Doing the thing where I look for the perfect book on a subject- at the moment that subject is prehistory. What can we know before Homer, before the Vedas, before Gilgamesh? People must have thought of some pretty crazy theories we never heard of before.
Commies, at least, might like this book
What anthropologists have to tell us about philosophy, pretty enticing if you ask me. They’ve claimed that Hobbesianism is a myth.
I recall that both Strauss and Schmitt believed that any fundamental critique of liberalism must begin with Hobbes.
What can 12,000 BC tell us about the modern day state, that’s what I want to know. The other day with that Indian thinker Kautilya I was only going back to about 300 BC.
If modern philosophy is refuted by anthropological findings that would be a world-changer, needless to say.
He says lots of myth-making has gone on
Prehistory remains the setting for morality tales offered as something more than fiction.
You Marxists can appreciate it for its putting into question of private property, “prehistoric landlords”, and I have my own reasons to
I wouldn’t have expected this. My natural attitude is to wonder how philosophy can improve anthropology, not the other way around.
Yes, this is how the “toxic trolls” of the Antiversity like to spend their time.
I’ve already seen several signs that philosophy can say something about anthropology and I will try, TRY, not to “do that”. It’s the Culture Industry- scholars often justify the existing order, probably without even being aware of it.
We can still use some of them though. This is so unexpected
Everyone does take Hobbes for granted, it’s true. These anthropologists are making ME feel like a neanderthal right now.
When you saw those pictures of hunters in the previous post did you, like me, yearn for a moment to return to those times? It might be that way with the state itself. Or perhaps the present state can at least learn from stateless societies. It’s not either/or, a state or stateless society.
They say that anthropologists refuted this in the second half of the 20th century
Hobbes’s claim that intolerable violence is an inherent feature of any stateless environment.
To what degree does the myth of Hobbes sustain the cathedral?
This concept/genre is pretty sweet, you have to admit
So, are they going to show me some skeletons or what? Without written records what can they do?
One can read this through the JQ lens
Most versions of contractarianism require only one empirical claim: the state is better for everyone than statelessness.
“It’s better to have them than not.” – Isn’t that what the feet-kissers believe?
Ahh 12,000 BC, the times before ZOG. Or did they hold the keys to the fire back then? I’m sure some kind of “PC” existed then? “You hunt, if you don’t hunt you die” – maybe that counts. See, it’s really only possible to make “stories” about those times.
Those uncontacted Amazonian tribes… Is there something “Duginist” about them? What is the state to them? They might be better off being isolated than infected by our western decadence.
Oh god, this is a racistly named field, I’m surprised they even say it
You want to know “prehistory” – go to the Amazon. As I showed you with the Sinonet earlier, our scientists aren’t exactly in the optimal cultural climate for real work to take place. Very sensitive issue. To deal with that, the white people take all the blame upon themselves. “You’re not a prehistoric fossil, it’s all our fault anyway even if you were!” Progology, badda boom badda bing. I’m an anthropologist! The ones in this very book are definitely observable progs. The invisible tears streaming down the face. That’s fine in moderation- today’s “criers” are immoderate (wailing weepers). Speaking of that, are we really going to tolerate another summer of riots? “I was supposed to be born in a jungle, time to burn stuff down to blame you for that!” We are, aren’t we? sigh “My neurons fire sluggishly and that’s your fault!” Whites are thought-slaves, while Jews and blacks live in a state of exception. Two of the most immoral races on the planet, if not thee two worst of all. Something tells me we need to reverse this- good luck convincing the hysterical sobbers of that. A certain irrationality is the Central Governor of our order.
Think of those uncontacted Amazonian tribes. They live in a sort of state of exception. Do you think morality in our sense matters to them? No, and we don’t really care what they do, right? It’s similar with Jews and blacks, they both live in a state of unquestioned immorality. Not all, just many, and the ones who do, get away with it, because of what race they are. So we have to live among bad people who you can’t say anything against – whoops, I just stated the premise of political correctness which is itself not a PC thing to say. Too bad I for one hold you dirt accountable huh? Oy vey, sheeeeit.
Anyway, there must be something good about the state since we know that the “noble savage” is another myth. So again, it’s not either/or. Too much civilization has caused that congestion I spoke of. It’s great that unfamiliar people can ride on a plane without chimping out on each other. On the other hand, this “perpetual reluctance” to say what is on one’s mind can not be good for mental health.
Thinking of the “noble” savage in the following way is a perception-warper
Imagine people discussing modern Swedes being accused of romanticizing the “polite Viking”
The “polite extended crime family”, the “polite African-American”. They’re both still savages. “You are an impolite viking, you savage.” Okay then we have three savages here. For some reason, in our culture, it’s been deemed most savage of all to accuse others of being savages, and I think that’s something we need to rethink.