How would you respond to this?

because it reduces human beings to purely biological entities; especially contemporary, dawkins-style, genetics-focused materialism, which basically says human beings are just vectors for the passing of our genes

The cult of tradition means we wuz pagans and sheeit.

I find non-reductive physicalism appealing for this reason.

It's hard to deny that in the developing research of philosophy of mind, psychology, and neuroscience..our brain states, mental states, and emotional states are increasingly being found out to be able to be reduced to certain chemical compositions of the brain and nervous system.

However, I do believe there are certain phenomena which can not and never will be reduced to a physical state.

"Nice spooks you've got there, faggot."

You're all just consumer whores butthurt your rich daddy took away the credit card after your seventh shopping spree at GameStop this month.

Hmmmm. It's almost as if occam's razor makes sense.

...

CANNAE KNO NUFFIN

This is pretty dumb.
1. distinction between a priori and posteriori knowledge
2. nowhere in the multiple doctrines of physicalism does it try and denote the human experience as having no intrinsic value, if that is somebody's take on it - that's up to them.
3. nice strawman that is literally feels >reals

This seems like an attempt at refuting determinism rather than materialism

But user-kun materialism IS determinism

Quads confirm

Strictly speaking, I don’t think it does. In principle, one could believe that only physical objects and their physical interactions exist (or are “real”), while still believing that the universe is at least partly chaotic. That is, one could believe that the evolution of the purely material physical world is unpredictable in principle — that all of the laws of nature are together insufficient to account for the changes that actually take place. One need not invoke any mysterious supernatural forces; it would be sufficient to say that the world isn’t completely knowable.

don't think it is*

I don't think it had to do with any of those, it's just some vulgar reductionism.

Then, what is essential exactly ?
This meme quote doesn't include any clue of what is essential according to Evola. It's worthless as it is.

I think he paints a clear enough picture to give a broad idea of what he is getting at

Putting reals over feels is spoked tho if you think about it

nice try op

Read Hegel. Materialism is basically a system of ideas that negates it's own inherent idealism. Materialism as a purely quantitative system is in deadlock with idealism - qualitative system. Both are pretty much the same with the first based on One and the second on Unique which are replacable witch each other.

What is "essential" to people like Evola is eschewing reality and pretending that blood, soil, and other material things have literal auras that are constantly maintained by your ancestor's ghosts or some other spooky shit. "I *feel* a connection to this land."

No nigga, no.

This is a pretty idealistic description of materialism if you ask me fam.

No, seriously read Hegel. He's the "I know kung-fu" of continental philosophy

Marxists-Evolists unite! A tiger for everyone!

Here you go.

Wrong. Materialism is not an inevitable consequent of determinism or vice versa.

Okay, I know that Evola was into mysticism, spirituality and stuff like this, and I gather that's what was essential to him, but even then, you should concern yourself with your own materiality at least a little bit if you don't want to die immediately from hunger or violence.
Evola was a monarchist fag who got all his food on a silver plate because he was born from the right vagina, unlike the large majority of us. Therefore it's ridiculous to post this meme quote, since we should be concerned about how we will get our food tomorrow, as plebs.

Within the self contained context of my own perception the universe follows a certain set of physical rules, which can be used to understand its nature, so within that self contained universe things like observation of the material world hold true. Maybe something exists outside of my self contained perception, maybe I'm a brain in a jar, but if I'm incapable of perceiving or interacting with that reality then it for all intents and purposes does not exist.

But senses have proven to be unreliable. Think of a stick underwater with light refracting it making it look bent. Or the time-lag phenomenon of still being able to see a star, years after it died, because it takes that long for light to travel. Or hallucinations, etc etc.
So is this truly representative of external realism?
I agree with what you said, I think it is impossible to actually act in accordance with the belief that sense-datum isn't generally reliable in depicting the world

Eh I kinda responded to your post before digesting what you said all the way through

...

...

you call this living, user?

"Finally, I am converted! Time to butcher our way out of Kali Yuga!"

Ew, gross. Egalitarianism is the worst form of idealism, until we accept that some people are scum and shouldn't be allowed to breathe the same air as we do, there will be no progress.

That's the spirit

LORD KALKI, LIBERATE US

FACE TO BLOODSHED

...

...

But user, communism can't exist without spooks.

ghost of communism is the best spook

Some vague form of agreement to basically drive in "yeah, so you should side with me to tear down neoliberal capitalism"

anyone who can be brought over to that goal is an ally.

What's wrong with viewing things beyond economical terms?

Nothing, we can all see nowadays how harmful it is to consider the world and human activity only through that lense.
But Evola aristo-mysticism isn't the answer IMHO.

...

You all niggas need George Sorel

spook, literally nothing matters besides subjective beliefs according to him.

Because ultimately said economy erodes those non-economic values, while people caring about them can do nothing but pathetically try to stop the inevitable as they have no developed solution to the economic current state of affairs aside from

He looks like that kid from the new Star Wars

Google Bookchin you ecocucks

Consequence of misrepresentations: marxmyths.org/peter-stillman/article.htm.

Consequence of having an understanding of what (Marx's) materialism was about through other distortions: marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm.

"Be quiet, worker. Your wage is not what is really important in life, you should be concerned about your religion and race! Instead of going on strike, how about you take a hike instead? Being in touch with nature is much more important than a shorter working day could ever be!"

reddit

wtf I love Marxism-Evolism now

huh?

...

Go die of AIDS you bald-headed poMo degenerate

wtf i love evola now
as long as they are on our side, it's okay faggot
I hope no one was waiting for a response in this shitty thread before my autism

The truth is, while Evola doesn't care for capitalism at it is a mistake to think you have literally anything in common with him.

The whole of communism is judeo-christian mindset extrapolated to it's logical extreme. From tribe, to soul of man, to rights, to property. Evola is in stark opposition to all of it, and sees capitalism as part of the same scale. His whole worldview is totally alien to anyone today.

(Without going into his analysis of Marx)
He had a point. Consider this: Would life be better if we were all on permanent welfare? (FALC)
It gets boring pretty quick if all we could do is basically just consume. (In the empty spectacle sense of the word)
Pursuing your dreams might take money in today's society. But it is those passions, family, etc. that matter. Not specifically "purchasing power", "efficiency", "growth" or other such related concepts.
Now this doesn't mean we should be impoverished and starving. (From what I've read Evola didn't advocate outright asceticism) But wealth alone is not enough in life. And in capitalism, and a lot of the Marxists circles at the time there was way too much focus on that. (This was written before the Frankurt school really took off, the Situationists emerged, etc.)

Make up your mind pol/yp. Which one is it?

Evola's conclusions might be false, his view of pre-modern history might be spooked, but his central premise - that life is made worthwhile by more than just "stuff" - is pretty much similar (if phrased differently) to what the Situationists and other Marxist thinkers advocated during the second half of the previous century.

That's not what Evola wrote.

You would have to prove the material world operates in a deterministic way and not stochastic way

Read althusser