← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Campion Moore Boru
Thread ID: 7975 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2003-07-08
2003-07-08 07:21 | User Profile
I have recently broached Spengler's epic work, and thought I should pose a question to the Literati here.
Of course, the man is brilliant. I'm ashamed that I have not devoted time to acquainting myself with his work before now. There are more doctrine shattering insights in Spengler's introduction of his work, than in the Library of Paul Johnson's career. To be fair though, Spengler's introduction carries all of his thought, while the body seems to be be more detailed applications, or variations on the theme.
My question is this: to those familiar with Spengler, what do you make of what I would term his pessimism? His adamantine position that we are doomed to watch the Oak decay and decompose, that nothing will stay it from this natural course? Spengler seemed to resign himself to this fate of Our culture. What would his posiiton vis a vis Adolf be? Was Germany of that time simply a path of the unyielding decay, or was Germany an exception? Perhaps the example that proves Spengler's theory incorrect in this regard?
It is very disconcerting to hear Spengler intone Our fate, and posit that we are powerless to reverse it.
2003-07-08 17:49 | User Profile
[url=http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/Spengler/SpenglerStuff.html]http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/AboutMe/Speng...nglerStuff.html[/url]
This is good reading.
2003-07-09 01:42 | User Profile
Ed, AY:
Thanks for the replies.
AY, i take your statemnt to mean that the West is doomed then, albeit as are all cultures. I do find this somewhat disconcering for obvious reasons. Russia would therfore be our next hope?
Though not adept in Spengler's premises, I might differ with the categorization of NS as rank Caeserism. Did'nt Spengler tie this notion in with geldlust, and a society wherein all is arranged around econmics?
2003-07-09 17:05 | User Profile
AY, i take your statemnt to mean that the West is doomed then, albeit as are all cultures. I do find this somewhat disconcering for obvious reasons. Russia would therfore be our next hope?
I personally believe that Russia is Europe's last hope. But then again I maybe biased towards my Russian heritage. :D
However, didn't Yockey say that the decline of the West could be reversed if the West reclaimed its proud heroic traditions. Yockey admired Spengler but disagreed with him on this.
2003-07-09 23:56 | User Profile
In the second volume of my copy of Spengler's opus on page 109 I found this. [color=blue]"Germany is destined as the last nation of the West to crown the mighty edifice."[/color]
Germany has not finished. Within 10 to 20 years, really not a long time, Germany will once again take the lead in Europe. Americans may not like it, but I suspect most eastern Europeans and Russians will.
2003-07-10 01:11 | User Profile
**Germany has not finished. Within 10 to 20 years, really not a long time, Germany will once again take the lead in Europe. Americans may not like it, but I suspect most eastern Europeans and Russians will. **
I believe both Germany and Russia will lead in Europe.
2003-07-10 01:22 | User Profile
*Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 9 2003, 19:11 * ** I believe both Germany and Russia will lead in Europe. **
As a german, I agree with that. :sm: However, Russia has a longer road.
2003-07-10 02:07 | User Profile
In fact, this is one area where I disagree with Spengler. I see Russia not as a separate civilization at all, but rather a cultural hybrid between Western and Graeco-Byzantine influence. While much of Eastern Europe can be interpreted as effective satellites of Germanic civilization, Russia is a satellite of both Byzantium and Germanic culture (this can be seen in its racial composition as well - on the one hand, the Varangian influence of Rurik, on the other hand the native Slavic elements), and many of the internal conflicts and inherent instabilities of Russia are due to the fact that these influences often pull in opposing directions.
As much I admire you and agree with many of your views AntiYuppie, I have to disagree. Not just because of staunch loyalty to my Russian/Ukrainian ancestry, but there is much in the Russian soul that is different than that found in Germany or Byzantium.
Russia bears some resemblence to Europe, but in many ways it differs. Even Churchill once called Russia "an enigma wrapped in mystery."
I like to quote the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdayev from his 1946 work "The Russian Idea". Concerning the West, he writes,
** "The ethical ideas of the Russians are very different from the ethical ideas of Western peoples, and they are more Christian ideas. Russia's moral values are defined by an attitude towards man, and not towards abstract principles of property or of the state, nor towards good in abstract. The Russians adopt a different attitude towards sin and crime; there is pity for the fallen and debased; nor is there any love for grandeur. The Russians have less of the sense of family than Western peoples, but immeasurably more of the community spirit; they are seeking not so much organized society as the sense and experience of community; and are less academic. The Russian paradox is summed up in this, that the Russian people are much less socialized than the peoples of the West, but also much more community conscious, more ready for the life in common. Any mutations and abrupt changes may take place under the influences of revolutions and it is possible that this may be a result of the Russian revolution. But the divine purpose for the people remains the same and the task of struggling for the freedom of man remains true to that design." pg.267 **
"The bourgeois virtues are lacking among the Russians, precisely those virtues which are so highly valued in Western Europe; while the bourgeois vices are to be found among the Russians, just those vices which are recognized as such. The word "bourgeois", both adjective and noun, was a term which expressed disapproval in Russia at the very same time when in the West it indicated a social position which commanded respect." page 211
These are just two of his many arguments on the topic.
Of all West Europeans, Germans come cloest to Russians, but even Berdayev explains theres much they differ on.
"The Germans have for long propounded the theory that the Russian people is feminine and psychic in contrast to the masculine and spiritual German people. The masculine spirit of the German people ought to subdue the feminine soul of the Russian people. This theory has been linked to a practice which corresponds with it. This whole theory is constructed for the justification of German imperialism and the German will to power. In actual fact the Russian people has always been capable of displaying great masculinity and it is proving this to the Germans. There has been a heroic principle in it. The Russian quest bears a spiritual rather than a psychic character. Every people ought to be both masculine and feminine; the two principles should be combined in it. It is true there is a predominance of the masculine principle in the German people, but this rather a disfigurement than a quality to be proud of and it leads to no good. The significance of these judgements is of course limited. During the period of German romanticism the feminine principle made its appearance also. But it is true that the German and Russian ideas stand in opposition to each other. The German idea is the idea of rule, dominance, of might, wheras the Russian idea is the idea of community and brotherhood of men and peoples. In Germany there has always been an acute dualism between its state, its military, and aggressive spirit, and its spiritual culture, the immense freedom of its thought. The Russians have owed very much to German spiritual culture, especially to its great philosophy. But the German state is the historical enemy of Russia. In German thought itself there is an element which is hostile to us; this is especially the case in Hegel, Nietzsche and, however strange it may be, Marx. We are bound to desire brotherly relations with the German people, who have achieved much that is great, but on condition it repudiates the will to power." pg 266-67
A good website for more on Nikolai Berdyaev [url=http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/]http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-G...neris/Berdyaev/[/url]
Nor was Berdyaev the first to make such arguments. Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Solovyov, including the Slavophiles like Khomyakov and Aksakov(whom Spengler himself praises). Kireevsky also wrote about the difference between Western Christian theology and Eastern(Russian) Christian theology. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is the most recent person to comment of this topic, and yet many of his arguments are based on these men above(including others).
As for differences between Russian and Byzantine civilization. This describes some differences between the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches and their cultural significance. [url=http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/krivoshein-greekandrussian.html]http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/kriv...andrussian.html[/url]
Certainly Russia took much influence from Byzantium, but it also has much native cultural characteristics. Much like the relationship between Rome and Ancient Greece. Rome took much from Greece, but also added it own native characteristics. I hope you understand my argument now.
Since we're on the topic of Spengler, it should be noted that Berdayev mentions him in "the Russian Idea". In fact he said that there is much in common between the theories of Spengler and those of the Russian philosopher Danilevsky. As Berdayev writes on page 83
"Danilevsky is a predecessor of Spengler and puts foward ideas which are very much like those of Spengler, though they were long before his time. But Spengler was not a Christian and it was easier for him to deny the unity of mankind than it was for Danilevsky who was a Christian."
He also draws similarities between Spengler and the Russian thinker Konstantine Leontyev.
He also saids on page 147
"It is to be noted that long before Spengler, the Russians drew the distinction between "culture" and "civilization", that they attacked "civilization" even when they remained supporters of "culture".
2003-07-11 04:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 10 2003, 02:07 * > "Danilevsky is a predecessor of Spengler and puts foward ideas which are very much like those of Spengler, though they were long before his time. But Spengler was not a Christian and it was easier for him to deny the unity of mankind than it was for Danilevsky who was a Christian."* ** A good observation. Spengler was a conservative, but his strong Nietzschien streak which defined his conservatism gave it its pessimistic viewpoint toward western civilization.
**He also draws similarities between Spengler and the Russian thinker Konstantine Leontyev.
He also saids on page 147
"It is to be noted that long before Spengler, the Russians drew the distinction between "culture" and "civilization", that they attacked "civilization" even when they remained supporters of "culture". **
That of course was the basic theme of German conservatives such as Moeller, the German role moderating kulture and civilization. Kulture was all of the soul, civlization was all of the stomach. Russia was all kulture, America was all civilization, while Germany was the happy medium.
2003-07-11 04:42 | User Profile
Here's another good essay by Berdayev dating from 1935 were he goes into much more lengths about the differences between Western and Eastern Europe.
[url=http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1930_353.html]http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/...b/1930_353.html[/url]
I hope AntiYuppie and others here will read it.
2003-07-11 05:20 | User Profile
You know Frederick William I, here are some more links about Danilevsky and his theories
this one talks more about his theories and how they compare to Spengler [url=http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/tc_1.html]http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/tc_1.html[/url]
this one by the Orthodox Anti-Globalist resource center [url=http://oag.ru/views/recognize.html]http://oag.ru/views/recognize.html[/url]
2003-07-11 05:43 | User Profile
*Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 11 2003, 05:20 * ** You know Frederick William I, here are some more links about Danilevsky and his theories
**
Interesting Links. Thanks.
2003-07-11 07:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 9 2003, 20:07 * ** Not just because of staunch loyalty to my Russian/Ukrainian ancestry, but there is much in the Russian soul that is different than that found in Germany or Byzantium. **
This is true. There is such a thing as a Volksgeist.
2003-07-11 15:53 | User Profile
Perun, I've noticed your Berdayev postings here, and as I have some familiarity with his work, I'm happy for that. However, as many here will not have a grounding in his thought, it would be helpful if you'd provide some exposition in addition to the links. I certainly agree that he was a fascinating thinker.
Ok I'll do that. I've been somewhat busy lately that I haven't been able to fully comment on his views. Basically in "the Russian Idea", he writes about the history and evolution of Russian philosophy from its beginning during the days of Peter the Great(which were often copies of French philosophy) to the Russian Renaisance of the early 20th century that ended with the Bolshevik Revolution(which he denounces as a perversion of the "Russian Idea"). He comments on how the Russian national character differs from the West and how this national character has influenced its philosophers in their thinkings.
Basically, Russian philosophers seem to be more religious than their Western counterparts. By that, Berdyaev doesn't mean they all obeyed traditional religion, but that they were "searching for god" or what they considered to be god. He comments about how Russia's radical philosophers(including the Bolsheviks) always seem to have the kind of devotion towards revolution as a monk does towards God. That is sorta what Berdyaev meant by "searching for god".
Basically this is what Berdyaev is saying in "the Russian Idea". I hope this basic assestment helps.
** Have you read any Mouravieff? Some of his writings on the spiritual meaning of the Russian and Germans peoples is quite good. **
No I must say I have not, but I'll keep a remember to read his works.
2003-07-11 21:54 | User Profile
*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jul 9 2003, 14:12 * ** (this can be seen in its racial composition as well - on the one hand, the Varangian influence of Rurik, on the other hand the native Slavic elements), **
Actually, the Varangians had little racial impact on Russia, though to be fair they probably left more of their genes floating around that the Tatars did. Nordic Russians are not the descendants of some monumental Scandinavian migration, but rather of autochthanous (Slavic, Finnic and Iranian) origin. The greatest concentration of Nordics in Russia is the Ryazan-Penza-Tambov region where the Varangians never set foot. Extensive Germanic influence only reached Russia begginning with Peter the Great, in my opinion.
2003-07-11 21:59 | User Profile
In order for Russia to qualify as a civilization separate from both of its influences, you would have to argue that Russia is as different from Germany or Byzantium as Germanic civilization differs from Classical (or for that matter Indian or Ancient Egyptian). I do not think that a case can be made for this, otherwise western ideas would be completely unassimilable in Russian society.
They're not completely unassimilable but many of them have to be "Russianized". Tolstoy took much from Rousseau, but Tolstoy applied them more towards Russian attitudes and conditions. There were no direct carbon copies of Western ideas in Russian intellectual circles, but to be fair that can be said about any country.
The existence of cultural differences between Russia and its principal influences is no more and no less significant than the difference between Germanic Prussianism and English "shopkeeper" culture. I would argue that English and Latin (French, Spanish, and Italian) culture differ as much from German culture as Russian.
Well I guess the only way I can answer that is to quote Berdyaev again in his work "East and West"
**But where is Russia, which is of interest for these gatherings, -- is it East or West? Russian thought over the entire XIX Century was in torment over this question and it gave rise to two opposing currents -- Slavophilism and Westernism. Russia is not only a nationality, Russia -- is an entire world, almost a peculiar world. And indisputably within it has occurred the encounter of East and West, in it there are two elements, which both find unity and lead to struggle between them. Russia is an East-West and in this is a source of the complexity and torment of its fate, its sad history. In the soul of the cultural Russian man there also transpires the struggle of East and West. Russian man languishes for the West and dreams about it. He seeks to get beyond the Eastern enclosure and strives for fullness. Westernism is a purely Russian, an Eastern-Russian phenomenon. Russian people of culture have not only been fond of it, they became infatuated with it, they could not live without it. Russia has received endlessly much from the West. To Russians belong the most tender and penetrating words about the great culture of the West. The Slavophil Khomyakov called Western Europe "the land of holy miracles". The Byzantist, K. Leont'ev, was totally in love with the great past of Western culture. And finally, even Dostoevsky, who for many people in the West personifies in himself the mysterious, chaotic and repulsive East, spoke very moving words about the grandeur of Western Europe and termed Russian man as a patriot of Western Europe. The greatest Russian thinkers and writers tended to denounce not the West in general, not the Western culture in general, but rather the modern Western civilisation, godless and bourgeois, having forsaken its great past. Russia is not that East, which viewed the creation of the world and the beginning of things. In Russia the world does not begin, as it does for the genuine East, but rather ends. Russia as it were has sought to view the end of things, and in this is its religious pathos. Suchlike also it has to be with the Christian East.
[url=http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1930_353.html]http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/...b/1930_353.html[/url] **
So Berdyaev is somewhat claiming that Russia is a distinct civilization because of both its Western and Eastern influences. He claims Russia is between "the Far West" and "the Far East" and nowhere else in the world do you see influences from both coinciding with each other in one distinct culture.
So in this essay he talks greatly about the influences from the West in Russia, but he asserts that the West is not the only source of influences. He also explains the affinity that Russia has towards the East(Asia) but also asserts there are differences too there.
He even argues that there is no single "East" or "West" but varied "Easts" and "Wests". As he describes
When we use the terms "East" and "West", we are operating with very abstract and conditional concepts. There exist very varied Easts and very varied Wests. The more I get into the life of the West, the more I am convinced, that no sort of a single Western culture exists**, it instead was contrived by the Russian Slavophils and Westernisers for clarifying their points of opposition. At the centre of Western Europe is first of all France and Germany. But between the French and the Latin culture generally in contrast to the German culture there exists an abyss quite greater, than exists between the German culture and the Russian culture or that of India, though here even the differences are colossal. Yet it would be groundless for the French to say, that the German culture, in having created great philosophy, mysticism and music, is on account of its not having inherited the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean culture, or that it is not in direct continuance from it. The Anglo-Saxon world likewise is an altogether unique world. And the American civilisation is of far greater difference from the civilisation of the French, than the French civilisation is from the Russian. The Russian civilisation has connections with the Greek, which America possesses not at all. One can speak only about a singular Western civilisation only if there be regarded abstractly the elements of science, technology, democracy, etc. In spirit, however, the differences are enormous, The same also mustneeds be said about the East. The Russian, the Orthodox Christian East, the Islamic East, the Indian East, the Chinese East -- all these are totally different worlds. There is very little affinity between Russia and India. Hinduism does not conceive of history, does not know the person, denies the Incarnation. Christian Russia is similar to ancient Israel in its orientation to the meaning of history and the experiencing of it, as a tragedy, it believes in the Divine incarnation, it awaits the second Coming, and it tormentedly experiences the problem of the human person and its fate. **
So if Russia is part of the West as it seems you(correct me if I'm wrong) and many others claim, Russia is of a totally different West than what we commonly think of as "the West". Just like India is of a totally different East than say China or the Islamic world are. They're all part of the "East" but not neccessarly the same "East".
Do you understand what I'm saying?
2003-07-11 22:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by ÃÅbeltäter+Jul 9 2003, 19:22 -->
QUOTE* (ÃÅbeltäter @ Jul 9 2003, 19:22 ) <!--QuoteBegin-perun1201@Jul 9 2003, 19:11 * ** I believe both Germany and Russia will lead in Europe. ** As a german, I agree with that. :sm: However, Russia has a longer road. **
Russia will indeed take a long time to reach economic parity with Western Europe. However, Russia has a strong military, as well as a very valuable cultural advantage over the rest of Europe; the doctrines of multi-culturalisn, egalitarianism, and PC have ironically made very little headway in Russian society. Nationalism is condemned and lampooned throughout Western Europe, but in Russia nationalist sentiments are expressed opnly, even in movies, etc... For any country in Western Europe to regain even a semblance of its former masculinity, PC must be dealt away with. And I am sure more than a few people would like to see the creation of a Franco-Russo-Germanic Military/Economic Alliance in order to curtail the expansionist ambitions of Emperor Ariel Sharon, his consul Jorge Dubya Shrub and his praetor Tony Blair.
madrussian
2003-07-11 23:01 | User Profile
For examples of Russian nationalism and disdain for "black-assed monkeys" expressed openly in mainstream movies everyone is welcome to watch (and they are indeed watchable for Western viewers) the following work by director Balabanov: Brat/Brat-2/Voina. I have those on CDs, with English subtitles. Can send copies to others.