I wonder if Kristol has recently thought about this conversation considering mass immigration now polls as a significant issue for a growing majority of voters
I am not interested in modern literature. My teacher has me reading numerous excerpts of many different things. It's week four, and I've already had enough. Can someone explain to me how this is good, or rather, how this is appreciated as it is? I believe I understand the gist. Simply put, he appreciates the new and believes the old is outdated. People like him were very passionate about change during this time. But I still can't quite appreciate his passion, as I hear solely violence in his words.
Futurism is vitalist; it's not merely a glorification of the "new" but, more than that, it encapsulates a radically anti-enlightenment, alternative vision of modernity. Libraries and museums will be viciously, remorselessly burned to ash as the nation - a true, genuinely organic nation - marches inexorably and at blistering speed to a future marked by the obliteration of all existing structure. You may or may not already be aware of futurism's ties to Italian fascism, though the two certainly had their differences.
The line about destroying feminism is probably the most misinterpreted line in this whole manifesto ... futurists didn't want to get rid of women's rights, they wanted to turn women into men, essentially, by the abolishment of femininity as a concept! The futurists believed the revolutionary spirit was male, so in order to make women more revolutionary, they must become more manly They were an absolutely insane bunch, progressive and regressive at the same time in all the weirdest ways, and have a legacy that to this day influences both the left and the right, shame they're so forgotten
I’m closer to BAPs point of view on this topic but he clearly came off as stupid in this clip and was just regurgitating simple statements not unlike you would see in the comment section of some trashy blog. He’s reduced to just saying Kristol is wrong about everything (even if it may be somewhat truthful) but can’t apply any merit to his own arguments or refute anything. Also lol at citing Anne Coulter, embarrassing.
Apart from being a Lacanist, Slavoj Žižek is a perfect embodiment of the western imagination of how a philosopher should look like! - In their eyes he is a Platon-lookalike, or Sokrat or Aristotle, they all must've looked like that, right?
By that logic there are almost no true philosophers in our history. The most common problem in learning philosophy is that you can't fully understand the work of a certain philosopher without understanding their predecessors, and you can't fully understand them without reading their sources of inspiration. dugin is full of bs, as expected.
@@ivanbohatov2072 you did not really give any reasons why dugin is BS. There are many true philosophers. Reading their sources is necessary. Lacan and psycho analysis are not actually philosophies b
@@nkoppa5332 there is a reason why you can find books on psychoanalysis (generally) only in libraries of philosophy departments and not psychology. It's a giagantic part of 20th century philosophical thought. I gave a reason why Dugin's take on Zizek is bs. 99% of phylosophy can be described as "taking your favorite phylosopher's ideas and expanding on them", the same thing Zizek has done with Lacan and Hegel. Also Dugin avoids the fact that Zizek is a Hegelian, and Lacan he uses as a prysm to reinterpret and expand Hegelian thought.
I know people are judgemental towards Roosh, as a listener to some of his interviews, he seems very astute and insightful . As a woman, I get the impression I should not defend him, but I have much respect, as he's adult enough to admit his former life as a sex addict was not the best path to be on.
Ill have to revisit this later. Seems like this lecture would be better appreciated with a syllabus of some kind. Maybe his book or some physical visual reference point. Like a visual aid.
While i respectfully agree with the majority of his statements so far, i find myself searching desperately for more meat, picking around the potatoes of this meandering intellectual stew.
There was a couple lines at like 15% in that seemed eerily reminiscent of earlier 1900s philosophers which speak endlessly of the framework of their philosophy while speaking little of its substance. I guess thats to be expected of a metaphysicist specifically, more than your usual philosopher tho.
Notice how quickly bill “kristol” speaks. million words a minute! Indicative of extreme high stress; cortisol and estrogen. Flushed red face, drooping saggy skin, fat flabby belly with skinny appendages. Cushings syndrome no doubt.
