Junger, Anarch, Individualism

[Anonymous No.21516539]

How do you interpret Ernst Junger's Anarch? It must go beyond simple libertarianism / classical liberal individualism

[Anonymous No.21516627]

>>21516539
it isn't a system for organizing society whatsoever, it's an understanding that you personally are not part of a society, that the social organizations you encounter are completely foreign entities that are at best indifferent to you and that you should be indifferent to. he isn't suggesting that normies should be converted to anarch-ism any more than you would suggest that retards stop sniffing glue.

[Anonymous No.21516796]

>>21516627
Thanks for the reply. That makes sense as far as the relationship of the anarch to authority. But does that necessarily preclude the possibility of a legitimate, deserving authority? Is he not part of society by essence or by choice?

I don't mean libertarianism/liberalism in the sense of a system for organizing society, I mean in their relationship with the individual, who is above all else. Why is the anarch outside of society?

[Anonymous No.21516798]

>>21516539
There's nothing liberal, democratic, or egalitarian about Junger's concept. He views the anarch as the only viable strategy for the superior man to survive in this dark age of equality.

[Anonymous No.21516823]

>>21516539
I hope a stronger state subjugates yours

[Anonymous No.21516843]

>>21516796
not him and havent read, but at least from the words said here, it seems that its counter productive and obfuscationist to even conceptualize yourself as a part of something called a society. thinking in such a way makes you a part of some whole which is an abstraction. they are things outside of you. things you interact with. You are a subject and these are objects. Thinking of the subject as anything other than that simply limits your view, since everything will necessarily be filtered through a subject-object realtion, with you always being the subject. the idea of a society is a post facto generalization. and should remain as such.

But im talking out my ass.

[Anonymous No.21516847]

>>21516798
There appears to be something liberal in it, as it posits the primacy of the individual over the state, no? Or is that specifically only in the case of the world of Eumeswil, ruled obviously by force rather than legitimacy? How does the world of Eumeswil relate to ours?

[Anonymous No.21516865]

Junger-anon threads:
>>/lit/thread/S15323312
>>/lit/thread/S15071624

[Anonymous No.21516882]

>>21516847
>There appears to be something liberal in it, as it posits the primacy of the individual over the state
I guess, But I might say its more generally Hegelian and could be taken a number of ways. But I think, again its more conceptual and about perspective in a more ontological sense. which again could have extrapolations towards different political understandings, Liberalism particularly, but not necessarily uniquely.

[Anonymous No.21517067]

>>21516865
Thanks.

>>21516882
>>21516843
I suppose this is what I'm asking. Here's a quote by Schmitt in one of those Junger threads, from his Political Romanticism:
>"To a great extent, all ecclesiastical and state institutions and forms, all legal concepts and arguments, everything that is official, and even democracy itself since the time it assumed a constitutional form are perceived as empty and deceptive disguises, as a veil, a façade, a fake, or a decoration. The words, both refined and crude, in which this is encompassed are more numerous and forceful than most of the corresponding idioms of other times; for example, the references to "simulacra" that the political literature of the seventeenth century employs as its characteristic shibboleth. Today the "backstage" that conceals the real movement of reality is constructed everywhere. This betrays the insecurity of the time and its profound sense of being deceived. An era that produces no great form and no representation based on its own presuppositions must succumb to such states of mind and regard everything that is formal and official as a fraud. This is because no era lives without form, regardless of the extent to which it comports itself in an economic fashion. If it does not succeed in finding its own form, then it grasps for thousands of surrogates in the genuine forms of other times and other peoples, only to immediately repudiate the surrogate as a sham."

Is Junger's anarch only the result of this mindset? To go further, if we apprehend Schmitt's body of work as an attempt to elucidate a path by which we can find our own form, what does that mean for the anarch? He seems open to a legitimate and deserving authority (whatever that means), but Schmitt is quite explicit, i.e. in his work on Hobbes, about the necessity of the destruction of the distinction between public and private thought, or put properly, about that distinction being the root of the problem to begin with.

[Anonymous No.21517541]

>>21516539
bump

[Anonymous No.21518283]

>>21517067
SOMEONE ANSWER

[Anonymous No.21518684]

>>21516539
>How do you interpret Ernst Junger's Anarch? It must go beyond simple libertarianism / classical liberal individualism
Junger's concept of anarchism isn't the same as French or liberal individualism. Junger's anarchism is improved with the Prussian work ethic which turned the focus from power-relations and self image towards task-relations and deeds.

[Anonymous No.21519265]

>>21517067
>>21517541
Have you asked junger-anon? You probably won't get an answer here.

[Anonymous No.21519347]

>>21516539
It's aristocratic. You wouldn't understand.

[Anonymous No.21519353]

>>21516847
>>21516847
>There appears to be something liberal in it, as it posits the primacy of the individual over the state, no?
Case in point: you wouldn't understand. Keep being a slave.

[Anonymous No.21520222]

>>21517067
both those people you responded to where me, and like I said, I never read it, I just went off of the implications I got from other anons responding, so I dont feel comfirtable affirming or denying much about the book. Just the sense I got from the responders was that it seemed to be more connected to how one looks at the world rather than a directly political thing, but that of course a political implication might be drawn from that basis.

Id be disingenuous stating much about the text itself.

[Anonymous No.21520712]

>>21519347
>>21519353
What's there to understand? Not very complex

[Strange Love No.21520766]

>>21519353

>Case in point: you wouldn't understand.

:)

>>21520712

It is not about "society" and your relationship to it, although then it also is in a way once the implications are understood ... still, that part is secondary at best.

[Anonymous No.21520868]

>>21520766
Care to explain? Or are you too aristocratic like Junger from your position behind an LCD monitor shitposting on 4chan

[Strange Love No.21521205]

>>21520868

But ofc. Well, roughly at least. It is more about an inner disposition. Would recommend reading the book with that thought in mind. The "anarchist", as described, displays an ultimately aimless and selfdestructive streak which he expresses by what I'd call an almost obsessive opposition to societal order (although you could almost take "societal order" as a simple placeholder here, the object of obsession) ... this goes so far that he often unwillingly becomes nothing but a tool for the "system" itself, or at least for men clever enough to manipulate his drive for "false freedom". The "anarch" however, well he is not even affected by societal order, it is even stated that he could very well exist perfectly within it if he simply decided to do so. He simply gives zero fucks about that issue, and not in the way of "suffering" it like your average stoic would do for example.

[Anonymous No.21522803]

>>21519347
>>21519353
I don't buy it. Junger wrote the worker. His father was a professional. Hardly a model of aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.21524014]

>>21522803
Well you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.21524403]

>>21516539
Anarch is a Pessimistic hero. Liberals still "owe" it to state/people but an Anarch doesn't own it to anyone except himself. Anarch lives with the terrible enlightenment that all civilizations eventually die, that everything is in flux and there is nothing which stays permanent, so in the periods of degeneracy when states are going downhill, Anarch turns inward. Anarch finds his private space to exercise his freedoms. He is not a rebel like the anarchist, he is therefor free. Anarch's renunciation is aided by his wisdom rather than depression. Like Cioran said that a lesser man will try to escape the dark night of soul but we should face it with honor and heroism to absorb those truths, the aristocrats of abyss

[Anonymous No.21524453]

>>21516539
>english translation by a jew
dropped

[Anonymous No.21525552]

Bump