Is he right?
>>24993507
>>24993507>caring about a genre fiction writers political opinionsCouldn't be me.
>>24993511Its metaphysics. He's refusing monism.
>twitter thread>about a substack text>about mccarthy
>abandons his wife and kid>meets a random 16 year old hooker and runs away with her to Mexico to avoid the lawHere's your moral clarity bro.
>>24993519>ditches used up roastie and locks in hot young fertile slutUnfathomably based. I will now read his sloppa
>>24993507>>24993513>is he rightNo, Cormac McCarthy is a hylic who was retroactively refuted by Shankara (pbuh) and Parmenides (pbuh)
>>24993507Clearly. It’s painfully stupid to assume that foreigners can just magically skip several epochs of intellectual and cultural development to magically become indistinguishable from us within our nations.
>>24993511McCarthy is a genre fiction writer?
>>24993568Both of which where thoroughly refuted by Heidegger and Wittgenstein
>>24993507>westerners have moral clarityif by that you mean complete moral irresponsibility and blaming their victims for their own oppression, then sure
>>24993602>refuted by Heidegger and Wittgensteinhow? did heidegger invent 18 proper nouns nobody else understands or did wittgenstein start asking what every word means
>>24993602False, neither of them explicitly address the ideas of either men much less refute them.
>>24993600He’s a literature writer who flirted with genre in old age and this threw people into a tizzy because it is the unspeakable, add popularity (for a literature writer) and the fartsniffers grow anxious indeed. Popularity is their biggest fear, as we can see when people like Pynchon and DFW or even Franzen hit the public discourse. Of course “genre” accusations are pretty arbitrary as Pynchon flirts with detective/noir tropes a lot but didn’t suffer the impotent rage of literature masturbators like McCarthy did. The platonic ideal of literature is something obscure enough only an elite knows it, while being painfully unreadable as to burnish the reputation of those who pretend to suffer through it. The Nobels have a lot of these writers, ideally something entirely up its own asshole like a writer writing about a writer with the exact same issues the author has.
>>24993612What, based on your aspirational faggotry which itself is based 10,000% on western (more specifically, Christian) morality? Gonna laugh when a poo scams you out of everything you own and a Muslim shanks you for being an infidel someday.
>>24993522>incel lacks moral clarityShocking
>>24993628>What, based on your aspirational faggotry which itself is based 10,000% on western (more specifically, Christian) morality?christcucks didn't invent virtue you retard. confucian societies are in fact more moral that westoid liberal ones>Gonna laugh when a poo scams you out of everything you own and a Muslim shanks you for being an infidel someday.islamists (takfiri or not), can in fact control their feral poors, so that would not in fact happen
>chuds think he is validating themCulture trails language, which in turn trails experience. English ethics have developed over a millenia of nearly all major experiences for a cultural organism. From being oppressed by the normans to being oppressors themselves. The most important part is the development of one cultural language that was subjected to all these experiences over the course of time. He is saying that cultures where the spoken language hasn't been static, or hasn't had the overall experience as a cultural organism, aren't equal, and would disagree on many a things.
>>24993507All trumpfags are the same shit, though.
>>24993507That's a roundabout way to get to that conclusion, however it's one I understand and I agree with him. The language of a people reflects their ability to think, and having an above average command and appreciation for English leads to the love of the West.
>>24993519His wife abandoned him
We are there for you
>>24993507“Now, there is no such thing as ‘man’ in this world. In my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on. I even know, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare I’ve never encountered him.”
>moralitylollmao
Moral clarity for McCarthy meant trannies
>we are all one is nonsense because other cultures don't realize we are all one?
>>24993654Morals aren't real
>>24993507>moral claritySpookedSomalians and Jews don't even pretend to have moral clarity that's why they're beating you
>>24993507>McWhy does this semi-tribal mick think he's on the team?
>>24993616Mainly that it's non-transcendent (Heidegger) and non-epistemic (Wittgenstein).For the former, the best you can do is to just get back to "Oneness" and thus never exist as anything great i.e. your own separate unique monad.For the latter, how can you know or describe Oneness? What if it's just nominalistically an illusion (hence the words/logos problem of what is real enlightenment versus nominal "enlightenment"). If it's nominalistic, then there is no difference between Absolute "God" and Absolute "Oblivion" since it just comes down to word aesthetics.Both offer valid objections to adopting a Monistic metaphysic.You want something truly transcendent. You want to be your own monad, don't you anon?(at least that's what Husserl thought)
>>24994394Guénon would regard this criticism as doubly misplaced, because it judges metaphysics by standards that belong to precisely the modern deviations he is criticizing. He would not try to “answer” Heidegger and Wittgenstein on their own terms so much as show that their objections presuppose categories that are inapplicable to principial knowledge.1. The charge of “non-transcendence” (via Heidegger).Guénon would deny that returning to “Oneness” is a regression to something less than being a “great” or unique monad. That objection already assumes an individualist ontology in which value, greatness, and meaning are tied to separative existence. For Guénon, individuality is not the summit of being but a contingent and limited mode of manifestation. Transcendence does not mean preserving the individual as a final term; it means passing beyond the individual without abolishing the principial possibilities it contains. The “loss” of the separate monad is not annihilation but reintegration into a higher, principial order where individuality is known as a relative determination, not an ultimate reality. Heidegger’s concern with Being as disclosed within finite existence still remains, for Guénon, within the domain of manifestation; it never truly reaches the Supra-Being (or the Absolute) that metaphysics, in the traditional sense, is about. Thus the accusation of non-transcendence reverses the situation: it is precisely modern ontology that fails to transcend the conditions of individual existence.2. The charge of being “non-epistemic” or nominalistic (via Wittgenstein).Guénon would reject outright the assumption that all knowledge must be discursive, linguistic, or propositionally justified. Metaphysical knowledge, as understood in the traditions he draws on, is intellectual intuition (intellectus, buddhi), not an inference from signs. Language is secondary and symbolic; it does not constitute the knowledge but points toward it. Wittgenstein’s worries about what can be meaningfully said apply only if one assumes that saying exhausts knowing. Guénon would agree that the Absolute cannot be adequately described, but he would insist that this does not make it unknowable. The failure of language is not evidence of nominalism; it is evidence that the object known exceeds discursive expression.
>>249943943. “God” versus “Oblivion” and the aestheticization of terms.Guénon would see the claim that Absolute God and Absolute Oblivion are indistinguishable as a symptom of modern confusion between privation and transcendence. Oblivion is a negative concept, defined by lack or absence relative to manifestation. The Absolute, by contrast, is beyond determination, not a negation of being but its principial source. That both evade linguistic capture does not place them on the same level. Traditional metaphysics distinguishes very carefully between the indeterminate (as principial plenitude) and the indeterminate as mere nothingness. The collapse of this distinction is precisely what happens when metaphysics is judged by nominalist or empiricist criteria.4. On monism and the alleged force of the objections.Finally, Guénon would reject the framing of his position as a “monistic metaphysic” in the modern sense. He repeatedly insists that non-duality is not numerical monism. It does not deny principial distinctions or relative multiplicity; it situates them at their proper level. The objections cited only have force against a flattened metaphysics that reduces everything to one being among others, or to a conceptual abstraction called “Oneness.” Guénon’s doctrine, by contrast, is hierarchical and principial: unity is not a concept but the condition of intelligibility of all concepts.In short, Guénon would say that these criticisms fail because they demand that metaphysics justify itself before ontology, language, and individuality, whereas metaphysics, properly understood, judges those domains from a higher standpoint.
>>24994398>>24994400I don't want to argue against AI slop.Please in your own words anon.
>>24994401>Please in your own words anon.That is exactly how I would phrase it, and everything there is factually true
>>24994405No. You adopted Guenon's phenomenology rather than your own. I don't agree with Guenon and his Perennialism; which is to me just sophistic(ated) LARPing (like Roko's Basilisk but with metaphysics).I'm not here to debate Guenon.I wanted to address this post >>24993616Personally, I don't follow philosophy and their philosophers despite knowing them; I find that theology and theologians are ethically, ontologically, and epistemically superior.I'm a Palamite.
>>24994025>Somalians and Jews are too intellectually primitive to have moral clarity that's why they're beating youThe White man, and especially the English Man, marches alone in this dark world. Not for your sake, but for our own. One day our birthright will return, and you'll be running scared at best.
To me the thought that we are all one comes almost naturally. I understand people's individuality as an anomaly. Me, you, Cormac, Napoleon, some bug in some planet from the Andromeda galaxy, a shark from 200 million years ago, a trillion ants roaming a field, it's all just one single unique thing, split in time and space into a kaleidoscopic experience of the universe. It's not beautiful, it's not ugly, it's just how I think it is. When you die, your ego dies and you go back to experience this eternal goo until you condense in a new individual being. How could anyone think otherwise?
>>24994414>You adopted Guenon's phenomenology rather than your ownBecause I think it's fully correct and true, and it's also not just him but it's paralleled in multiple religious traditions. There is almost nothing that he writes that is not also affirmed by theologians and metaphysicians of various traditions.>I wanted to address this postWell the post was supposedly about Witty and Heidy refuting Guenon, so if one is contesting that claim the only way to do so is to explain why they actually don't.
>>24994442Then have your AI Guenon argue against a steelman version of them.That's not my job.Aim for Theosis; I ran out of wise anons to talk to here to learn something from.
>>24994448>Then have your AI Guenon argue against a steelman version of them.No need, they've already been retroactively refuted by that post made earlier > I ran out of wise anons to talk to here to learn something from.In other words, everyone who disagrees with you isn't wise. Doesn't sound like a very wise claim to make does it?
>>24994440Mccarthy who wrote suttree would also agree with this. I would like to know when this remark was written.
>>24993507>pedo is a chauvinistthat’s crazy bro
Objectively correct in this particular case. All being one is just a common delusion often felt by people in significantly altered states.
>>24993507>the night does not endIt end when the sun comes up you fucking idiot
I just hate ugly nigger, goons and jews in my country don’t wanna look at em or hear their gobbledygook language simple as
glad everyone is catching up to how much of a lobotomized atheist IFLS boomer corncob mccarthy was.
>>24994440>When you die, your ego dies and you go back to experience this eternal goo until you condense in a new individual being. How could anyone think otherwise?This sounds fucking horrifying. Reincarnation really is the worst possible outcome. I'm not an annihilationist or anything, but I'd rather not suffer the monotony of this world any longer than needed.
>>24994033He is talking about English speaking people, not the English>>24995228IFLS?
>>24995232>ReincarnationIt's garbage metaphysics (literally recycling people).The nations that believe in reincarnation/samsara are cyclical fatalists that cheapens their view on their lives since they believe they will get more/better chances; hence why their countries are shitholes compared to nations who ontologically believe they've only got one shot at this life and have to make the best of it (and hopefully achieve enlightenment in one go).
>>24995617Thus a white man values his 1cc life way more than some jeet who thinks he has infinite quarters to play this game...
>>24995232I know, I know...But what's the alternative? I don't believe our ego survives death, I can't think of this myself as an individual spiritually travelling to some after world (whether it is heaven, hell or anything else) without a brain or a body to contain it. It could be just nothing, but then again, that's not exactly like experiencing peace, it's just not experiencing anything. Peace is like relaxing on a beach after a stressful day of work, you need the contrast to savor it.I thought different things about it. Right now I'm thinking we just keep on going forever, trillions upon trillions of years of existence. Some are horrible, like being a beetle turned on your back, suffering for days until the sun dries you up. Some might be god-like beautiful experiences, a thousand years of pure pleasure a human being could not comprehend. And then it ends and something else starts even so.
>>24995691>I don't believe our ego survives deathSo you think salvation is impossible?Like your 'ego'/self can't be salvaged and must be subsumed into some greater essence?What about Christ?
>>24995700I don't know what you mean by salvation at all buddy.I wish I could just no-fap through life and feed the poor and get a chance to live a trillion years beyond the pearly gates, but I don't think that's the case.
>>24993507Cormac McCarthy is right. Black people are another species. They're not like us.
>>24995617>>24995619Is that why heaven exists in all these faiths? Is that why it's supposed to be this utopia for the saved? Is this why christianity fetishizes suffering? Is that why they created hell so they could micromanage your life by essentially forcing a dogma on you?You guys are retards. Christianity is a bug religion. It's foundations, also of the white man, are lying, cheating and stealing.
>>24995718Why is our "heaven on earth"/civilization better than yours?
>>24995724Why is it when we import millions of jeets, does our civilization get objectively worse for everyone?
>>24995707>I don't know what you mean by salvation at all buddy.Theosis.Transcending your fallen/confused human nature and become Godlike.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)
>>24995724Because it leeched off others for its own benefit on a scale never seen before. You'd have to be stupid to think the Anglo came out of his swamp and suddenly started dominating all others. Accelerated technological development of the anglosphere coincides far too closely with imperialism and general parasitic behaviour on other's natural resources. Who do you think funded your Newtons and Wrights and Watts and innumerable scientists in various fields? Is it just a coincidence that all of them suddenly appeared so close to each other in the last 400 years?>heaven on earthOh please, if it was true there'd be no conception of some ethereal utopia in christian fictions to begin with. It was created so this rotten life could be made bearable for your people. It's just another name for indulgence. The eastern hermits knew that true enlightenment was all desires falling away from the ego. This is one of the biggest blindsides of the christian, and to a smaller degree of the Islamic civilization, this obsession with indulgences. Ironically, It's the anglos incapability of observing his own evil in miniature.
>>24993588The people who expect the Natives to jump joyfully from the stone-age to the age of the motor-cars, forget the toil and labour which our own fathers have had, to bring us all through history up to where we are.We can make motor-cars and aeroplanes, and teach the Natives to use them. But the true love of motor-cars cannot be made, in human hearts, in the turn of a hand. It takes centuries to produce it, and it is likely that Socrates, the Crusades, and the French Revolution, have been needed in the making.— Isak Dinesen, ‘Out of Africa’
>>24995741Go live in India then.Your gods reside there.Look up their works, and despair...
>>24995760Cringe
>>24995760> Look up their works, and despair...“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochictic, caprciously malevolent bully.”
>>24995765>>24995778>cringe
>>24995765>>24995778despair nigger
>>24995783Yes, Dawkins is a moralist like most Anglos, in part because of the cultural influence of the New Testament, but that doesn’t make what he said about the Old Testament any less true, if anything it highlights the dissonance even more.
>>24993507McCarthy scholarship is so fucking relentlessly cringe. He's a great writer but there's something about being a McCarthy obsessed fag in Current Year that sets my teeth on edge.
>>24995815Give him a break, the guy just died.Let him roll in his grave a little.
>>24994440I started listening to near death experiences and to me those match closer to spiritist beliefs: we survive beyond the body and use earth as a punishment and training ground.https://cei-spiritistcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-Spirits-Book.pdf
>>24995914what were some of these near death experiences?
>>24996007Car accident, falling, gunshot, poisoning
>>24995730Then no, I don't think we will cease to be imperfect beings. We are not any less natural than a flower, a planet, a dinosaur, a turd, a microbe, a sunset... It's all spontaneous and erratic and God does not exist, imo.
>>24993602>Parmenides>shankara>Refuted by Wittengenstein and HeideggerI swear you retards make shit up. They hardly address their ideas nor refute them
>>24995914I don't know, I think near death (or sometimes returning from death) experiences are flawed accounts, they are only done by the living. I'm kind of sick of Kardec, I know a bunch of kardecists...I once heard from a guy who was dead for a few minutes after an accident, then revived. He didn't see a thing and the only thing he "felt" was relief. So much so that he had to go to therapy afterwards to enjoy life, because he thought it was so good, there was no point in living.Most people see a weird light or feel a weird warmth. Ask a theist about it, he will say it's God, ask a buddhist, he will say it's paranirvana, ask a kardecist, he will say your spirit is looking for a way to reincarnate, ask an atheist and he will say it's just desperate neurons firing up its lasts bursts of life. And we are back to zero.No one on Earth knows why life exists or "where it goes" after we die, absolutely no one has a clue.
>>24993511tbf that isn't necessarily political, could be philosophical etc
>>24996622
>>24993508/thread
>>24993507no
>>24994400>>24994398>modernity LE BAD>btw let me use chat gpt to formulate my argument because I'm too lazy to do it myselfAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>24993749not his first wife who he left with his first kid, just like in Suttrree makes me wonder if his first born died like in the book too
>>24997300No his son lived. Cullen holemen was his name.The main character in Outer Dark is named Culla holme, and is a father who shirked his duties by abandoning his son to die. I wonder if this is Mccarthy's version of the ghost of the father played by Shakespeare, who is actually the dead-son surrogate, come to meet his real son's namesake in Hamlet who is actually the fictious version of Shakespeare navigating the loss of his real son/fictious father. In both cases the father becomes the son.
>>24996759wow i will do the high IQ right wing thing and base my world view on this random jpg on 4chan
>>24997819you're retarded. that's ok, I'll explain it to you.Leftists tend to be monists.Right wingers tend to be anti-monists.it explains why shitlibs fawn over brown people and nature over their own kin and country.
>a note from Cormac's witliff collectionMarxbros... we won
