This board

He describes the postmodern condition accurately, though.

>croatia
LOL YOUR COUNTRY USED TO BELONG TO MY COUNTRY

THEREFORE YOU ARE MINE AND I AM BETTER THAN YOU
(proceeds to go to the factory to produce his owners more profit)

Schopenhauer is one of the few times in history an incel was based AND redpilled

Too bad entire oceans of international regulations, laws, and socio-economic factors exist in order to make sure of that.

>We all are isolated individuals and nothing collective even exist

>He describes the postmodern condition accurately, though.
well, he describes the contemporary capitalist condition, anyway
but his decision to search for manufactured meaning in religion or nationalism is completely misled. Meaning, the meaning one looks for, is not ontological, but affective. It doesn't need to be believed in or discovered, just felt. Interpersonal relations and free action (creation outside of the labour-process) are rich with meaning, as one knows when he partakes in them. Compared to them, the nation, god or whatever ontological meaning one believes in is a mere ghost, a bloodless mockery.

>being this much of a materialist reductionist
No matter how much you try and shill your marxist base and superstructure ideology, there is no denying that people in essence yearn for the metaphysical, religion isn't just a byproduct of modes of production

Wasn't he volcel?

That we are dominated by operative fictions (laws, etc.) upheld by violent groups (police, military, etc.) doesn't change the fact that we are monkeys flying on an unpiloted and disintegrating spaceship we call Earth.

You misunderstand. But to reply to your point: my criticism of nationalist collectivism would be exactly that it's just abstract collectivism. Since there's no real and non-divergent substance to "frenchness" the collective of Frenchmen works as such, devoid of substance.

>the meaning one looks for, is not ontological, but affective.
good stuff, comrade
youtube.com/watch?v=u_eM-ySEDjA

You don't understand the words you use.

based, tribalism is for brain damaged subhumans

why? tribadism is platonic and beautiful

I just feel nationalistic attachment to countries founded on ideals I agree with, such as the Israel and the UK, countries of Western Values.

Then why do you use the dehumanizing component of tribalism yourself?

oh ye how much more refined it is to indentify yourself as an illuminated cosmopolitan world citizen
it's tribalism all the same, only the tribe you chose for yourself is even more embarrassing than most others

>oh ye how much more refined it is to indentify yourself as an illuminated cosmopolitan world citizen
This but unironically.

The worst is country roleplaying. God it makes me sick. To vomit.

If there's only this two possibility, as you suggest, the nationalistic identification and the cosmopolitan one, how come I'm free from both?

What do you mean by platonic?

hey english teacher?

And yet, we cannot just ignore them. You can fantasize all you want, but at the end of the day, the rules prevail whether you agree with them or not.

>when people take polandball memes seriously

Attached: 1.jpg (800x600, 112K)

this was pretty interesting. there's also the qualitative change into marketing capitalism, where advertising labour constitutes a large segment of the price. it leads to the ubiquity of the advertisement we see today, the ubiquity of the brand and the personal relationship with the brand (familiarity). the creation of a personal relationship with a brand (of brand friendliness, brand familiarity) can be seen in the creation of a "popular culture" (which is actually mass culture, pseudo-industrially produced, mediated by by the popularity and familiarity of the brand/universe - marvel, star wars etc.), and in the same way the focus of postmodern art on referentiality, on pastiche and parody (which can be done because that which is referred to or parodied is established and ubiquitous - found in advertisements, childrens' cartoons, product ambalages...).
it is incredibly interesting to see how the differences in the market and production process transform even art.
i am not an "illuminated cosmopolitan citizen of the world". i am just myself as myself.

It just as much goes against the reality principle to deny the existence of revolutions and to deny the existence of the systems that lead up to them.

Stop with that "materialist reductionism," comrade. Art comes from the soul, not from big Hollyood executives making market decisions, except when this feeds into my antisemitic ideology, of course.

On a more serious note: you'd love Adorno. libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=A556DFE0B25FA47094DCE9C6B1EFFA77

Attached: bci.png (1068x1112, 56K)

I enjoyed his lecture notes on terminology, I read them last year. I am currently reading Fromm's Sane Society, but will have to temporarily freeze it for university. I wanted to pick up Marcuse next. But really there is so much I want to read, and so little time.

What shifts this from comedy to tragicomedy is when you take into account what is actually going on. The "country over time" table shows that we're all headed towards the shitter, with a new economic crisis on the horizon, 90% of the world population is basically undesirable, and even in our relative welfare we are incredibly impoverished compared to the obscene wealth of the ruling class.

Cringe virgin

Attached: 1542095432971.png (1200x823, 389K)

I wouldn't bother with Marcuse, Horkheimer, Fromm, especially due to the lack of not just our personal time, but possibly the world's. Those who remained relevant: Adorno, Benjamin, Brecht.

Ah, yes, the monarch ordered a self-portrait, and the court's painter delivered.

What monarch?

Btw, in 1946 Hungary suffered an hyperinflation so severe even current Venezuela pales in comparison. What people in Venezuela suffers every 17 days, Hungarians suffered every 15 hours. You even had a 100 quintillion note. But >we're all headed towards the shitter, whatever.

Attached: 20181220_DAC960.jpg (500x450, 34K)

>You even had a 100 quintillion note.
I actually didn't.

You know you can also be plural, right?
>suffered
>had
>1946
You understand past tense, right?
>people in
You understand context, right?

I feel that Fromm is going to be very important for me in critiquing the liberal (man as a finished, non-developing rational agens who is not influenced by his own place within the structure of production-relations or by deprivation) and conservative (man as a self-centred and self-interested agens who depends on the corrective arm of the state and the church to be able to live at all) conceptions of man. It also seems to me that the question of the needs of man is going to be essential in the critique of existentialist philosophy (i take issue with its conception of man as an empty, fully self-determining entity, no matter how much I appreciate its purge of metaphysical "meaning"). I take great interest in that question, as much of the liberal and conservative mindsets are based on some very concrete assumptions about the nature of man, and if I am striving for the emancipation of man, I must reflect on the way that the particular way of life of the contemporary man, his firm beliefs and visions which are brought into being through the social context of his existence, masks, frustrates and fails to fulfill his genuine human desires.

>Other people are just hostile competitors for individual success.
thanks neoliberalist capitalism

You understand I wasn't alive in 1946, right?

>I feel that Fromm is going to be very important for me in critiquing the liberal (man as a finished, non-developing rational agens who is not influenced by his own place within the structure of production-relations or by deprivation) and conservative (man as a self-centred and self-interested agens who depends on the corrective arm of the state and the church to be able to live at all) conceptions of man.
To be honest these seem to be already outdated. Essentialist constructions can't withstand the passing of time.

Identifying with a group isn't bad. And nationalism encourages you to be the best version of yourself for your country.

they're knitted pretty deeply into the discourse
though the more interesting and prominent phenomenon these days is a sort of right-wing existentialism, which looks for fictions (ones in which he never believes fully, and is always somewhat distanced from) to structure his life around. It is really an attempt to deal with alienation, as self-affirmation through friendly or amorous relations and free, creative labour has been purged by the ceaseless invasion of competition, the continual expansion of unfree labour and the expansion of market mediation of our lives. So what is left for man, who can no longer feel affirmed, who sees the emptiness of the way he lives but lacks the reflection to see that the emptiness is not essential to life without normative ontological entities that one structures his life around, but to the specific practice of life, to the way that we live? to look for himself precisely in those ontological entities, or, as it is with libertarians, to look for self-affirmation in the hierarchical position within production-relations. yet all of that is empty, wrong and pointless.

kérlek holnap se legyél
öld meg magad

Stop being a fucking homosexual. Everyone we wuzes once in a while. There's nothing wrong with it. It's a good way to find inspiration and gives you a rough idea of what the best version of your people was.

it's a bunch of bullshit, that's what it is

Lol Hungary
Aren't you "hungary" for some banter now? Haha

Its not. Good nations have existed. They're not perfect but they're good to look up to. And how can you seperate your identity from the environment you were born into?

e pur si muove

>They're not perfect but they're good to look up to.
Very freudian, son.

>And how can you seperate your identity from the environment you were born into?
You know, shit like, oh, I don't know, reading, I guess.

How can you deny the ideas and influences that shaped your youth and isolate them from your identity? You can reject said influences but they still formed part of you.

i don't understand what you're trying to say. why would i construct a "croatianness" (or accept whatever seems to be pushed as "croatianness"), and follow it? how does it make me better? i have no desire to be anything other than my own self, in friendship with other own selves. what the fuck do i need a "national identity" for?

Greentexting aside one of the biggest thinkers of the german spirit (Arthur wants it or not, he was part of the german nation and he did its fair part for it) is a dangerous endeavour. It appears that you ultimately failed.
And I don't even need to use the Eristische Dialektik.

Attached: 1.png (242x36, 6K)

why would he need to deny that?

Because you grew up in the nation. You cannot seperate your nurture from your nature. You ate its food walked its roads saw its buildings experienced its ideas and lived under the jurisdiction of its government. You cannot form an identity without a frame of reference. The only reason a national identity would be harmful to you is if there is no point in your history where you thought there was any amount of relative goodness.

this whole post:
>I am only what was done to me

No but that is certainly a part of me. And it's undeniably a part of you. Imagine if you didn't live in a nation. No culture specific cuisine government or norms that currently exist. You're part of some hunter gatherer tribe. Would you be the same person?

>Because you grew up in the nation.
No, you didn't. You grew up in a family, kindergarten, school.

>you ate [the nation's] food
I ate food that was produced by workers, nothing more, nothing less.

Of the nation mostly regulated by it and with your family showing you its ideas and history. Your family doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The workers aren't regulated by this abstract "nation." They are regulated by their bosses. This abstract "nation" didn't introduce my family to ideas. Teachers and books did.

You are right, my family does not exist in a vacuum, but it is not hunted by your ghosts, either.

i grew up in a particular social context, in relations with particular people, and since primary school i was being prepared to take a certain position within production-relations. The circumstances I grew up in are part of what made me what I am.
But where does the construction of a national identity have any relevance here? I am myself as myself, not myself as a Croatian. What does it even mean to be Croatian? That would have to be some normativity, if it strived toward anything but an empty identificator (as my personal name is an emptiy identificator - it has no meaning but the singular entity which it refers to and so can represent me perfectly), but where would that normativity come from? I grew up in Croatia. So what? What is "croatianness" and why should I follow it? The objective conditions in which I grew up aren't normative in of themselves, they do not contain an "ought to". If I was beaten as a child, that says nothing for whether I should beat my child. It just means that I was beaten as a child and it probably had some influence on me. So why should I care about "croatianness", particularly if you take into account that the nation itself is far from a cohesive body of men?

i love my country no matter how much of a shithole it is but the wewuzzing and roleplaying others do is fucking cringe. no, you're not better than a poster from x country because your country invaded it 1 century ago. no, you're not smarter than everyone else because you were lucky enough to be born in the country that produced the most inventors. you're a fucking retard leeching off other people's achievements. you can love your country, the place where you grew up, the culture under which you were raised, the food that was fed to you, but you aren't your country. its history and the achievements of your countrymen have nothing to do with you.
there is nothing wrong with loving your nation. it's a great way to bond with other people. it is wrong, however, to take other people's achievements and act like it was you who achieved them. stop taking credit for other people's effort and hard work solely because they were born in the same country as you.

Attached: mfw i see a wewuzzer.png (240x240, 22K)

STOP! YOU WILL UPSET THE NATION!

Attached: 234.jpg (183x275, 6K)

oh no, i am a bad croatian

You understand that post wasn't talking about you, right? Geebus, no wonder you made this dumb thread.

I'm not part of a nation. I'm part of the international proletariat class.
Workers of all Land, Unite!

Attached: TheFuture.png (2000x2000, 94K)

Nationalism may be good, but being proud of your nation is stupid.
Nation-states really seen to have a better chance in competing in a global struggle agains't countries with multiple ethnicities

Oh, I do. My exact point is that he doesn't.

piss off comrade. Why should I give a shit about some jungle monkey on the other side of the globe? fight for your own rights....mofo

Attached: joseph stalin_ken.jpg (575x392, 33K)

Who you are and how you were raised are part of the history of "your nation" and its culture. You would be much less likely to browse this place if you were born outside of the first world, both because of economic and cultural circumstances of whatever nation you were born in.

That said, I don't believe that nationalism is good in a vacuum. Nationalism is only good if it promotes a nation's culture that's worth promoting at a given time. Pakistani nationalism is not as "good" (judged by utilitarian consequence) as any western european nationalism. In a historical example, ottoman culture was far worse for the balkan states than austro-hungarian, even though both were foreign conquering powers. Understanding these differences and attempting to quantify as many of their aspects as possible is key to comparing nationalities and promoting one over the other.

...

Because the capital is international. The same corporation that exploits polish workers also exploit Latam workers.
Btw, you're a pole so fuck off

"Croatianess" or any other national culture are not a rigid set of rules, they're a set of attitudes of the adult people living in a country at a given time. This set of outcomes is itself a result of a previous generation of outcomes. But these sets between countries have different "means" and tendencies, think of it in terms of a probability distribution. A family in a western euro country is more likely to vigorously promote the education of their child. A family in a third world country is much less likely to do that, both as a result of economic circumstances but also conservative culture (this effect is especially prevalent in Islam and its resistance to new ideas, both historically and in contemporary times, money doesn't necessarily break this effect). It's wrong to think of a nation's culture as just one set of rules that everyone follows and teaches their children.

And this Jow Forums-browsing croatian's attitude towards life is a by product of the previous in some way. If this way is common in other families in croatia, then this new generation and its set of attitudes towards life will contain more Jow Forums-browsing croatians than the last, reflecting cultural change. Culture should be understood as a very fluid thing that's sensitive to countless inputs. That's why I said nationalism should be about choosing and promoting a culture at a GIVEN time, because you observe a set of attitudes in a generation that's worth pursuing and spreading to other generations and more people. You attempt to find what produced this set of outcomes, and then attempt to emulate. E.g. a set of outcomes that includes a very educated population is strongly correlated with urban and infrastructure development, but also parents that encourage entry to education. So you attempt to replicate these conditions in other people to spread a given culture.

nation doesn't provide any sense of belonging either, tight knit tribal groups do but ''nation'' is such an artificial fucking concept

why would anyone be the best for his country? What will he get in return?
>oh yeas Mr Goldberg I will work 4 hours extra for free for the glory of our country

Do incels really find this faggot in a wig attractive?

Wow based depressed man who has no sense of belonging. Your outlook must be very healthy to have you posting on 4chins

There are literally only two ideological frameworks that have been historically capable of overthrowing a ruling class: nationalism and communism. Now I don’t think communism is a good solution, but I desperately think we need to kill all the oligarchs, so where does that leave me but with a nationalist sentiment?

It actually is a female believe it or not

>Not being Shlomo Silverberg, lawyer that works hard to shame America into buying Israel more tanks

Nation is a bourgeois invention to better enslave the proletariat. Or so it was a few decades ago.
It seens that the international capital abandoned all pretense of patriotism these days, while socialist parties have promoted nationalism.
Not bourgeois nationalism of course

Utterly fedora tier quote, as expected from a souless germshit thinker.
What about all the remarkable people with achievements who were very patriotic throughout their lives?

such as?

...yikes

>language is an artificial concept
Feel free to get the fuck out then, citizen of the world. If you don't feel like you belong, there's literally nothing keeping you here.

Daily reminder that Schopenhauer was a failure in life and if you listen to his retardation you will end up in the same place.

>language and nation are the same thing
retard

>Now I don’t think communism is a good solution
That's because you don't think.

Chopin? Matejko? Mickiewicz? Kopernik?

Ethnonationalism is based just so long as you aren't a classcuck

Most of the time it was.
You see, most of the current national languages were never truly national.
People from different regions spoke different languages. German languuage is a meme, and so is italian. You need a strong centralised state to enforce a unique language

Language is one of nation's main foundations, and a very real one, which in turns make nation real as well. There's nothing artificial about it.

>bunch of literally whos only polacks heard about
woah such influential people

>muh class
Growing up is realising that class is essential to human social organisation and that no matter what you do class will always exist.

>language isn't artificial
Speak to any linguist.