read Spengler, technological fetishism is unique to faustian civilization and it will be gone again in a century or two, then it's back to s t a g n a t i o n
Stagnation makes sense as hunter gatherer technology. It makes less sense on a civilization as scale. Civilization is inherently progressive as an institution. It is about tribes coming together to create a society that is more efficient. A hunter gatherer society is ideologically conservative in that it needs nothing more. It does not try to improve. It is at peace with itself. The idea that civilization would just stagnate at some arbitrary point ignores that the ideology behind any level of civilization is efficiency.
You're correct sir. Don't mind the Spengtards, they are morons who mistake their ideology for reality. Notice he can't explain why stagnation would be unavoidable and hides behind Spengler's nutsack.
>stagnation >unavoidable
it was temporarily avoided by faustian civilization, it isn't unavoidable, most cultures just don't see why it should be avoided
1 month ago
Anonymous
Most cultures stagnating has more to due with lack of incentives, not their ideological kernels, which are constantly shifting. Western civilization didn't radicalize its technology as a mere matter of ideology, it had to exert those pressures on itself. Stop spreading the goofy Pokemon pseudoscience of civilizational theories.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>lack of incentives
"why should we care about incentivizing change" - egyptian elite
1 month ago
Anonymous
Egypt was its own breadbasket and had wide deserts to protect itself. Its persistence had less to do with ideology (it was constantly changing its rules of governance anyway) and more to do with its geographical advantages.
I'm noticing you can't actually defend Spengler on his own terms, poor you. I guess Germanic ideologues are weak and dumb.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>words
long way to agree that they had no reason to incentivize change
1 month ago
Anonymous
You're not denying it's due to more than muh ursymbol, which is a hilariously stupid theory of civilization. What's a civilization's ursymbol when two ursymbols share equal influence on that civilization?
I accept your concession.
1 month ago
Anonymous
ursymbols are disposable abstractions to help grok the noumena, are anglos THIS moronic?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Cite this from Spengler. Protip, you can't. Therefore, stop touting Spengler, you're stupid to parade him without exposing what a hack he is.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>without exposing
while exposing
1 month ago
Anonymous
spengler makes at least a dozen smug remarks about how spergs will take him too literally, reread him
1 month ago
Anonymous
You haven't cited him once.
You never read Spengler.
I accept your concession.
1 month ago
Anonymous
list one chapter-and-verse citation that spengler himself makes
oh wait you can't, citations are anglo autism
1 month ago
Anonymous
>had wide deserts to protect itself
Egypt had no natural defenses and was conquered time and time again, nothing changed because, it's egypt, it's about as stable as it gets regardless of who is in charge. The river rises.
Because technology strongly defines our relationship with the world much more strongly than people want to admit, especially fantasy fans and conservative types. Also fantasy is pretty much just paganized or magical realism medieval Europe so there’s that
We had millions of years if you count the Lemurian, Atlantean, and first four post-Atlantean epochs.
Those never existed.
Yes they did.
In fantasy tales, maybe.
read Spengler, technological fetishism is unique to faustian civilization and it will be gone again in a century or two, then it's back to s t a g n a t i o n
Stagnation makes sense as hunter gatherer technology. It makes less sense on a civilization as scale. Civilization is inherently progressive as an institution. It is about tribes coming together to create a society that is more efficient. A hunter gatherer society is ideologically conservative in that it needs nothing more. It does not try to improve. It is at peace with itself. The idea that civilization would just stagnate at some arbitrary point ignores that the ideology behind any level of civilization is efficiency.
>Civilization is inherently progressive as an institution
half true, read Spengler
I tried before. It was boring. Not interested anymore.
You're correct sir. Don't mind the Spengtards, they are morons who mistake their ideology for reality. Notice he can't explain why stagnation would be unavoidable and hides behind Spengler's nutsack.
>stagnation
>unavoidable
it was temporarily avoided by faustian civilization, it isn't unavoidable, most cultures just don't see why it should be avoided
Most cultures stagnating has more to due with lack of incentives, not their ideological kernels, which are constantly shifting. Western civilization didn't radicalize its technology as a mere matter of ideology, it had to exert those pressures on itself. Stop spreading the goofy Pokemon pseudoscience of civilizational theories.
>lack of incentives
"why should we care about incentivizing change" - egyptian elite
Egypt was its own breadbasket and had wide deserts to protect itself. Its persistence had less to do with ideology (it was constantly changing its rules of governance anyway) and more to do with its geographical advantages.
I'm noticing you can't actually defend Spengler on his own terms, poor you. I guess Germanic ideologues are weak and dumb.
>words
long way to agree that they had no reason to incentivize change
You're not denying it's due to more than muh ursymbol, which is a hilariously stupid theory of civilization. What's a civilization's ursymbol when two ursymbols share equal influence on that civilization?
I accept your concession.
ursymbols are disposable abstractions to help grok the noumena, are anglos THIS moronic?
Cite this from Spengler. Protip, you can't. Therefore, stop touting Spengler, you're stupid to parade him without exposing what a hack he is.
>without exposing
while exposing
spengler makes at least a dozen smug remarks about how spergs will take him too literally, reread him
You haven't cited him once.
You never read Spengler.
I accept your concession.
list one chapter-and-verse citation that spengler himself makes
oh wait you can't, citations are anglo autism
>had wide deserts to protect itself
Egypt had no natural defenses and was conquered time and time again, nothing changed because, it's egypt, it's about as stable as it gets regardless of who is in charge. The river rises.
simple: 1) author appeal, 2) lore reasons
Scifi is fantasy.
Because technology is trash. Only trannies and cucks love technology.
Because technology strongly defines our relationship with the world much more strongly than people want to admit, especially fantasy fans and conservative types. Also fantasy is pretty much just paganized or magical realism medieval Europe so there’s that