The fact Dugin can more objectively analyze fascism, communism, liberalism, pre-modernism, modernity, and post-modernism than any other western philosopher puts him light-years ahead of his contemporaries.
The intentional destruction of magic and spirit, along with the reduction of man to pure material, has been the biggest crime against humanity thus far.
while my understanding of this article is extremely superficial, i found the idea that one must disregard what is seen as the Left's covetous monopoly on postmodern critique and instead engage with what is useful in order to build the alt-postmodern/yet-to-be-named phenomenon, to be a helpful reminder and invitation. in my exposure to critical rejections of postmodernism, at the back of my mind i am often thinking "... but what about the parts of postmodernism that are correct (or stimulating or useful)?" this article was also helpful in orienting where various thinkers i have read or known fit into the landscape of critiques of modernity more generally. i feel most drawn to learn more about the re-discovery of the sacred, and the possibility of sociology to restore an "ontology of holism" (if i am understanding correctly)! thanks professor, i come to this channel when i really want to be challenged
Very interesting! I like the idea of dumping various aspects of post modernism while moving forward rather than in a reactionary way. Too much of a focus on the traditional in the arts leads to staleness and museum pieces while destruction of all boundaries leads to isolation.
I have some difficulty taking the terms 'modernism' and 'postmodernism' seriously. The best known English language 'modernist' poets - TS Eliot, Ezra Pound, WB Yeats, David Jones - all had an 'archaic' tendency. Doesn't James Joyce's Ulysses (structured on the Odyssey) have something of a 'post-modern' feel to it? Couldn't the same be said of the often tongue in cheek mocking spirit of Picasso? The German 'modernists' of the Blaue Reiter were greatly influenced by Wilhelm Worringer's book Abstraction and Empathy which was an attempt to understand the non-classical art of many archaic societies. Even the Russian Futurists, briefly in the ascendant in the early days of the Soviet Union, had 'mystical' inclinations and their starting point had often been an interest in Russian folk art (once a Communist art got going in earnest with 'Socialist Realism' it had a very self consciously nineteenth century feel to it). People with a taste for 'modern' music often also have a taste for early - pre-seventeenth century - music. Egon Wellecz who did much to develop interest in 'Byzantine' styles of singing was a pupil of Schonberg's and wrote one of the first serious studies of his early work. I could go on indefinitely. Surely when the term 'modernism' is used in the way it is by Dugin et al (even, I'm sorry to say, by Heidegger) it would be better to stick to Nietzsche's term 'Nihilism', so long as we recognise the attractive side of Nihilism that we find in the character of Bazarov in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons.
Of course, you know these terms work MUCH differently in the arts and literature than they do in philosophy? There is some overlap. They are apples and oranges, but both are fruit of similar trees.
@@jcr4runner OK. But who is the major philosopher of the twentieth century? Heidegger. Or even if you said Wittgenstein, he's just saying that everything Heidegger thinks can't be spoken about. He's not denying its reality. Dugin and Millerman complain that 'modernism' rejects the past. Heidegger argues that some 2,500 years of Western thought is based on a misapprehension of the question of being originally posed by Parmenides, Anaximander and Heraclitus. That's quite a radical rejection of the past, surely. And who else is there? Do Guénon and Eliade not count as philosophers? And are they not central to understanding the 'modernist' age? (and Guénon saw the last shreds of initiatic knowledge in the West in the fourteenth century. Another quite radical rejection of the past and of what we experience as 'tradition'). I think I'm right in saying that the essay by Dugin Millerman is using actually says that all the elements he regards as positive in postmodernism already existed in the modernist age (Jung, Levi-Strauss). So why don't we count them as 'modernists'? I don't, because I don't think the terms modernist and post-modernist are useful. They said what they said, Deleuze said what he said, Nietzsche said what he said. With regard to 'ages' I subscribe to the view put forward by Albert Gleizes that materialist/spatial ages alternate with religious/rhythmic ages and that the disturbances we are undergoing are the birthpangs of a new religious/rhythmic age. But those birth pangs began at the beginning of the twentieth century if not earlier ... In philosophy, to go back to the beginning of my little polemic, the major figure is Heidegger, his way prepared by Husserl.
Ulysses is unreadable tripe. I agree that he and Picasso are twin phenomena: two repulsive little hacks making an obscene mockery of the good, the true, and the beautiful. ". . . the non-classical art of many archaic societies" . . . is unworthy of emulation. Proportion and harmony characterize all art worthy of the name.
@@alexhauser5043 joyce wrote one of the most remarkable books of the 20th century that draws on a rich understanding and respect of western literature and philosophy as well as languages. But mr "traditionalist" here calls him a repulsive hack because hes not adhering to your personal theory of aesthethics.
@@waffle.23 I find curious your use of Schopenhauer's image as your avatar. Schopenhauer's aesthetic theory was fundamentally classical. He detested Wagner's operas. Ulysses is abysmally bad, and your uncritical parroting of the depraved literati's opinion to the contrary tells me everything that I need to know about your intelligence.
Great video! I want to ask, when Dugin says he's against transgression does he mean transgression for the sake of transgression or a political cause? Because couldn't transgression can be an expression of Will to Power, and a sign of Aristocratic values,vas well as a tool against Modernity/Post-Modernity?
Of the essence of Triune pair dance (lavatanssit). It's not the correct steps, nor the correct technique, nor the exact rhythm; it's not the good looks, nor the dress code, nor even the posture, nor the wakes and tides; But it's the contact, separation, connection of two lovers for awhile, contact of two oceans, in moment, in motion, alive and renewing, ever-changing, and eternal.
Well written and very poetic but lacking what Kavanagh referred to as . Eve the world that tempted me to pluck the fruit. The environmentalist instinct is fraudulent
I respect your work and love dugins writings. I still want to ask. Have you gotten lot of flag because of the modern geopoltcal situation regarding russia. I live in its neighbur so I have utmost understanding to people who now villify russian a bit much. I still think that great writers like solzenitzan and dugin will have merit no matter what evil shit modern day dictators do. Slava ukraina. I will still continue consuming dugin and you!
Putin has changed the mind even of reliable America Firsters, like Chris Christie, whom I like for his honesty and courage. He's not doing well, but we have another debate Wednesday night....and I agree, the great Russian writers are immortal, i.e., forever.
'Perverts', in my own years at University of Chicago and my graduate studies at Northwestern and in the UK I never heard a scholar talk about perverts. Its a loaded word that serves nothing but pre-judging those who go into the category. Use of such terms is typical of the kind of circle jerk of Dugin. He wants to assert a multi-polar world where Eurasianism needs to be a valid alternative to Liberalism, which is very post-modern, and then he says that there must be universals, Zizek has dismissed him as inconsistent and he is. He is post-modern when it works for him and then not post-modern when it serves him. This is typical of the 'new right' as expressed by Trump 'alternative facts.'
@@millerman Well I am also a University of Chicago graduate but not a neo-con. I also studied AI at Northwestern University and I did a Masters in UK on social impact of technology. I just found it very strange you would talk about technology without basing it on Heidegger's brilliant idea that technology is a way of thinking and knowing
@@millerman Technology is not an object external to culture and society, but a way of knowing. Its real impact is that it converts being into counting and stocking up. Once you assume technology as a thing in itself you have already lost the battle.
It was an introductory guest lecture for undergraduates. I just wanted to help them start to think. You're right that Heidegger is crucial. I try to introduce him at other times in other ways. But yes I agree he's (needless to say) highly relevant to a philosophical analysis of technology. Maybe I'll teach his essay separately.
@@millerman Relevant is too weak for the radicalness of Heidegger's essay. The entire way you presented technology utterly violated he insight. You simply worked with the assumption that technology is a thing, something that can engage with other things. Technology is a way of knowing and therefore a way of hiding being. Machines are not technology. Technology is the mode of knowing that takes the world as a reserve and if we are going to critic technology we need to start by thinking about how technology as a way of knowing hides being from us in the process of storing and counting. Any critic of technology which does not start from this is just reinforcing the process of turning the world into a reserve.
For the driverless progressives, 'we' become always better ( except for the instances that conveniently violate their notion, eg:- monarchy, oligarchy, communism, fascism etc etc )
