Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life • Hacker News Board

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#31

Post by jokethrowaway » Tue, Oct 06, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #26

natmaka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> predicting a dictatorship to succeed democracy Polybius take on this is a permanent anacyclosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

Orwell's take on anacylosis (in both Animal Farm and 1984 , as well as Homage to Catalonia ) is that twentieth century democracy decays not to ochlocracy but back to oligarchy, in the case of Animal Farm , and aristocracy, in the case of Goldstein (who discusses the pragmatics of halting the cycle) within 1984 . Looking back on that century with a couple of decades' distance, I'd say oligarchy.

Direct democracy just means that the majority rule on minority. Representative democracy is just plain oligarchy, with moral justifications on top.

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#32

Post by goodlifeodyssey » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 4:17 AM UTC

It has been a few years since I read some of Spengler's "Decline of the West". As I recall, he believed that history had a certain determinism to it; it had universal laws like the laws of physics. I don't think it does, and I have a hard time understanding how he could have thought this was true. See https://goodlifeodyssey.com/universal-historical-laws for an essay about this, but basically what one dictator ate for lunch can have big effects. Thus, no law could account for such complexity. Its like he took the idea that history repeats itself and over-generalized it.

Spengler also seemed to believe it was impossible to "truly" understand how people from earlier times thought. But then he made some very strong claims, like stating that the ancients didn't have a sense of time. Once again, there is some truth here, but he over-generalizes.

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#33

Post by natmaka » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 4:28 AM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #26

natmaka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> predicting a dictatorship to succeed democracy Polybius take on this is a permanent anacyclosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

Orwell's take on anacylosis (in both Animal Farm and 1984 , as well as Homage to Catalonia ) is that twentieth century democracy decays not to ochlocracy but back to oligarchy, in the case of Animal Farm , and aristocracy, in the case of Goldstein (who discusses the pragmatics of halting the cycle) within 1984 . Looking back on that century with a couple of decades' distance, I'd say oligarchy.

In many nations rich people used to be extremely powerful, having their own armies, judicial corps...

While remaining powerful, they are much less so than 1 to 4 of centuries ago.

Nowadays a tax raise or police blunder triggers very politically determinant reactions from fickle crowds (France, USA...).

IMHO during the past century the power went to the richest people (oligarchy) in way less zones than to mobs installing an "absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process". Think China, USSR, many countries in South-America, even many "democratic" Western nations...

I'd say Polybius was right on this one.

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#34

Post by 082349872349872 » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 7:11 AM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #33

082349872349872 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell's take on anacylosis (in both Animal Farm and 1984 , as well as Homage to Catalonia ) is that twentieth century democracy decays not to ochlocracy but back to oligarchy, in the case of Animal Farm , and aristocracy, in the case of Goldstein (who discusses the pragmatics of halting the cycle) within 1984 . Looking back on that century with a couple of decades' distance, I'd say oligarchy.

In many nations rich people used to be extremely powerful, having their own armies, judicial corps... While remaining powerful, they are much less so than 1 to 4 of centuries ago. Nowadays a tax raise or police blunder triggers very politically determinant reactions from fickle crowds (France, USA...). IMHO during the past century the power went to the richest people (oligarchy) in way less zones than to mobs install…

True, these days we only have PMCs, various poorly-regulated milita, and judges appointed by interest group campaign, so unlike the old days they're only rented, not owned. (pace the Кадыровцы)

I don't know enough about china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU), many countries in South America had juntas, etc.

Even somalia seems to be less an anarchy and more tribally organised.

Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#35

Post by 082349872349872 » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 7:13 AM UTC

jokethrowaway wrote: post #31

082349872349872 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell's take on anacylosis (in both Animal Farm and 1984 , as well as Homage to Catalonia ) is that twentieth century democracy decays not to ochlocracy but back to oligarchy, in the case of Animal Farm , and aristocracy, in the case of Goldstein (who discusses the pragmatics of halting the cycle) within 1984 . Looking back on that century with a couple of decades' distance, I'd say oligarchy.

Direct democracy just means that the majority rule on minority. Representative democracy is just plain oligarchy, with moral justifications on top.

Majority rule is not necessarily a feature of democracy, but may be a feature of first past the post voting with only two parties.

I like how we (a vibrant multiparty democracy) do referenda: the referendum text gets put on the ballot, the current government makes a counterproposal "yes, we agree X is a problem but we believe Y is a better solution", and we get to vote either (a) for the referendum proposal, (b) for the government proposal, or (c), the most common option, to leave well enough alone.

Sili im mebi na ta bek, mogut fo na du im gut.

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#36

Post by 082349872349872 » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 7:43 AM UTC

OpticalWindows wrote: post #30

082349872349872 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. Guess I'll have to do some reading after all. > New civilizations emerging at the periphery... Well, they're unlikely to emerge within another's sphere, aren't they? Unless they're exceedingly civilised, civilisations behave like cuckoos to their neighbours. > A rise in strongmen or dictators Good point. I'll keep this in mind when reading Spengler, but as for two famous strongmen, I believe more parsimonious ex…

>Well, they're unlikely to emerge within another's sphere, aren't they? Unless they're exceedingly civilised, civilisations behave like cuckoos to their neighbours. How would you describe christianity in the roman empire? I might considerit a 'new civilization' once it was adpoted. In the US, religion is in severe decline in any place near or in a city. Rural religious communities are hanging on by threads. I've seen…

Christianity within the roman empire might be a good counterexample. However, Justinian came to power in Byzantium in 527, while classical Rome appears to have been done for, if not by 192, at least by 268.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century

> "The crisis began with the assassination of Emperor Severus Alexander by his own troops in 235. This initiated a 50-year period during which there were at least 26 claimants to the title of emperor, mostly prominent Roman army generals, who assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire."

Furthermore,

> ... religion is in severe decline in any place near or in a city. Rural religious communities are hanging on by threads.

is not supported by the data[1] on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#... and we know from the 1950-2019 graph that secular trends are not rapid enough to drastically change the numbers below in half a decade.

For instance, Seattle itself was 63% religious, and as for rural religious communities, alabama was 87% religious.

[1] It's amusing to me how the US divides religious beliefs. For example, my wife, from a traditionally catholic area, divides christianity with the trichotomy of "Christians" (catholics), "Reformeds" (protestants) and "Fishies" (all the other cults). To be fair, she might count orthodox in their own grouping, but when this came up we were talking about local cults.

So (assuming all those racially segegrated listings are evangelical denominations?) she'd say the US a few years ago was 13% reformed, 20% christian, and 32-35% fishie.

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#37

Post by 082349872349872 » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 8:20 AM UTC

goodlifeodyssey wrote: post #32

It has been a few years since I read some of Spengler's "Decline of the West". As I recall, he believed that history had a certain determinism to it; it had universal laws like the laws of physics. I don't think it does, and I have a hard time understanding how he could have thought this was true. See https://goodlifeodyssey.com/universal-historical-laws for an essay about this, but basically what one dictator ate fo…

Almost 1'000 pages will take me a while, even skimming. At the outset it reminds me a little of A New Kind of Science but with the events of 1914-1918, and their resultant shattering of empires and morals[1], to lend credence to its "copernican" claims to novelty.

    Table of Contents
    I. Introduction
    II. The Meaning of Numbers
    III. The Problem of World-History (1) Physiognomic and Systematic
    IV. The Problem of World-History (2) the Destiny-idea and the Causality-Principle
    V. Makrokosmos (1) The Symbolism of the World-picture and the Problem of Space
    VI. Makrokosmos (2) Appolonian, Faustian, and Magian
    VII. Music and Plastic (1) the Arts of form
    VIII. Music and Plastic (2) Act and Portrait
    IX. Soul-image and Life-feeling (1) On the Form of the Soul
    X. Soul-image and Life-feeling (2) Buddhism, Stoicism, and Socialism
    XI. Faustian and Appolonian Nature-knowledge[2]

[1] Zweig's The World of Yesterday contrasts the Victorian/Edwardian world and the interwar world.

[2] Caveat: the translator may have exoticised perfectly normal words, for instance if Nature-knowledge were Naturwissenschaft, "Faustian and Appolonian science" would have been smoother.

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#38

Post by natmaka » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #34

natmaka wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many nations rich people used to be extremely powerful, having their own armies, judicial corps... While remaining powerful, they are much less so than 1 to 4 of centuries ago. Nowadays a tax raise or police blunder triggers very politically determinant reactions from fickle crowds (France, USA...). IMHO during the past century the power went to the richest people (oligarchy) in way less zones than to mobs install…

True, these days we only have PMCs, various poorly-regulated milita, and judges appointed by interest group campaign, so unlike the old days they're only rented, not owned. (pace the Кадыровцы) I don't know enough about china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU), many countrie…

In USSR it seems to me that "mobs installing an absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process" is an adequate description. Were Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky et al. oligarchs? Some politicians, in the USSR then in Russia, get rich this way, indeed, but are they the ultra-rich, and do they own a large fraction of the total wealth? I doubt so.

Same for China: Mao and his followers weren't rich, and AFAIK rich Chinese are indigent compared to Emperors and their family/suit, and not very politically powerful.

Juntas were composed of high-ranking military, who AFAIK weren't rich (most came from the middle-class) nor became so.

Tribalism isn't oligarchic.

The recent pertinent exception are banksters, however their power (albeit non-neglectable) seems rather limited and focused on some Western nations (the 'Old Core').

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#39

Post by 082349872349872 » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #38

082349872349872 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, these days we only have PMCs, various poorly-regulated milita, and judges appointed by interest group campaign, so unlike the old days they're only rented, not owned. (pace the Кадыровцы) I don't know enough about china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU), many countrie…

In USSR it seems to me that "mobs installing an absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process" is an adequate description. Were Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky et al. oligarchs? Some politicians, in the USSR then in Russia, get rich this way, indeed, but are they the ultra-rich, and do they own a large fraction of the total wealth? I doubt so. Same for China: Mao and his followers weren't rich, and AFAIK…

Are we using different vocabulary? I suspect you are using oligarchy for what I would call plutocracy? From en.wiki:

> "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos) 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho) 'to rule or to command'"

which agrees with my head-canon terms of "how large is the selectorate?"

    - monarchy : "L'état, c'est moi."

    - oligarchy : to do something, convince the inner circle

    - democracy : to do something, convince an entire electorate

Re: Oswald Spengler – an intellectual life

#40

Post by aebtebeten » Wed, Oct 07, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #11

For all people don't like the conclusions he came to in his own time, he made falsifiable predictions about the future and I'd much rather people debated those than the merits of the man who made them.

One falsifiable prediction. In chapter XI, which reads like GPT trained on Alan Sokal and QAnon[1], he says exact science arose in the eighteenth, peaked in the nineteenth, and will decline over the twentieth.

From the vantage of the twenty-first, I say: false.

[1] examples: "Above all, this is manifested in the bizarre hypotheses of atomic disintegration which elucidate the phenomena of radioactivity ... With ideas like these the mythopoetic force of the Faustian soul is returning to its origins."

"Every physics, as I have shown, must break down over the motion-problem, in which the living person of the knower methodically intrudes into the inorganic form-world of the known."

Force is "(1) in the 17th century (Galileo, Newton, Leibniz) ... pictorially formed and in unison with the great art of oil-painting that died out about 1630: (2) in the 18th century (...Laplace, Lagrange...) ... abstract character of the fugue style and is in unison with Bach ...(3) with the Culture at its end ... the theory of functions of several complex variables ..."

etc. etc.