/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>1749

>>1749

So why doesn't the "all races are equal"; "all religions are the same" apply to Israel but is does to Europe? Because they are postmodern ametaphyiscal beliefs, established after decades of deconstruction by Derridá, Lacan, Zizek, and other freaks. In Israel, the key belief is gnosticism, and thus metaphysical though: what has governed man since even before Sumeria. We have embraced a self-destructive philosophy, which is based in irrationality and denial of reality. What we had before might not necessarily be okay though, antimetaphyisics being the open rejectment to great european spirituality and tradition, as it is essentially the precursor of SJW thought and directly leads into it. What we must start to embrace then, might be metaphyisics. Aristotle, Plato.

And there is the main key problem between nationalist groups. Is it going to be Gnosticism or Trascendentalism? Is Jungian thought, paganism, going to triumph over traditional christianity, like a revival of germanic mysticism like in the Third Reich, a true comeback of the Hidden Sun? Or is traditional trascendentalism going to make a triumphal comeback when modern christianity finally breaks down under the pressure of agnosticism and posmodernism like Christian Orthodoxy and in Iran?

I don't know, I am a philosopher, and don't know about what might happen. But I do hope we learn as much as we can as fast as we can, because we are falling behind and the postmodern fucks are tearing our minds apart.

copied response from original thread;

"Good thread, OP. I think philosophy is criminally overlooked here, particularly because the majority of modern day sentiments, ideologies, and so forth can be seen as the outgrowth of prior philosophical schools. And once you see the underlying thought behind an idea, it's much easier to dismantle it and understand why it's there (and why it's flawed, in most cases).

Take atheism as an example. Why is it flawed initially? Because philosophy is rationalized theology. So atheists are likely to claim a lack of theology when this is impossible. Rather, they're pretending it isn't there. Or by claiming it's "natural" and so on. Scientism arises in a similar way when scientists claim science has no epistemology, they're more or less claiming ignorance of empiricism. Science operates on certain assumptions about the world.

Why is there an association between atheists, humanists, communists, and so on? There are atheists who fervently deny association with the latter, although the latter usually claim atheism as a basis. What is the origin of this? The answer is that most atheists, by rejecting the creation myth, immediately embrace the gnostic myth (Man is the supreme being). Man is the supreme being and he just needs to overcome an obstacle (or obstacles) to reach his full knowing. Sound familiar? This common phenomenon is known as "alienation", such as:

> Whenever a man is not fulfilled by his own view himself, his society or his environment, then he is at odds with himself and feels estranged or alienated, and called in question.

So when people become enlightened and declare that religion is holding us back, stopping us from being great, etc. they are echoing the rallying cry of Marx, who said the same thing. (Marx took this from Feuerbach.)

Marx however expanded this not just to religion but also to economic and social life. The economic conditions we live in alienate us from our real humanity. (Yes, this makes leftists who deny human nature a special kind of hilarious, because Marx argued for communism on the basis that it would allow them to realize their real human nature. Classic.)

So to see the link between atheism and communism, it's the underlying gnostic tradition. (Judaism and New Age share it as well, which is why New Age was pushed as a 'stepping stone' to communism.) And honestly, every form of 'liberation theology' can be traced back to this. Unsatisfied with your life? All you need is to be liberated from _! Fill in the blank and you've got your -ism.

Capitalism: Communism

Men: Feminism

Religion: Atheism

The State: Anarchy

And so on and so forth. It's the same story, just with a different spin. Of course, liberation theology is dependent upon another philosophical framework: Dualism, or the belief that the mind and body are composed of separate substances. (Often known as Cartesian dualism, thanks to Descartes. I always want to give him a good smack in the face for this.)

One thing I can state for certain is that rejecting dualism is an absolute must. We cannot have any of this bullshit of "trapped in a man's body" or false consciousness or alienation garbage. It has got to go."

>>1749

This is incredibly interesting.

Do anyone have anything more for me to read about this?

Holy shit.

The only fucking way you can make a /pol/fag even more stupid is if you mix their special brand of retardation with the very special /fringe/ sauce.

>>1749

Shit, it all makes sense now:

>Why the communists want to tare down the family and religion, and why they fight for sexual liberation.

>Why the family and religion, and fighting sexual liberation, is good according to /pol/.

>Stirner and spook-town.

This is probably one of the more important things I've read to understand what is going on in the world. It ties it all together. This is a war between metaphysics and anti-metaphysics, while the ametahysical people are sitting around, jerking of and calling things spooks.

I suffer from seeking traditional transcendentalism but also finding that I wind up buying into cartesian dualism in a vain attempt to flee the nightmare that is postmodernism or from the standpoint of OP ametaphysics. I do believe quite a great deal that these tribulations the world faces stem from our narcissistic and vain self-worship. And I think no resolutions can come from such thought. The great danger of ametaphysics is in an attempt to escape people often use rationalisation and gnostic thinking because it lays out a trap that is also a loop. If you escape it through gnostic means you then wind up back there in relatively short order because you failed to realise that good is not a product of man but of god and evil is a product of the devil that is only too easy to imbibe. Things have gone rather insane the past few years and it's sad.

>>1749

>Theology>Philosophy>Politics

Where do antimetaphysics and ametaphysics fit into this?

Is it basically the rejection of Theology turning it into:

Philosophy>Politics

>>1751

>Scientism arises in a similar way when scientists claim science has no epistemology

If we confine ourselves to models that agree with certain metaphysical beliefs then we go against the very dogma of overcoming.

The same goes with dualism/dialectics. They are useful tools to help you understand the world. Models, in the same way quantum theory, general relativity, and chaos theory are. They function within a certain scope and in no way should they be applied universally.

>>3264

>Where do antimetaphysics and ametaphysics fit into this?

As far as I understand it:

Theology=metaphysics, at least when talking about this.

If you see the metaphysical things (like: nation, family, truth, religion and even ethics) as oppressive you're a metaphysical gnosticist, an anti-metaphysicist, and probably a marxist, or at least think, at some level, like marxists.

Your theological opinion is fundamental to your philosophical opinions, which is fundamental to your political opinions…

>>3267

Is this thread just for the educati or is there room for the plain thinking? Your definition of metaphysics is eluding me. Metaphysics as I understand it is a field of questions like 'what is existence', and related questions that unpin or unwind existence/reality to 'cosmic' principles and laws.

Your OP says:

>Now there are some demarcations you can follow. There are two basic clasifications which, confusingly enough, run parallel. One clasification is horizontallity (theology, philosophy, politics) and the other classification is vertical (metaphysics, antimetaphysis and ametaphysics).

This is academic and convoluted, no? Do you call them 'vertical' because the latter 3 'jump' higher in the field of questioning than the former 3? What the hell is anti- and a- metaphysics?

>Then finally, in rejection of anti-metaphyiscs and modernism there lies the fairly new field of AMETAPHYSICS

I reject this ametaphysics and anti-metaphysics. There is no such field. They are the invention of a degraded indoctrination system to turn people into babble machines, and completely unnecessary.

>>3269

I'm not op

>>3267

you are not correct in your definitions at all. neither is OP. this is a very confused thread. theology and especially metaphysics has nothing to do with philosophy, as such. philosophy takes place only within the individual, relative mind and cannot be applied to things greater than this, and as such cannot apprehend any objective results

the dichotomy OP sets up between "traditional transcendentalism" and "gnosticism" is completely mistaken. "Gnosticism" generally refers to certain heretical Christian sects, some of which may resemble the description given in OP, however a better word for that most unfortunate mindset would be "Luciferianism". "Gnosis," however, describes a state in which man is able to break down his illusory self and become identified with the Absolute. gnosis as such belongs to every religion; Islam has the Sufis, Catholicism and Orthodoxy has rich mystical and monastic traditions, Judaism has the Kabbalah and so on. many of these esoteric traditions have been hijacked and distorted for nefarious purposes, especially Kabbalah. the Theosophism of HP Blavatsky is a prime example of this and a main influence on much of what we see regarding this trend in the modern day, see: New Age, Wicca, etc.

OP has no idea about Hinduism if he thinks it's the same as Luciferian crap, and I'll just leave it at that.

theology is distinct from metaphysics. you might say it is a derivation of metaphysics, a sort of specific form of metaphysics as applied to a theistic outlook.

metaphysics is concerned with first principles and how they lead to the manifested universe. for instance, look into Platonic "Ideas" or Advaita Hinduism. these are basically pure metaphysics and are not theistic in character (which is certainly not to say that they are atheistic, rather they are not necessarily concerned with theism, which has a sentimental and moralistic connotation)

I think it would benefit everyone to read "The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times" by Rene Guenon to get a basic idea of how this works, and especially how it applies to the topics we examine on this board. the gist of it is, it is a property of all manifested things to cyclically make a descent from quality to quantity. I could write more but I really recommend you all read this book, it is readily available on the internet, probably on 8chan's /pdfs/ board

>>3283

You know what, I decided to do a bigger reply than just >>3304 --

The idea that philosophy does not interact with metaphysics is a joke. Many philosophers therein have interacted with the idea of metaphysics because its such a wide term. Even Nietzsche has tried to deal with his "will to power" as a metaphysical thing by his last book(which was nearly not published). Plato as you said, too, has dealt with metaphysics.

It could very well be said that metaphysics is the most important part of philosophy due to widespread usage and the energy philosophers have used to produce those theories.

Its easy to misunderstand metaphysics as its such a complex term, hell any respectable dictionary on metaphysics (such as https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/ ) will tell you that its a wide-ranging term that has been used for many theories accumulated over time.

I do recommend you brush up your philosophy. The only group of people I've seen trying to displace metaphysics form philosophy are the Postmodernists who disbelieve in grand narratives, but as you should be aware those people are idiots.

>>3305

what does metaphysics mean smart guy?

>>3307

A wide term encompassing many ideas and rules like "the things that don't change" or "free will".

But anyways no matter how I crunch it up it won't replace actual knowledge of what metaphysics is so go read up on it instead of joking around.

Don't make this a case of pearls before swine.

>>3311

sounds like its Marxism by another name. Someone better get on this commie bastad before he opens a maelstrom of simulacrum and reality that no one can snap out of.

>>3305

when I said "philosophy, as such" I meant philosophy in the sense it is usually taken in the west. see Descartes for a prime example (he basically starts off by denying everything but his own individual mind). that link you posted is silly - "it is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way.." metaphysics cannot change. just reading the beginning section, this is quite absurd...

this article should clear things up if you care to read it:

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Oriental_Metaphysics-by_Rene_Guenon.aspx

>>3307

>>3311

>>3312

You guys are being hostile for no real reason. Simply put, metaphysics is the the laws above physical laws. In secular terms, it would be the "root law" from which all other "instantiated laws" flow/derive, in non-secular terms, it would be the divine substratum of existence.

>>3315

I guess but there's been about a half-dozen contradicting descriptions of it so far.

One guy thinks it includes ideals like 'family' and 'nation', another says its about the first principles of the universe, while another says it goes beyond existence in its questioning. Now you say it's the actual laws that preceeded the universe, the divine basis for the universe; laws above physical laws, which make it seem more important than observable physics, and a kind of religion.

>>3313

>this article should clear things up if you care to read it.

>"...it should be made clear in what sense the word “metaphysics” is used, all the more so since I have frequently had occasion to state that everyone does not understand it in the same way. I think the best course to take with words that can give rise to ambiguity is to reduce them, as far as possible, to their primary and etymological meaning. Now, according to its composition, this word “metaphysics” means literally “beyond physics,” taking the word “physics” in the accepted meaning it always had for the ancients, that is as the “science of nature” in its widest sense. Physics is the study of all which appertains to the domain of nature; metaphysics, on the other hand, is the study of what lies beyond nature. How then can some claim that metaphysical knowledge is natural knowledge, either in respect of its object, or with regard to the faculties by which it is obtained? There we have a complete misconception, a contradiction in terms..."

Make of that what you will.

>>3315

Agreed, metaphysics is often not defined properly, Aristotle intended it as ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.’ from what I understand.