Theme: Truth

Feb 13, 2020, 3:42 PM IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond [I] often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically. Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc. He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”. This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it. This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached. One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness). During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard. The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong). Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians. So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper. Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population. P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more. Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning. You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way. But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark. But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts. I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from. That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately. If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

Feb 13, 2020, 3:42 PM IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond [I] often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically. Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc. He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”. This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it. This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached. One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness). During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard. The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong). Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians. So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper. Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population. P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more. Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning. You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way. But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark. But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts. I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from. That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately. If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.