#western enlightenment

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

New Rule: The War on the West | Real Time with Bill Maher

New Rule: For all the progressives and academics who refer to Israel as an "outpost of Western civilization" like it's a bad thing, please note: Western civilization is what gave the world pretty much every goddamn liberal precept that Liberals are supposed to adore.

Individual liberty, scientific inquiry, rule of law, religious freedom, women's rights, human rights, democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech. Please somebody, stop us before we Enlighten again.

And since one can find all these concepts in today's Israel and virtually nowhere else in the Middle East, if anything, the world would be a better place if it had more Israels.

Of course, this message falls on deaf ears to the current crop who reduce everything to being only victims or victimizers, so Israel is lumped in as the toxic fruit of the victimizing West. The irony being that all marginalized people live better today because of western ideals, not in spite of them.

Martin Luther King used Henry David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience" to help shape the Civil Rights Movement. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights owes its core to Rousseau and Voltaire. Kleisthenes never showed up for a sexual harassment seminar, but without him there's no democracy. The cop who murdered George Floyd got 21 years for violating his Fourth Amendment rights, an idea we got directly from John Locke, who no one in college would ever study anymore because he's so old, and so white, and so dead, and so Western.

Yes, that's how simple the Woke are. It's never about ideas. If it was, would they be cheering on Hamas for their liberation? Liberation? To do what? More freely preside over a country where there are no laws against sexual harassment, spousal rape, domestic violence, homophobia, honor killings or child marriage. This is who liberals think you should stand with? Women there should be so lucky as to get colonized by anybody else.

And for the record, the Jews didn't "colonize" Israel or anywhere ever, except maybe Boca Raton. Gaza wasn't seized by Israel like India or Kenya was by the British Empire. And the partitioning of the region wasn't decided by Jews, but by a vote of the United Nations in 1947 with everyone from Russia to Haiti voting for it. But apparently, they don't teach this at Drag Queen Story Hour anymore.

Now it is true that for too long we didn't study enough Asian or African or Latin American history. But part of the reason for that is, frankly, there's not as much to study. Colleges replaced courses in Western Civ -- boo! Eyeroll! Dead white men, am I right? -- they replace that with World Civilization classes, which is fine in theory, but what it meant in practice is you read queer poetry of the African diaspora instead of Shakespeare. And I'm sure there's value in both, but as usual, America only ever overcorrects.

And so, we're at this place now where the words "western civ" became kind of a shorthand for "white people ruined everything." But they didn't ruin everything. No, they didn't live up to their own ideals for far too long and committed atrocities. But people back then were all atrocious, not just the white ones depending on who had the power.

But it was the western Enlightenment that gave rise to the notion that the law of the jungle should be curbed. Henry David Thoreau. John Stewart Mill. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Three-named dudes. It was all about three-named dudes. Three-named dudes like that were the OG social justice warriors. The ideas that came through Athens, Rome, London, Paris, and yes Philadelphia, are what make life good for most people in free societies today. That the individuals have value, and even the powers that be must submit to the rule of law. That punishment should not be cruel and unusual. That accused people get a trial. That there is such a thing as a war crime.

Why is it that every other culture gets a pass, but the West is exclusively the sum of the worst things it's ever done? You think only white people colonized? Historians estimate that the very non-western Mr Genghis Khan killed 40 million people, and that was in the 13th century. He single-handedly may have reduced the world's population by 11%. On the other hand, he kind of made up for it, because he was such a prolific colonizer of vaginas that today an estimated 16 million people are his direct descendants.

So, stop saying "western civilization" like it's a contradiction in terms. It's not. You're thinking of "moderate Republican."

==

The people who snarl "western civilization" went to elite universities with air conditioning where they used their MacBook Pros and iPhones on extensive Wi-Fi networks.

[despazito]

while we're at it i hate that whenever somebody brings up tibetan mastiffs nowadays they're almost always referring to the viral overbred monstrosities coming out of china and not actual normal tibetan mastiffs.

if you're going to a registered breeder who regularly shows their dogs in AKC/KC/CKC circuits, they will look something like this:

in recent decades it became fashionable to breed very exaggerated dogs as a status symbol for wealthy people in china, nothing about these dogs are practical it'll cost an arm and a leg to keep groomed. these are very extreme examples of the breed and really really shouldn't be normalized as the desired tibetan mastiff type:

for contrast, here's a bitch from the 1920s bred in UK and old photos from central asia, yes they were large but were never meaty or extremely heavy-set dogs, they should not look as if they're constantly fighting gravity.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

For 200 years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake…The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all; it was a cesspool full of barbed wire. ... It appears that amputation of the soul isn't just a simple surgical job, like having your appendix out. The wound has a tendency to go septic.

- George Orwell, Notes on the Way

Orwell on post-Christian societies.

[spoopy-moose]

I’ve thought it through and decided that Daniil is now an honorary Chinese. Within him he embodies the true chinaman spirit (the desire to kill god)

[kelluinox]

One day I will draw a venn diagram between Russian vatniks and pro hamas supporters

[ameliafuckinjones]

thinking about how England is the mind and France the heart and America the soul (the summation of both mind and heart) of the West...

Edit: look!!!

[eternal-echoes]

“The medieval artist, aware that his role was to communicate something greater than himself, did not typically sign his work. He wished to call attention not to himself but to the subject of his work. A newer conception of the artist, which began to emerge during the Renaissance, reached its full maturity in nineteenth-century Romanticism. A reaction against the cold scientism of the Enlightenment, Romanticism emphasized feeling, emotion, and spontaneity. Thus the artist's own feelings, struggles, emotions, and idiosyncracies were to be given expression in his art; art itself became a form of self-expression. The focus of the artist's work began to shift toward depicting his interior disposition.

…

With the passage of time, this Romantic self-preoccupation degenerated into the simple narcissism and nihilism of modern art. In 1917, French artist Marcel Duchamp shocked the art world when he signed a urinal and placed it on display as a work of art. That a poll of five hundred art experts in 2004 yielded Duchamp's Fountain as the single most influential work of modern art speaks for itself.1”

- Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D., “A World Without God,” How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

—

1. "Duchamp's Urinal Tops Art Survey," BBC News World Edition, December 1, 2004.

[gregorsamsairl]

Nietzsche and Nihilism

If there's one thing that really grinds my gears it's when people treat Nietzsche as some sort of face of nihilism. I think anyone who is well-versed in Nietzsche's work would agree that the guy is definitely not a nihilist, as he is very openly against it in almost all his works.

I believe this misunderstanding of Nietzsche's philosophy mostly comes from the averages person's understanding of worth.

When Nietzsche said, "God is dead," he was referring to the objective meaninglessness of the world. A lot of people take this at face value, understanding objective meaninglessness as absolute meaninglessness. However, this is not the point Nietzsche was trying to make at all.

In our age of enlightenment values and reason, the western man values objectivity and shuns subjectivity (If you want to read more about the negative effects of enlightenment principles, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment is great). This sort of "facts over feelings" mindset is exactly what led to the nihilist interpretation of Nietzsche being so common. When people read that this guy thinks that objective meaning does not exist, they can't fathom any other meaning existing, because their whole life has been built around putting objectivity on a pedestal, they cannot begin to think about finding anything of significant value through their own subjectivity.

However, this is exactly what Nietzsche is proposing in his work. Objective meaning may be gone, but that does not mean that meaning is impossible, we should instead chose what has meaning to us, based on our own subjectivity. That is what he means when he speaks of the "will to power." My personal understanding of the will to power is simply the desire to be yourself ("simply" is perhaps the wrong word, it's much more nuanced than just "being yourself" but I think it sums it up nicely).

In fact, Nietzsche's main criticism of the modern Christian church was actually that it was "necessarily nihilistic." Modern Christianity puts all its focus on the afterlife. Even if they claim to be worried about being kind and spreading the truth of God, at the end of the day they are only doing that so they can go to heaven when they die. Taking the emphasis off of this life and placing it on the afterlife is precisely what makes modern Christianity nihilistic to its very core.

A notion Nietzsche touches on briefly after his denouncement of modern christianity is that of eternal recurrence. On this, he claims that we should live our lives in such a way that we would be happy to live it over and over again for all eternity. A lot of people dislike this claim, and point out that a lot of people aren't born in circumstances in which they can be happy over and over again (ex: because of poverty, discrimination, political situations). I don't disagree with this at all, there are an incredible amount of people who have to live in situations out of their control which make them unhappy with their life. However, you have to remember that Nietzsche is much more metaphysically inclined. When he says you should live a life you would want to life over and over again, he is more talking about the person you are. You should make choices about your virtues and your morals which would make you happy about the person you are, so much so that you would want to be you over and over again, no matter your external circumstances.

I actually used to hate Nietzsche, as I had only heard of him through this sort of depressed high school boy view that twisted him into a nihilist. However, once I read him for myself, I found his message extremely inspiring, and helped me mentally a lot. The idea of being yourself no matter your circumstances is a beautiful one, and I think it's really sad that most people just view Nietzsche as the nihilism guy.

Remember to be yourself!!!! Nietzsche said so!!!!!!

For anyone who wants to read it, here's a bonus question from an exam that I took this semester where I basically said the same thing as above, but it's worded more concisely I think:

"It is often claimed that Nietzsche is a nihilist and his philosophy is nihilistic in nature. Do you agree with this claim? Indeed what is behind Nietzsche’s denying modern society, traditional values, morality, and Christianity? How would you argue?

I strongly believe that Nietzsche is not a nihilist. In his claim that there are no objective virtues, he is not negating the meaning of human life, he is stating that there are no universal values. I think a lot of the misunderstanding of this claim making Nietzsche a nihilist comes from people's view of subjective vs objective value. Objective values are not inherently more "real" than subjective ones, and I believe this is where the most common mistake is made. Nietzsche advocating for subjective virtues does not make these virtues any less significant than objective ones. Life still has meaning, but it's up to every individual to decides on those virtues for themselves. In Nietzsche's denying of society, traditional values, morality, and Christianity come from his advocation of individuality, and subjective values. He denies society, and Christianity because it values a slave mindset, and thus hatred (ressentiment) of "the other," even denouncing modern Christianity for being "necessarily nihilistic" for focusing on the afterlife rather than our current one. He denies traditional values as well as morality because they are both discussed from a universal, objective standpoint. In all four of these, he does not deny them because they give meaning to life, or because he advocates for people doing whatever they want, he denies them because they take away the existential value of the individual. Thus, I would conclude that Nietzsche is definitely not a nihilist. Life's meaning is not removed when we don't have the guiderails of the objective to tell us how to make choices. If anything, life would have a more personal, passionate meaning when the individual gets to decide for themselves what gives their life meaning."

[burinazar]

these days i do sometimes see people literally just parrot the western-machismo ideal of 'ewww, feminine men, gross everyone who likes men should want big manly men and if they don't they're wrongheaded. smh silly misguided people' while simultaneously, and here's the rub of it and the part that makes me feel like it's bizarro world, they've truly and genuinely convinced themselves this is a meaningfully anti-bigotry position of some kind. and that liking men who are soft or thin or feminine is an insufficiently-progressive low-key-bigoted position. because it's.... i don't know, inherently fetishizing, or something. fuck if i know. i think this is bizarro-world thinking to a comical degree

i speculate it's one of the many internet phenomena that result from people looking at what's popular in their circles of awareness and going 'well this must be the societally expected default and so the principled position is to advocate for whatever its alternative is (and surely the fact i personally prefer the alternative as a matter of taste is just a coincidence)'

and not realizing that..like.. even though their internet sphere has a lot of Lisa Simpsons reading their own personal fandom version of Non-threatening Boys Magazine the western world at large still definitely eschews non-traditional masculinity and expects everyone to favor manly men rather than willowy bishounen.

so you aren't actually fighting any sort of pressing Good Fight by getting mad that some people like or depict sad wet wimpy thin boys instead of all longing for a big beef-o muscle archetype, and you should inspect whether in fact the issue is just that you dislike that aesthetic/character type (or, in a fandom context, that specific character). which if so is fine and you can enjoy the kind of content you enjoy without making it a smug grandstand

[uraandri]

i swear to god western mls start talking exactly the same as western libs the moment a non-western marxist/ml/communist opens their mouth. the way you give yourselves away so fucking fast is amusing but also horrifying

[nando161mando]

The western 'enlightened humanitarianism' is such a fraud.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

If you do not respect my past, then why should I respect yours? If you do not respect my culture, then why should I respect yours? If you do not respect my forebears, then why should I respect yours? And if you do not like what my society has produced, then why should I agree to your having a place in it?

- Douglas Murray, The War on the West

[thejugheadparadox]

hi! just exactly what kinda nerdy shit was that essay about tho lol

hii :) it woz about the relationship between postcolonial discourses and pop science fiction tv by which i mean doctor who and star trek (im actually only into doctor who but i had to write about more than one text). mostly about 2010s cultural moment bc i only had so many words

[daemonicdasein]

Chronology of the Marquis de Sade’s life from How to Read Sade by John Phillips, W. W. Norton (September 17, 2005), Pages 112-114.

1740 2 June: birth of Donatien Alphonse François de Sade, lord of La Coste, Saumane and Mazan in Provence. He was brought up in the palace of the Prince de Condé, who was four years older.

1746: Sent to live with his uncle, the abbé de Sade, at Saumane in Provence.

1750: Pursues his studies at the Jesuit college of Louis-le-Grand in Paris. The Jesuits infect him with a life-long enthusiasm for the theatre.

1755: Appointed sub-lieutenant in the King’s infantry regiment. In the course of active service in the Seven Years War is promoted to the rank of captain.

1763 17 May: marriage to Renée-Pélagie de Montreuil.

1763 October: briefly imprisoned at Vincennes for allegedly whipping Jeanne Testard, a fan-maker.

1765: Liaison with Mademoiselle de Beauvoisin, an actress.

1767: Death of his father, the comte de Sade, and birth of his first son, Louis-Marie.

1768: The Rose Kellar affair: imprisoned for six months initially at Saumur, then at Pierre-Encise near Lyons for alleged acts of libertinage, sacrilege and sadism on Easter Sunday in his house at Arcueil.

1769: Birth of his second son, Donatien-Claude-Armand.

1771: Birth of his daughter, Madeleine-Laure. Briefly imprisoned for debt.

1772 17 June: the Marseilles affair: Sade and his valet are found guilty of sodomy and attempted poisoning on the occasion of an orgy in Marseilles. Both flee to Italy, accompanied by Sade’s younger sister-in-law, Anne-Prospère. Sentenced to death in absentia, their effigies are burnt publicly at Aix.

1772 8 December: arrested and imprisoned at Miolans in Piedmont.

1773 1 May: escapes and eventually returns to La Coste. Sade’s mother-in-law, the Présidente de Montreuil, embittered by the seduction of Anne-Prospère, obtains a lettre de cachet for his arrest and imprisonment.

1775: Flees once again to Italy.

1777: Fresh scandals at La Coste, this time involving young girls employed at the château.

1778: The accusations of attempted poisoning having been dismissed, the death sentence imposed by the Aix parlement is lifted, but the Présidente uses her influence to obtain a new lettre de cachet. Sade escapes but is recaptured and returned to Vincennes. He will remain in prison until the Revolution.

1781: Writes the first of a succession of plays, The Inconstant.

1782: Writes the Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man and begins The 120 Days of Sodom.

1784 29 February: transferred from Vincennes to the Bastille.

1786: Writes the greater part of his ‘philosophical’ novel Aline et Valcour.

1787: Composition of The Misfortunes of Virtue, the first novella-length version of Justine. Begins writing his collection of short stories, originally entitled Tales and Fabliaux of Eighteenth Century by a Provençal Troubadour, a selection of which will eventually be published in 1799 under the title The Crimes of Love.

1789 2 July: Sade incites the mob to riot from his cell window in the Bastille, telling them that prisoners are being murdered.

1789 4 July: sent to the insane asylum at Charenton, leaving behind a number of manuscripts, including The 120 Days of Sodom which he will never see again.

1789 14 July: the fall of the Bastille and the start of the Revolution.

1790 1 April: Sade is released following abolition of lettres de cachet by the new revolutionary government. Formal separation from Renée-Pélagie and start of a new relationship with Constance Quesnet, nicknamed ‘Sensitive’, which will last until his death. Actively involved in revolutionary politics, promoting hospital reform. Tries unsuccessfully to get his plays performed.

1791: Anonymous publication of Justine, or the Misfortunes of Virtue, the second version of the Justine narrative, and performance of his play The Comte d’Oxtiern, or the Effects of Libertinism.

1792: Composes various revolutionary essays, including The Idea on the Method for the Sanctioning of Laws.

1793: Publishes a pamphlet in honour of Marat following his murder by Charlotte Corday. When the opportunity presents itself, Sade, who has been appointed a judge in his revolutionary section, does not sentence his in-laws to death. Suspected of moderation and royalist sympathies, Sade is arrested in December.

1794: Sade escapes death owing to a bureaucratic error, and is eventually released at the end of the Terror, following the fall and execution of Robespierre.

1795: Penniless owing to the loss of his lands and property in the Revolution, Sade tries to stage more plays. Publishes Aline and Valcour, and, anonymously, Philosophy in the Boudoir.

1799: Anonymous publication of The New Justine, or the Misfortunes of Virtue, followed by The History of Juliette, her Sister, or the Prosperities of Vice, and publication in Sade’s own name of The Crimes of Love. Works as a prompt in a Versailles theatre for 40 sous a day.

1801: Sade arrested at his publishers in April for authorship of ‘obscene’ writings, and imprisoned at Sainte-Pélagie.

1803: Transferred to Bicêtre, then to Charenton.

1804: Sade’s continued detention justified by the invention of a new medical condition, ‘libertine dementia’.

1807: Confiscation of the libertine novel The Days at Florbelle, or Nature unveiled, begun in 1804. The manuscript will be destroyed at the behest of his younger son after his death.

1808: Organizes theatrical performances, using asylum inmates and professional actresses.

1812-13: Writes Adelaide of Brunswick, Princess of Saxony, The Secret History of Isabelle of Bavaria and The Marquis de Gange, all conventional historical novels.

1813-14: Affair with the sixteen-year-old laundry-maid Madeleine Leclerc.

1814 2 December: Sade’s death, followed by interment in the Charenton cemetery with full religious rites.

[turiyatitta]

The Dawn of Syncretic Souls

[premaritalgaysex]

This is someone else’s tags on that post but are we pretending that the Jedi order from Star Wars is like??? A real culture you can be discriminated against for being part of??