I'm very much looking forward to this. Spengler is always going to be a contentious choice (and he pretty much defines a certain kind of German intellectual style) but this is a book that's always intrigued me. I'll be watching this Saturday morning!
I found it a highly intriguing read. As I mention in the video, Spengler's methods basically fly in the face of traditional philosophical discourse, and portions of it read like quasi-mystical gobbledygook, but he makes certain connections between things that struck me as eerily, seemingly, on point. As debatable as it is, it still made me look at things and think about things differently, and in that I think it holds great value.
@@williamgass9242 A style that I always think of as a kind of intellectual exaltation or rhapsody. I don't know how to describe it other than that. I might say...a kind of intellectual ketamine monologue.
You know what, this video inspires me to finally give Uncle Oswald his due. I don't really have an excuse since I don't even have to rely on a translation, and you can pick up his books for real cheap since they've long been public domain now. Spengler reception is interesting for sure. His "followers" really don't like to talk about it nowadays, but Theodor Adorno was a great admirer of this book too; and one of Wyndham Lewis's biggest non-fiction works heavily attacked it from a right wing perspective from what I've heard.
Yeah, definitely give it a go I'd say; it's extremely fascinating, regardless of how you come out thinking about it. Spengler seems to get attacked from all corners. Progressives don't like the books because they posit that such reform-based policies and outlooks are indicative of spiritual deterioration, but he also gets flak from more conservative commentators as well; I think Roger Scruton took issue with these books and basically said they were crap. But hey, anything that provocative is worth a look at least! :)
Just watched the video, and I very much enjoyed it. Really good presentation. I never know what to make of Spengler. He's intriguing and, yes, worth thinking about. I do disagree with a lot of his underlying politics and I'm always a bit put off by how easily certain right-wing groups (ahem) co-opted Spengler. But...I'll admit to enjoying reading speculative history like Spengler and a few others. So I'll be going back to look at him again (which I haven't done I was maybe twenty-- back in days long before even the dinosaurs).
No, Alicia never really explains why she called the books nonsense; probably just because they don't abide by the normal rules of philosophical discourse. But she/McCarthy gives Spengler backhanded praise by noting that he starts with mathematics in his arguments. McCarthy may have said Spengler was full of shit, but I think he meant that goodnaturedly. There were (and are in the second volume) soooo many passages that could literally have been ripped straight from one of his own books. I think Spengler was a major influence on him now.
@TH3F4LC0Nx there was a line from the Passenger. I thought was totally Spenglerian in tone and nature where Bobby reflected his existence was owed to Hiroshima and Auchwitz. What McCarthy called the sister event that sealed the fate of the West and Bobby Western.
@@amirbrandon5011 True, I think you can see traces of Spengler's style in McCarthy. In the second volume though, there's discussion of war which sounds like it's ripped right out of Blood Meridian. I'm really glad I picked these books up now.
Yes, one of the most difficult works I've ever read. Spengler is one of those transcendent intellects that academics love to hate. The decline of a nation may be tracked by the deterioration of its art, as can the adoption of new psychological concepts, the West being characterized by infinite Cartesian planes and verticality, thus the ever increasing height of cathedrals. Late stage civilization is characterized by the rise of the megalopolis, the city devoid of history whose only remaining ethos is money making. Civilizations become ossified within their own founding idea. The Magna Carta was the written expression of the western zeitgeist of individual rights, largely as an outgrowth of Christian thought, it reaches its full maturation in the US under the constitution, and its death under the Patriot Act. As I used to tell my students, the founding documents of our civilization in its prime could not be written today. The cast of mind which created those documents no longer exists among us. Our generation is the dissolution of these ideas, thus the Patriot Act and looming tyranny post 2001. As with all social science, the "proof" of the theory lies with its explanatory power.
Hey, I watched your video on the work as I was reading through it myself. Good stuff! :) I agree, art is a sure barometer for where a culture/civilization is at. Our art has declined so much by now it's not even funny. And I would say Freud and his ilk can probably be taken as signs of deterioration as well. And I was going to mention the megalopolis thing, but that's really talked about more in the second volume, and I was trying to kinda keep to the content of the book in hand. (But stay tuned! :D) And yes, the United States Constitution would never be penned today. Hell, we've got politicians now who are actively ignoring and/or trying to destroy it. The more I see, the more I think Spengler may have been right. Sadly. :(
@@TH3F4LC0Nx Thanks for watching my vid. I thought your analysis was really good. Spengler gives voice to something that classicists tend to have an implicit understanding of, something Gibbon described but did not theorize. A culture is born of synthesis and the character of a people will be born to its logical conclusion and then finally subverted by the maturation, stagnation and subversion of the founding principles. Late civilization becomes both self aware of its founding ethos and also skeptical of its value, ending in repudiation. Consider the manifest destiny of the US, once a battle cry but now decried as imperialist. Repudiation of the core idea permits permeation of people and ideas from the periphery (immigration) which brings a rapid end to the civilization because the population cannot sustain the attitudes and principles which built it in the first place. In Rome this began with the annexing of Gaul, and ended with the Gothic and Hunnic invasions. In America it began with the annexing of Mexican territories and will end with the current mass migration. Politically, decline invariably follows the Polybian cycle. Quigley's _Evolution of Civilizations_ is an excellent correlary to the topic and is far more accessible than Spengler. I look forward to your analysis of part 2
@@Catholic-Perennialist Very astute! Especially good example with Manifest Destiny. American culture has indeed become infused with many ideas from other origins, and you're right, the cracks are showing. Thanks for the recommendation with the Quigley book too! :)
There is a term for when technology advances, but cultures and the general psychology of population doesn't, it's called "cultural lag". On a bigger scale it's an evolutionary lag, when population retains mental and physical adaptations from primitive times, which are counterproductive in the relevant state of environment. This might just be the main culprit behind why history is going in circles and nothing is changing. There seem to be no natural solution, as it simply takes way more time to adapt to progress as species and by that time the conditions may change to more primitive once again... So we can never truly progress.
Interesting notion. :) It may be that humans are hardwired with certain deeply buried characteristics that make it so that even though we advance technically, we never really get beyond a certain point mentally/spiritually.
Yeah, I don't think he really thought of these books as gospel, per se, but I think the notion of cyclical history and human evolution/degradation appealed to McCarthy. I'm in the second volume right now, and some of the stuff that Spengler says about war I honestly think McCarthy ripped when he was writing Blood Meridian.
@@TH3F4LC0NxBtw read Evola’s Metaphysics of Power if you want to stay on this path. That text will give more specifics about his politics than Revolt Against the Modern World.
@@williamgass9242 I wouldn't say that history supports such a claim. There are numerous flaws in Marx's thought, foremost perhaps being the labor theory of value (although ironically I think Smith is guilty of the same mistake). Beyond that though, Marx, despite being able to envision a future communistic utopia, was unable to envision a post-labor-based economy, which is why Marxism's main preoccupation is physical labor, a la the mid-to-late 1800's factory milieu. Marx's predictions failed as well; profit under capitalism didn't fall, and socialism did not supplant capitalism - every time it was attempted it either collapsed or had to reintegrate capitalistic aspects in order to survive (as per China), and the concept of a centrally planned economy has failed every single time it has been tried. Marx's materialism I also find highly reductive and critically flawed because it omits the metaphysical element of Man: spirit. And the notion of the withering away of the state I find incredibly fanciful. And, of course, the sheer loss of life that has resulted every time Marx's ideas have been implemented is enough to invalidate them. I incline personally towards Thomas Sowell's (a former Marxist himself) explanation of Marx: his achievement lay in creating a vision so outwardly compelling, so tantalizing in the way it explained literally everything, that foments such a rabid desire for belief in its adherents, that it is effectively immune to critique and survives on faith, very much like a religion. I'll readily admit that Marx's work can be quite fascinating, but that's a dangerous strain of fascination, historically speaking.
@TH3F4LC0Nx wow all that from a guy who never read marx. I would disagree that marx's work isn't spiritual. Also I wouldn’t attribute anything having been done in history using what they believe is marx to be the same as marx himself as a man. I don't think anyone should fault marx for not being able to see the future perfectly as those people think they see it presently. Also the future is still there for us to wait for. The best takeaways from marx are explanations for why people are egotistical assholes these days who try to tear down their loved ones.
@@williamgass9242 Well, I may not have read all the thousands of pages of Capital, (but then again I'd wager neither have the majority of Marxists), but I have striven to familiarize myself with his ideas and concepts. However, not attributing the atrocities done in Marx's name to Marx's work is a dire mistake I would personally aver, and only makes possible the repetition of such tragedies in future. It's a simple fact that Marx is the common denominator in numerous horrors in the 20th century, but people's refusal to lay any blame at his feet only keeps the door open for repeat occurrences. People like to say that Stalin ruined communism, but Stalin wouldn't have even been able to do what he did without communism in the first place. This is why ideologues are so dangerous, because they're rarely brought to account. An engineer who designs a bridge that collapses is ruined if not imprisoned, but Marx's work can kill tens of millions and still come out smelling like a rose. Marx escapes culpability because whenever his ideas fail his followers go all "No True Scotsman" and shift the goalposts by saying it wasn't *real* Marxism. The future is indeed still there for us to wait for, but I'm not personally holding my breath for Marx's future to materialize. But that's just me.
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Fantastic! Thank you for covering this book. - A fan
Thank you for watching! :)
I'm very much looking forward to this. Spengler is always going to be a contentious choice (and he pretty much defines a certain kind of German intellectual style) but this is a book that's always intrigued me. I'll be watching this Saturday morning!
I found it a highly intriguing read. As I mention in the video, Spengler's methods basically fly in the face of traditional philosophical discourse, and portions of it read like quasi-mystical gobbledygook, but he makes certain connections between things that struck me as eerily, seemingly, on point. As debatable as it is, it still made me look at things and think about things differently, and in that I think it holds great value.
What German style?
@@williamgass9242 A style that I always think of as a kind of intellectual exaltation or rhapsody. I don't know how to describe it other than that. I might say...a kind of intellectual ketamine monologue.
You know what, this video inspires me to finally give Uncle Oswald his due. I don't really have an excuse since I don't even have to rely on a translation, and you can pick up his books for real cheap since they've long been public domain now.
Spengler reception is interesting for sure. His "followers" really don't like to talk about it nowadays, but Theodor Adorno was a great admirer of this book too; and one of Wyndham Lewis's biggest non-fiction works heavily attacked it from a right wing perspective from what I've heard.
Yeah, definitely give it a go I'd say; it's extremely fascinating, regardless of how you come out thinking about it. Spengler seems to get attacked from all corners. Progressives don't like the books because they posit that such reform-based policies and outlooks are indicative of spiritual deterioration, but he also gets flak from more conservative commentators as well; I think Roger Scruton took issue with these books and basically said they were crap. But hey, anything that provocative is worth a look at least! :)
Just watched the video, and I very much enjoyed it. Really good presentation. I never know what to make of Spengler. He's intriguing and, yes, worth thinking about. I do disagree with a lot of his underlying politics and I'm always a bit put off by how easily certain right-wing groups (ahem) co-opted Spengler. But...I'll admit to enjoying reading speculative history like Spengler and a few others. So I'll be going back to look at him again (which I haven't done I was maybe twenty-- back in days long before even the dinosaurs).
Thanks! Very stimulating book, regardless of its ultimate veracity or inveracity. It makes you think, and that's the best thing a book can do! :)
@@TH3F4LC0Nx Agreed!
"We have to go back Spengler, who's full of shit," McCarthy refuse to elaborate
Did he explain why it was nonsense in Stella Maris?
No, Alicia never really explains why she called the books nonsense; probably just because they don't abide by the normal rules of philosophical discourse. But she/McCarthy gives Spengler backhanded praise by noting that he starts with mathematics in his arguments. McCarthy may have said Spengler was full of shit, but I think he meant that goodnaturedly. There were (and are in the second volume) soooo many passages that could literally have been ripped straight from one of his own books. I think Spengler was a major influence on him now.
@TH3F4LC0Nx there was a line from the Passenger. I thought was totally Spenglerian in tone and nature where Bobby reflected his existence was owed to Hiroshima and Auchwitz. What McCarthy called the sister event that sealed the fate of the West and Bobby Western.
@@amirbrandon5011 True, I think you can see traces of Spengler's style in McCarthy. In the second volume though, there's discussion of war which sounds like it's ripped right out of Blood Meridian. I'm really glad I picked these books up now.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx seems like he enjoys German philosophy and mysticism
Yes, one of the most difficult works I've ever read. Spengler is one of those transcendent intellects that academics love to hate.
The decline of a nation may be tracked by the deterioration of its art, as can the adoption of new psychological concepts, the West being characterized by infinite Cartesian planes and verticality, thus the ever increasing height of cathedrals.
Late stage civilization is characterized by the rise of the megalopolis, the city devoid of history whose only remaining ethos is money making.
Civilizations become ossified within their own founding idea. The Magna Carta was the written expression of the western zeitgeist of individual rights, largely as an outgrowth of Christian thought, it reaches its full maturation in the US under the constitution, and its death under the Patriot Act.
As I used to tell my students, the founding documents of our civilization in its prime could not be written today. The cast of mind which created those documents no longer exists among us. Our generation is the dissolution of these ideas, thus the Patriot Act and looming tyranny post 2001.
As with all social science, the "proof" of the theory lies with its explanatory power.
Hey, I watched your video on the work as I was reading through it myself. Good stuff! :) I agree, art is a sure barometer for where a culture/civilization is at. Our art has declined so much by now it's not even funny. And I would say Freud and his ilk can probably be taken as signs of deterioration as well. And I was going to mention the megalopolis thing, but that's really talked about more in the second volume, and I was trying to kinda keep to the content of the book in hand. (But stay tuned! :D) And yes, the United States Constitution would never be penned today. Hell, we've got politicians now who are actively ignoring and/or trying to destroy it. The more I see, the more I think Spengler may have been right. Sadly. :(
@@TH3F4LC0Nx Thanks for watching my vid. I thought your analysis was really good.
Spengler gives voice to something that classicists tend to have an implicit understanding of, something Gibbon described but did not theorize. A culture is born of synthesis and the character of a people will be born to its logical conclusion and then finally subverted by the maturation, stagnation and subversion of the founding principles.
Late civilization becomes both self aware of its founding ethos and also skeptical of its value, ending in repudiation. Consider the manifest destiny of the US, once a battle cry but now decried as imperialist.
Repudiation of the core idea permits permeation of people and ideas from the periphery (immigration) which brings a rapid end to the civilization because the population cannot sustain the attitudes and principles which built it in the first place. In Rome this began with the annexing of Gaul, and ended with the Gothic and Hunnic invasions. In America it began with the annexing of Mexican territories and will end with the current mass migration.
Politically, decline invariably follows the Polybian cycle.
Quigley's _Evolution of Civilizations_ is an excellent correlary to the topic and is far more accessible than Spengler.
I look forward to your analysis of part 2
@@Catholic-Perennialist Very astute! Especially good example with Manifest Destiny. American culture has indeed become infused with many ideas from other origins, and you're right, the cracks are showing. Thanks for the recommendation with the Quigley book too! :)
@@TH3F4LC0Nx 👍 I highly recommend Quigley; he dovetails nicely with Spengler and isn't so opaque.
@@Catholic-Perennialist I'll have to give a look! :)
There is a term for when technology advances, but cultures and the general psychology of population doesn't, it's called "cultural lag". On a bigger scale it's an evolutionary lag, when population retains mental and physical adaptations from primitive times, which are counterproductive in the relevant state of environment.
This might just be the main culprit behind why history is going in circles and nothing is changing. There seem to be no natural solution, as it simply takes way more time to adapt to progress as species and by that time the conditions may change to more primitive once again... So we can never truly progress.
Interesting notion. :) It may be that humans are hardwired with certain deeply buried characteristics that make it so that even though we advance technically, we never really get beyond a certain point mentally/spiritually.
Cormac said Spengler was full of it but intelligent, so I think he had some respect for Spengler but was not a Spenglerite.
Yeah, I don't think he really thought of these books as gospel, per se, but I think the notion of cyclical history and human evolution/degradation appealed to McCarthy. I'm in the second volume right now, and some of the stuff that Spengler says about war I honestly think McCarthy ripped when he was writing Blood Meridian.
@@TH3F4LC0NxBtw read Evola’s Metaphysics of Power if you want to stay on this path. That text will give more specifics about his politics than Revolt Against the Modern World.
Reminds me of when i read das capital. I was like, "yep this is us."
Well, I'll say this much for Marx, he was a whiz at presentation.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx you don't think he wrote a better book on political economy than Adam smith?
@@williamgass9242 I wouldn't say that history supports such a claim. There are numerous flaws in Marx's thought, foremost perhaps being the labor theory of value (although ironically I think Smith is guilty of the same mistake). Beyond that though, Marx, despite being able to envision a future communistic utopia, was unable to envision a post-labor-based economy, which is why Marxism's main preoccupation is physical labor, a la the mid-to-late 1800's factory milieu. Marx's predictions failed as well; profit under capitalism didn't fall, and socialism did not supplant capitalism - every time it was attempted it either collapsed or had to reintegrate capitalistic aspects in order to survive (as per China), and the concept of a centrally planned economy has failed every single time it has been tried. Marx's materialism I also find highly reductive and critically flawed because it omits the metaphysical element of Man: spirit. And the notion of the withering away of the state I find incredibly fanciful. And, of course, the sheer loss of life that has resulted every time Marx's ideas have been implemented is enough to invalidate them. I incline personally towards Thomas Sowell's (a former Marxist himself) explanation of Marx: his achievement lay in creating a vision so outwardly compelling, so tantalizing in the way it explained literally everything, that foments such a rabid desire for belief in its adherents, that it is effectively immune to critique and survives on faith, very much like a religion. I'll readily admit that Marx's work can be quite fascinating, but that's a dangerous strain of fascination, historically speaking.
@TH3F4LC0Nx wow all that from a guy who never read marx. I would disagree that marx's work isn't spiritual. Also I wouldn’t attribute anything having been done in history using what they believe is marx to be the same as marx himself as a man. I don't think anyone should fault marx for not being able to see the future perfectly as those people think they see it presently. Also the future is still there for us to wait for. The best takeaways from marx are explanations for why people are egotistical assholes these days who try to tear down their loved ones.
@@williamgass9242 Well, I may not have read all the thousands of pages of Capital, (but then again I'd wager neither have the majority of Marxists), but I have striven to familiarize myself with his ideas and concepts. However, not attributing the atrocities done in Marx's name to Marx's work is a dire mistake I would personally aver, and only makes possible the repetition of such tragedies in future. It's a simple fact that Marx is the common denominator in numerous horrors in the 20th century, but people's refusal to lay any blame at his feet only keeps the door open for repeat occurrences. People like to say that Stalin ruined communism, but Stalin wouldn't have even been able to do what he did without communism in the first place. This is why ideologues are so dangerous, because they're rarely brought to account. An engineer who designs a bridge that collapses is ruined if not imprisoned, but Marx's work can kill tens of millions and still come out smelling like a rose. Marx escapes culpability because whenever his ideas fail his followers go all "No True Scotsman" and shift the goalposts by saying it wasn't *real* Marxism. The future is indeed still there for us to wait for, but I'm not personally holding my breath for Marx's future to materialize. But that's just me.