And in reality, some 50% of people are compatible with civilization

And of these 50%, half can merely fit in without causing problems

while the other half can actually contribute

But to the observer, these differences are not apparent, and he sees all people as one "Nation"

Varg observed this

This is the superficiality of "nationalism"

I DISAGREE

NATIONALISM DOES NOT IMPLY "INCLUDE EVERYONE"

THAT IS EGALITARIANISM

Hence hierarchy of values is necessary to achieve proper unity

Of a nation

People who complain how aristocracy is unpatriotic

forget that it's preciselly aristocracy which enables the best ones to floruish, even in poorer environments

It did miracles in Russian Empire, which matched Europe in scientific achievements and arts

And most important

It is necessary also to consider merits of civilization on their own ground

RUSSIA DID NOT MATCH WESTERN EUROPE IN SCIENCE OR ARTS

I AGREE ON ARISTOCRACY

IT ENCOURAGES THE BEST

I don't consdier for example "uncivilized" Mongols to be lacking values which can be considered superior

THE PROBLEM WITH MONGOLS IS THAT THEY ARE OTHER

NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT

@diversity_is_racism It performed quite well, especially in arts

@The Enlightened Shepherd YOU HAD A BETTER CLAIM FOR RUSSIA IN THE SCIENCES...

Highly disagree

Painting, literature, music, ballet

Russian Empire was very very prolific in these

I DISLIKE THE MUSIC AND LITERATURE

MINOR EXCEPTION FOR DOSTOYEVSKY

ALTHOUGH HE REMINDS ME OF AYN RAND

VERY BLOCKy, OBVIOUS FORMS

Hmmm

Rachmaninoff music is today consdiered to be somewhat representative of the "cerebral" music

But at the time it appeared it was quite "edgy"

Russian Music, in terms of output only, peaked during Romanticist era, which is why it can be underappreciated today, since these sentiments are nowadays considered as passe

I certainly dislike Romanticism

However...

Consider Europe of the preciselly that era

Debussy ?

If nothing, Russia was at least superior to this

who's the dude that did night on the bareback mountain? When I was listening to classical I liked that one

I can never remember his name

Pretty sure he was Russian

MUSGORSKY?

DEBUSSY WAS MODERN

yeah modest murgosky

FOR ROMANTICISM, YOU WANT TO LOOK AT BEETHOVEN, SCHUBERT, SCHUMANN, AND THE LATER MOZART

that's right

AND THUS

RUSSIA IS BLOWN OUT OF THE FUCKING WATER

HAYDN > *

HAYDN AND HANDEL SEEM TRANSITIONAL TO ME BUT BOTH ARE EXCELLENT

They are for sure

I ENJOY HAYDN QUITE A BIT

NOT TRANSGENDER

TRANSITIONAL

BETWEEN LATE BAROQUE AND EARLY ROMANTICISM

Kunts Transgender Idealism

I LOVE KANT TOO

EVEN WHEN HE IS WRONG

HIS INSTINCTS ARE GREAT

He did a good service

but tripped up

Which is fine

HE WAS A DUDE WHO TRIED TO DO THE BEST POSSIBLE WITH WHAT HE HAD

AND IN THE BASICS, WAS RIGHT ON EVERYTHING, JUST CAUGHT IN INDIVIDUALISM

TRAPPED BY THE LIGHT OF CHRIST

honestly though his categorical imperative stuff clashed hard with his best insights

@diversity_is_racism We cannot consdier Haydn to belong to this discourse

Mussorgsky was simply a "modest" composer, no pun intended

He was even looked upon as such by contemporaries

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IS MISUNDERSTOOD

Debussy, by modern you mean "infantile" which is the direction in which everything was moving

http://www.amerika.org/science/kants-categorical-imperative-biblical-law-and-the-popular-notion-of-the-golden-rule/

THERE ARE GOOD MODERNS

NIELSEN, BRUCKNER, RESPIGHI ESPECIALLY

SAINT-SAENS ❤

What's misunderstood?

Mozart, Bethoven et cetera

DEBUSSY? WAS JUST BAD

I never liked them

HE IS CANDYMUSIC

But I'm not the only one

BEETHOVEN IS EXCELLENT

MOZART AS WELL

Their music never matched the "Grand Style"

PREFERENCE IS NEITHER SUBJECTIVE NOR OBJECTIVE

I TEND TO PREFER BAROQUE AT THIS POINT

ROMANTICISM IS CONFUSED

DIVIDED BETWEEN PAST GREATNESS AND ENLIGHTENMENT JAZZ

WHICH IS WIGGER RATIONALIZATION

But returning to Russia, we have composers which possesed much greater proficiency in both formal, in academical sense, aspects of music like Rimsky-Korsakov

And those who were simply brilliant in musical expressions, namely, Tchaikovsky

We cannot consider Russian elaborations on typical Romanticist themes of folklore and nature to be inferior to German

But again, this is a rat race

Romanticism sucks period

i think it clashed because Kant concluded that what we think of as hard realities are really artifacts of the processes of perception. How then could you possibly make sweeping generalizations about good and bad such as you get a categorical imperative?

GOOD POINT ABOUT GOOD AND BAD

PERHAPS THE ANSWER THERE IS THAT KANT DID NOT INTEND IT TO BE UNIVERSAL

HE SAW PEOPLE AS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER