.

>The facts themselves are all there, whether you agree with the conclusions or not.
I guess, but most narratives are created via the careful choosing of which facts to include and which to leave out, as no history can really give 100% of all the facts
>Greece suffered immensely through war prior to Philip II. Not just the Peloponnesian War, but also the likes of Epaminondas.
I mean there was no specific crisis before Philipp, the Greeks were a warlike people and aside from the Peloponnesian war, I can't recall any war that was particularly more violent than the others
>The example I gave earlier of Pericles was the one given by Spengler to represent a high point of the autumnal phase, the earlier figure was Themistocles. The example given by him for France was Louis XIV, but of course the dynasty continued with the less well-liked XV and XVI. In spiritual development the Classical autumnal phase ends with Aristotle, tutor of Alexander.
That seems silly, as the era of Louis XIV was one of political and military dominance, not necessarily one of cultural dominance. Athens was a cultural high point under Pericles, while it was actually pretty weak militarily.
>I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I guess

I'm going to derail a little here.
I've read Decline of the West and Man and Technics. I greatly enjoyed how he described fields of mathematics, art, religion, etc. within the context of different cultures. Some of his ideas seemed very on point. Of course it's debatable wether it's all historically accurate, but a lot of things "felt" right, whatever that may mean.
Are there any other authors or books that deal with those topics in a similar manner?

>Optimism is Cowardice
How does fixating on the obvious equate to bravery?

There is this bird that puts its head in the sand.

That doesn't answer the question.

You chose so. Can't help you there.

It's like you enjoy being impotent.

>No I have not read him
So you don't know what you're talking about.
>I've come across him in secondary sources
Wikipedia pages and the occasional Spengler thread on Veeky Forums don't count user.
>However I think bla bla bla... that I, the retard that is commenting the work of an author he hasn't read, knows the only possible way of historical analysis that can predict future
Kys you ape