Ur-Fascism (1995) • Hacker News Board

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#11

Post by chongli » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 3:53 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #3

_bxg1 wrote: post #2

The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism. Ironically, totalitarianism is itself a product of modernism: the idea that you can premeditate a "perfect" society and then bring it about at scale, by force. The theme of mastery over nature is extremely modernist, where nature in this case is humanity.

Sort of having an esthetic and being willing threaten people, throw them in prison, to exile, or kill them over it.

Yes. This is the essential flaw in utopianism. Utopias always feature a foundational philosophy, an aesthetic as you describe it, and it has yet to be demonstrated that there exists any non-trivial example which everyone could agree is the "best."

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#12

Post by beaconstudios » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #8

beaconstudios wrote: post #5

it's odd that they characterise ur-fascism with irrationalism given the level of scientific innovation present in Nazi Germany (even though that innovation was entirely directed at more efficiently killing people). I'd more characterise it as anti-intellectual, as from reading this article the scorn seemed to be more directed at academics, bourgeois artists and armchair thinker types than science or rationality in ge…

The amount of scientific innovation in Nazi Germany is incredibly overhyped. In reality outside of rockets they made very few major advances. And even in Rocketry there were major scientific breakthroughs, just improved engineering. The medical experiments inflicted on prisoners were useless scientifically, just pure sadism. The "experiments" to test hypothermia for instance often did not record the patience weight,…

hm, I did not know that. I'd picked up a perception that the Nazis were innovative in quite a few scientific disciplines, at least partially due to their complete disdain for ethics, but it sounds like that belief is unfounded.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#13

Post by neaden » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #12

neaden wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of scientific innovation in Nazi Germany is incredibly overhyped. In reality outside of rockets they made very few major advances. And even in Rocketry there were major scientific breakthroughs, just improved engineering. The medical experiments inflicted on prisoners were useless scientifically, just pure sadism. The "experiments" to test hypothermia for instance often did not record the patience weight,…

hm, I did not know that. I'd picked up a perception that the Nazis were innovative in quite a few scientific disciplines, at least partially due to their complete disdain for ethics, but it sounds like that belief is unfounded.

It's the whole mad science angle that we have in our culture I think. But that ignores that ethics are tied to things like oversight, methodology, and being objective which are all important for research.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#14

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

The perfect example of faux-deep, but ultimately shallow work Eco was made famous for.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#15

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

mercurysmessage wrote: post #9

nwah1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. He mentions throughout that fascism is littered with internal contradictions that it has no interest in reconciling rationally.

It most certainly is, how can a group they disparage simultaneously be weak and subhuman, while also having lots of power and "controlling the world"?

One obvious answer (not ascribing to the theory, just playing devil's advocate) is through deception and manipulation.

A group is weak, so it resorts to manipulation and deceiving , and thus gains power over stronger more "pure" groups don't stoop down to these tactics.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#16

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

nwah1 wrote: post #7

beaconstudios wrote: post #5

it's odd that they characterise ur-fascism with irrationalism given the level of scientific innovation present in Nazi Germany (even though that innovation was entirely directed at more efficiently killing people). I'd more characterise it as anti-intellectual, as from reading this article the scorn seemed to be more directed at academics, bourgeois artists and armchair thinker types than science or rationality in ge…

Irrational is accurate. The "syncretism" that is mentioned can only be achieved through ignoring contradictions. Science can be employed by irrational people, and scientists themselves can be irrational. There's been lots of people who note that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist groups. You have Nobel prize winners like Kary Mullis who take copious amounts of psychedelics and deny that HIV…

There's nothing irrational per se in taking "copious amounts of psychedelics".

It's no more rational that not taking them.

Reason (ratio) itself, has no inherent values (as in "sober is better") -- it's all about deductive chains and what works.

Denying that HIV causes AIDS can also be perfectly rational as long as he justifies it with certain arguments that are not crazy themselves.

Merely straying off the established scientific view is not irrational -- else all kind of now established scientists should also be labelled as irrational, for that's what they did when they proposed and insisted on their theories before they ever got accepted (and some took decades or more to be accepted).

In which case tons of now established theories would never have come to pass.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#17

Post by justin66 » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

lou1306 wrote: post #4

Foucault's Pendulum also contain a great (fictional, but clearly autobiographical somehow) account of life in rural Italy during the Resistance.

Also an exemplar for a lot of more recent novels of... ahem... varying quality from people like Pérez-Reverte or Dan Brown.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#18

Post by nwah1 » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #16

nwah1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrational is accurate. The "syncretism" that is mentioned can only be achieved through ignoring contradictions. Science can be employed by irrational people, and scientists themselves can be irrational. There's been lots of people who note that engineers are disproportionately represented among terrorist groups. You have Nobel prize winners like Kary Mullis who take copious amounts of psychedelics and deny that HIV…

There's nothing irrational per se in taking "copious amounts of psychedelics". It's no more rational that not taking them. Reason (ratio) itself, has no inherent values (as in "sober is better") -- it's all about deductive chains and what works. Denying that HIV causes AIDS can also be perfectly rational as long as he justifies it with certain arguments that are not crazy themselves. Merely straying off the establish…

I like the guy, but he does seem fairly irrational. He thinks astrology doesn't get a fair shake.

And in any event, a scientist while under the influence of neuroactive substances could be said to be an example of a person who is both a scientist and irrational.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#19

Post by teachrdan » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

mercurysmessage wrote: post #9

nwah1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. He mentions throughout that fascism is littered with internal contradictions that it has no interest in reconciling rationally.

It most certainly is, how can a group they disparage simultaneously be weak and subhuman, while also having lots of power and "controlling the world"?

It's similar to how Redpillers would explain how women, who they believe to be less intelligent than men (among other deficiencies) are still able to dominate society: through lies and manipulation and controlling the media, etc.

It's remarkable how much the narrative stays the same whether the enemy is women, or Jews, or people of color.

Re: Ur-Fascism (1995)

#20

Post by evgen » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 8:21 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #13

beaconstudios wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hm, I did not know that. I'd picked up a perception that the Nazis were innovative in quite a few scientific disciplines, at least partially due to their complete disdain for ethics, but it sounds like that belief is unfounded.

It's the whole mad science angle that we have in our culture I think. But that ignores that ethics are tied to things like oversight, methodology, and being objective which are all important for research.

It is also worth noting that a lot of those mad-science projects that we look back at and consider potentially visionary were often stabs in the dark by scientists who saw a ministry picking up their project as a way to avoid conscription into the army. They were seldom backed up by any real science and frequently had little chance of success, but they somewhat resemble something that was developed later so we assume the project leads knew what they were doing...