For many years, I’ve considered myself a fan of Emil Cioran. He says so many interesting things, chief among them (for me) is his concept of language being our true fatherland. This is a fascinating truism that has helped me shift my thoughts greatly over many years. I have overcome many internal definitions because of Cioran’s advice.

Many months ago, I bought the audiobook “A Short History of Decay” (“Précis de Décomposition”), and I’m just now getting the chance to hear it. As expected, this is a packed tome full of sharp quips and loaded thoughts; however, I find myself stuck on one lynchpin holding the first chapter together.

Cioran goes to brief lengths demonstrating the hostility of dogma and the history of societal destruction (banality and apocalypse). To support this, he makes the point that Nero and Tiberius were men who, rather than adherents to any particular dogma, became mere degenerates (decadents) who enjoyed torturing the latest losers. Cioran goes further, arguing that the true engineers manifesting social downfall are the self-appointed apostles of structure or anti-structure, not conmen.

That’s… a tough concept for me. One might assume by my use of complete sentences and my lack of Christian nationalism that I hold a deep hatred for Donald Trump. One would be correct in that assumption. I like to believe I hate that man with an overwhelming passion… but he is, in my estimation, a con man. According to Cioran, a man like him who holds nothing sacred cannot be an instrument of societal downfall.

Here’s a quote:

This leaves me with an apparent crossroads. Either I am wrong about Cioran’s wisdom, or Cioran is correct and I am wrong about Donald Trump. Of course, the argument could be made that the public constitutes its own persona writ large (much like a corporation with its own identity and rights). The democracy forms its own identity and has its own dogma, which a con man may manipulate for his own brief aims within our strange new world’s structure. That’s one view, but the fact remains that my impression of one of these men likely needs to change.

It frightens me, to think that Donald Trump actually DOES believe in a dogma which he determines to be the “right” way to live (that he is living an imitable life), and that this belief drives his actions.

RESPONSE

Cioran is a hard thinker to carry forward without friction, because his sharpness cuts in all directions, even (and especially) toward the people who admire him.

Let’s walk through this.

⚔️Cioran’s View on Dogma vs. Degeneracy

Cioran’s claim—roughly—that the con man, the decadent, the opportunist like Nero or Tiberius is not the true source of catastrophe, while dogmatic apostles of structure or anti-structure are, is a provocative way to separate evil born of belief from evil born of self-interest.

He seems to say: degenerates may torment, but they don’t organize ruin on the level that ideologues do. Ideologues engineer entire world-orders (utopian or apocalyptic), and that’s where real historical damage happens: when belief pretends to be salvation.

So to Cioran, Torquemada is more dangerous than Caligula.

(above) Juan de Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition

(above) Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus a.k.a. Caligula

🐍 So… Where Does Trump Fall?

I feel—passionately and personally—that Donald Trump is a destructive force. I see him not just as a vulgar opportunist, but as a real danger to institutions, culture, and perhaps democracy itself. That suggests I’m seeing in Trump more than a con man—even if his background is thoroughly grift-driven.

So let’s test this:

1. Possibility A: Trump is “just” a con man

This is closer to Cioran’s thesis. In this view, Trump is more like Tiberius: he exploits existing passions, he doesn’t invent or sincerely believe in a totalizing dogma. He is parasitic, not messianic. And therefore, the responsibility for collapse lies more with the believers who constructed a dogma around him—those who saw a savior, not a salesman.

In this reading, Trump is not “the true danger.” The danger is the dogma that grows around him—what others make of him.

1. Possibility B: Trump believes in something

What if Trump does believe in something? Not necessarily a traditional ideology, but a dogma of self: that he is the rightful center of power, truth, success, survival. That his way is the only way. That enemies must be humiliated and facts bent to his advantage. That loyalty is moral, and dissent is treason. These are not fleshed-out political ideas—but they function as dogma in the Cioranian sense.

In this view, Trump is not merely a parasite. He becomes a carrier of a belief system—even if it is crude, narcissistic, and unexamined. And once others take this up as gospel (e.g. QAnon, “stop the steal,” “only Trump can fix it”), he becomes an apostle of a destructive anti-structure.

So Cioran’s thesis may still apply—just in a more flexible or modern sense.

🪞What Might Be Happening Emotionally

I have been emotionally invested in hating Trump as a villain for a full decade. I do not directly hate him because he is a fool. Philosophically, it’s harder to assign ultimate blame to someone who lacks belief, because Cioran’s vision of moral horror is reserved for true believers. That makes the con man weirdly “innocent” by comparison.

The moral vertigo of realizing that maybe the con man isn’t the root cause—we are, or rather, the systems and believers who elevate him are.

This does not necessarily imply the con man is empty; rather he may believe in himself with dogmatic ferocity. Maybe we’re seeing a new form of dogma—a hypermodern, selfie-mythology where personal branding is truth. That’s not quite what Cioran imagined, but he didn’t live to see QAnon or Twitter politics either.

🎯 Conclusion: Are These Views Contradictory?

Not necessarily. I am not wrong to feel Trump is dangerous. Cioran’s work is not invalidated either. Instead, Cioran gives us a framework for understanding where lasting collapse originates: belief, not merely appetite.

This is a real-world case that’s murky: Trump might look like a con man, but functions like a prophet to his followers. The true destructiveness may lie in the synthesis: a con man becomes an apostle when his persona hardens into a movement. His hollowness becomes filled with the hopes and resentments of others.

So perhaps Trump is both: a man without principles who becomes the unwitting architect of a pseudo-dogma, which others enact in his name. And that might be the real modern tragedy—one that Cioran, writing in 1949, could only glimpse.

This thought exercise was built from interactions with a large language model. I, the poster, have worked to contextualize and confirm any information presented by non-human resources. Thank you!

As The Temperature Dropped – Cold War History Through a Poetic Lens

Body:

“The winds of change were never warm.”

This piece retells the Cold War’s origin with fire, silence, and human psychology at its core. It’s not just a timeline—it’s a reflection on what happens to a nation when fear replaces memory, and how propaganda shapes the very soul of history.

Free to read, because truth should never be locked away.

Full post on Ko-Fi:

https://ko-fi.com/post/As-The-Temperature-Dropped-W7W5ZSFCE

Direct PDF download:

https://ko-fi.com/s/9f7b5d67cc

Subject index: Cold War, History, Free Download, Truman, Stalin, Political Writing, Educational, E-book, Nonfiction, PDF, Antiwar, Geopolitics, US History, Soviet Union, Storytelling, Poetic Nonfiction

How do you know you’re a person who has lived your life, rather than a just-formed brain full of artificial memories, momentarily hallucinating a reality that doesn’t actually exist? That may sound absurd, but it’s kept several generations of top cosmologists up at night. They call it: the Boltzmann brain paradox. Fabio Pacucci explores this mind-numbing thought experiment.

doesn't seem to make especial case for will transmission, but some interesting tidbits about some studies nevertheless

My husband and I are both academics. We've been married for 3 years, and been together for 6. He is an academic philosopher and I am a physicist. He has recently expressed displeasure that I've never seriously engaged with his work. Now, I've read a bit of the classics of philosophy, but my husband's work is more in what I'm told is called the "continental" tradition. Unfortunately, everything he's shown me has just seems completely insane.

Here's the problem: his work apparently involves claims about physics that are just wrong, and wrong in a very embarrassing way! I'll admit, I'm a terrible person, but I had never read his thesis before. I tried reading it and it's riddled with talk about for instance the necessary relationship between matter having "extension" and possessing mass. He also talks about the "spectacle" of fundamental particles. This is obviously nonsensical/wrong; electrons have mass and are point particles (they don't take up space really). In the thesis and some other papers he wrote he seems to think of himself as "scientific socialist" and a "materialist" but his entire idea of what these words mean is stuck in like, outdated 19th century ideas about atoms as little billiard balls flying around in space. I've gently tried to help him and explain how he might start to engage seriously with contemporary physics (he has never read a book on the subject and is by his own admission "bad at math"), but he just gets angry with me and explains that Guy Debord's system is presuppositional and the basis for all possible rational thought so there is no need at all to read other texts in the first place (I have no idea what this means). He will throw out terms like "speculative propositions" but when I ask him to explain what this means or give me examples he just starts giving me more inscrutable jargon that makes no sense. On top of that, he will repeatedly say French phrases or terms that he uses (and pronounces) incorrectly (I am a native speaker) or nonsensically. He claims to understand the language (he doesn't) and tells me that Guy Debord can only be understood "in the original French" but he clearly can't read the language and when I've tried to read the original texts they make even less sense.

On top of this, his obsession with Debord himself has reached the point of creepiness. At one point he literally told me that all other work either agrees with Debord so is redundant, or disagrees with Debord and is wrong. He keeps a framed picture of Vaneigem on the nightstand in our bedroom. In fact, he even changed his phone's background from a picture of me to this same picture of Vaneigem. I feel like I am competing with 80 year old philosophers for my husband's attention.

Recently we got in a huge fight because he was trying to demonstrate an example of the Hegelian concept of the "unity of opposites" (whatever that means) by claiming that right and left hands are opposite but also identical. I told him this is just wrong and that right and left hands are not "identical" in any meaningful sense (chirality is a basic concept in geometry/group theory: left and right hands are not superimposable). He kept putting his hands together and tried to show how they were "identical" and kept failing (because they're not) and then got angry and stormed out of the house. I haven't seen him since (this was about a day ago) and texted him and haven't heard back.

What do I do Reddit? Do I just let this go? It's immensely frustrating that my account of my own field is not being taken seriously. He asked me to engage with his work, so I did. But it seems like he won't repay me in kind. He has told me repeatedly that Debord makes empirical science unnecessary and implied that my work is a waste of time Why is it okay for him to belittle my field but I can't offer mild criticism of his?

TL;DR: My husband's academic work is embarrassingly wrong and can't take any criticism.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56523779

They all look prity fake to me.. What do you think about that? I heard a couple of years that there are no real photos, and that they are all computer made images.. And realy when i looked at them on the internet, they all look wery fake.. Your thoughts on this..?

I don't have a fancy big brain moral or philosophical framework for arguing this thought, but is there any philosophical thinkers who speak on this?

For context I'm in the tech-world and I hear a lot of my peers with kids making sure their kids are always locked-in with their "Gifted kids programs" or "Advance learning" or whatever to make sure they are ready to be the "leaders of the future". Which to me is not bad inherently, as I would expect any parent who gives a damn about their children to do everything in their power to give them everything they can for their future prosperity. I ain't mad at them for that.

However, I also hear these same parents blaming the "culture" on why "kids/students/young people/XYZ group" are bad or why "[insert current boogeyman here] is way ahead of 'us'". Somewhat tangentially I think about how a lot of suffering that black people in America have suffered has been blamed on their "culture", one that was born from marginalization and lack.

I don't think it's fair to say a "culture problem" exists in black America without really examining the structural problems that exists as well. Is that because some people "make it"? Both in the black example or the student example, do people blame "culture" when there are some instances of people that do well their their personal overcoming of bad conditions?

In both of these cases I think that it's really easy to blame "The Culture™©®" rather than look at why things are as they are. I do believe in personal autonomy and choice and stuff, but I feel like this transcends this. When an issues something that's faced by the majority of people in an instance, I feel like it's no longer an issue of personal choices. The general curve of outcomes for most people are getting worse, and I don't think that is a fair argument to say it’s a “personal choice” problem

Sorry for the rambling, I'm not very concise in my writing these days. So I guess my question is "are there leftie philosophical thinkers who have commented on "culture" as a buffer to avoid crtique of the powerful?"

The "dialectics of dialectics" refers to the application of dialectical principles to analyze and understand dialectics itself—a kind of self-reflection or self-analysis within the framework of dialectical materialism. This concept is both recursive and paradoxical, as it involves using dialectical thinking to examine its own nature, functioning, and implications.

To unpack this, let’s consider how dialectics operates on itself:

1. Contradiction in Dialectics:
   Dialectics, as a method of thought, identifies contradictions as the driving force of development. When applied to itself, this means that dialectics contains its own internal contradictions. For example:

   • On one hand, dialectics emphasizes change and motion (dynamic), yet it also seeks to provide a systematic understanding of reality (static).
   • Dialectics is both a tool for analysis (abstract) and a way to grasp the concreteness of phenomena (concrete).

2. Universality and Particularity:
   The universality of dialectics lies in its applicability to all spheres of existence—nature, society, and thought. Yet, when applied to itself, we see that dialectics has particular forms of expression depending on historical and cultural contexts. For instance:

   • Hegel’s idealist dialectics differ from Marx’s materialist dialectics.
   • In China, Mao adapted dialectics to fit the specific conditions of revolutionary practice.

3. Principal Contradiction:
   Within the process of understanding dialectics itself, there is a principal contradiction between its abstract universal principles and their concrete application in specific contexts. This tension forces dialecticians to constantly reconcile theory with practice.

4. Identity and Struggle:
   Dialectics contains within it both identity (the continuity and interdependence of opposites) and struggle (the opposition and conflict between opposites). When applied to itself, this means:

   • The unity of dialectical principles (identity).
   • The ongoing debates and transformations in how dialectics is understood and applied (struggle).

5. Antagonism:
   While most contradictions within dialectics are non-antagonistic, there can be moments where antagonism arises. For example, disputes over the "correct" interpretation of dialectical principles can lead to schisms or conflicts between different schools of thought.

6. The Law of Contradiction as a Fundamental Law:
   Finally, when applied to itself, dialectics reaffirms that its own law of contradiction is indeed the fundamental law of nature, society, and thought. This recursive application solidifies dialectics’ claim to be a universal method for understanding reality while also highlighting the need for constant self-critique and adaptation.

In summary, the "dialectics of dialectics" is a recursive and reflective process that enhances our theoretical understanding and practical application of dialectical principles. By applying its own principles to itself, dialectics demonstrates both its universality and its particularity, its strength as a method, and the necessity for ongoing theoretical and practical development.

I’m really trying to commit myself to getting a better understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism. I’m starting with the Vietnamese textbook on dialectical materialism that Luna Oi translated, before moving on to The Dialectics of Nature and Anti-Duhring.

My problem is I really struggle with philosophy. Marxian economics I can vibe with all day, but philosophy is something I’ve never been able to really get a hold of (but wanting to fix that).

So my first big struggle is understanding the difference between dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics. Is the former more of the worldview or viewpoint, and the later is more for explaining and analyzing specific processes? And if that understanding is correct, isn’t materialist dialectics the things we should be committing ourselves to as it’s what helps us better understand material reality (rather than dialectical materialism, which I guess would be more of a “belief statement?)? I don’t know I probably have a lot of this mixed up, just looking for any help on this I can get.

I don’t know how there aren’t a myriad of problems associated with attempting to emulate the brain, especially with the end goal of destroying livelihoods and replacing one indentured servant for another. In fact, that’s what promoted this post- an advertisement for a talk with my alma mater’s philosophy department asking what happens when see LLMs discover phenomenological awareness.

I admit that I don’t have a ton of formal experience with philosophy, but I took one course in college that will forever be etched into my brain. Essentially, my professor explained to us the concept of a neural network and how with more computing power, researchers hope to emulate the brain and establish a consciousness baseline with which to compare a human’s subjective experience.

This didn’t use to be the case, but in a particular sector, most people’s jobs are just showing up a work, getting on a computer, and having whatever (completely unregulated and resource devouring) LLM give them answer they can find themselves, quicker. And shit like neuralink exists and I think the next step will to be to offer that with a chatgpt integration or some dystopian shit.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think humans are as special as we think we are and our pure arrogance wouldn’t stop us from creating another self and causing that self to suffer. Hell, we collectively decided to slaughter en masse another collective group with feeling (animals) to appease our tastebuds, a lot of us are thoroughly entrenched into our digital boxes because opting out will result in a loss of items we take for granted, and any discussions on these topics are taboo.

Data-obsessed weirdos are a genuine threat to humanity, consciousness-emulation never should have been a conversation piece in the first place without first understanding its downstream implications. Feeling like a certified Luddite these days

I recently leaned about how the dogma of divine simplicity shaped the history of philosophy, especially metaphysics and the problem of universals in the Islamic world as well as in Christianity. Basically it's the idea, that God is identical to each of his (her/their/just) attributes. By extension, each of the attributes is identical to every other one. So this obviously touches on the problem of universals. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) added the conclusion, that for God, essence is existence. Ibn Sina is key for this in Islam, as well as Christianity (because people like Thomas Aquinas learned his teachings and shaped scholastics for centuries).

Divine simplicity is central in the different schools of Islam and a dogma in Catholicism. Protestants kind of stopped talking about it, but never officially gave it up and Calvinists revived it. Only cool new streams like process theology distance themselves from it.

About the stupid joke in the title: Divine simplicity means, God has literally no parts you can point to (no pun intended), to determine their gender (no material parts, no temporal parts, no metaphysical or ontological constituents). If God has a gender, it must therefore be identical to all their other attributes, as well as themselves.

Question: If you got any religious education, was divine simplicity ever mentioned? Cause I never heard of it until recently, even though it's so central, that other attributes are typically derived based on it (for example immutability, infinity, omniscience) in official doctrine. Or, in Ibn Sina's case, even existence as well as every other attribute.

Do religious people still care about this? What would be cool pronouns for justice, freedom, truth, omniscience, etc.?

Edit: Also, do you know people who reject this dogma or accept it, but make mistakes around it? Like saying:"God might get angry or have wrath, but God IS love", which mistakenly elevates one attribute above the others.

I have no stake in this, as an atheist, just interested and willing to learn. And like I said it's historically relevant for the history of philosophy, no matter what you believe.

A long read for an article or blog post, but well worth it. If you or anyone you know suffers from a chronic illness, ailment or pain, you might relate to some of what is written here. I certainly did, and can share the author's dislike of positivity and therapy culture.

"What incels can learn from Simone de Beauvior" is an all-timer topic for an essay but anyway this has some good sections

Finally, what does Beauvoir have to say to incels already in the grips of this delusion of sovereignty? Importantly, quite a lot. Although Rodger was fully consumed by self-alienation, it is not too late for many men to live better lives. According to Beauvoir, this requires a kind of “conversion.” They must renounce the vanity of viewing themselves as fallen gods, and assume the risk of existing as human beings. This involves moving away from an appropriative, conquering attitude toward a stance of openness and reciprocity. It requires cultivating a healthy sense of competition and fair play, of personal responsibility, humility, “friendship and generosity”. It also means foregoing the certainty of a world with fixed hierarchies—including those based on race and class—and viewing interpersonal relations as always to be made and remade. To relinquish sovereignty, a man needs to accept that, in addition to being a freedom, he is part of Nature and of other people's plans, that he is a body and a history that can be evaluated. Importantly, he needs to accept that there is no action without judgment, and no praise without risk.

I am!

in light of supreme Court decision

The philosophy and psychology of why people have more of a problem with "preachiness" or "stridency" than they do with genocide.

This essay's also of interest to anyone learning more about double consciousness or the costs of autistic masking.

A modest first step will be to recognise that the eyeroll heuristic is deeply unreliable. The fact that some new norm strikes us as annoying, or that those advancing it strike us as self-righteous, preachy or otherwise offputting, tells us nothing about whether the norm is an improvement or not, whether it represents moral progress or moral backslide. The negative-experience of affective friction caused by the new norm isn’t evidence that the norm itself is bad or that we shouldn’t adopt it. Reactions involving awkwardness, irritation, even resentment are precisely what we should expect even in cases where old, unjust norms are being replaced with new, fairer ones. These feelings have their roots in norm psychology. And though they are very much a reflection of the genuine challenges of adapting to new and changing social environments, they are not sensitive to the merits of moral arguments or the moral value of different social norms. Far from it: our norm psychology helps us track and adapt to whatever norms happen to structure the social interactions in our communities and cultures. And, crucially, it does this regardless of whether those norms and conventions are just or unjust, harmful or beneficial, serious or silly.

i was going to quote the article text below but didn't want to deal with formatting. the sections 'becoming as ceaseless unrest' and 'becoming as quiescent result' in particular reminded me of Spiral Energy from Guren Lagann

edit: somehow didn't include the real URL originally, i swear i copy/pasted it in the first time... should be fixed now :(

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4842538