If A.N.U.S was a political party...

[kontinual]

Because they present inconsistencies in the doctrine...which has been publicly announced here and is thus open to comments. I don't see why one would want to denigrate that.

I'm denigrating the blown out of proportion "we have no direction" conclusion, not the disucssion.

[shadowmystic]

I have pointed out the problem, whether you decide to consider a solution or react emotionally is up to you.

[Dedrater]

To me, it looks like what just happened was a few studious philosophers attempted to stringently apply tenets of philosophy to a poetic post. That's just my interpretation, though.

[0113581321345589]

To me, it looks like what just happened was a few studious philosophers attempted to stringently apply tenets of philosophy to a poetic post. That's just my interpretation, though.

You hit the nail on the head. The tone was clear but we could be pedantic and bicker about perceived inconsistencies all day long. It is not required that we agree with every letter and sentence exactly with no deviation.

[we hope you die]

I thought the idea of anus was to not be political at all. Its a philosophical website, politics doesn't work.

[Fallibilis]

I thought the idea of anus was to not be political at all. Its a philosophical website, politics doesn't work.

This site refuses engaging in worthless political antics of catering to some interest group. It refutes the games politicians play and exposes them. However, politics in itself is important; democratic politicians are what are awry. The point of discussing philosophy is to elucidate the structure behind society and through evaluation determine how we should proceed to break it down and build something that works. Otherwise, why bother philosophizing if we're not going to use it at all?

[ASBO]

It's meta-political. Politics is everything that deals with how humans organize their civilizations. ANUS gives you perceptual tools to understand these mechanisms, and figure out what are optimal implementations.

[Istaev]

I think this particular comment is pointing out the frequent misuse of the term "evolution" as synonymous with progression towards heightened forms of expression, which, rooted in Hegelian philosophy, quickly deteriorates into arguments for Marxist class struggle. While not explicitly stated, there is a tendency among ANUSites to view evolutionary processes teleologically.

Yup. It's social Darwinism in the broad sense of the term. Social Darwinism is correct in its conception of society as eternally hierarchical (with things such as IQ serving as a very rough indicator of individual status). It's incorrect in its conception of history as an upward or forward path (i.e., "progress").
I would venture that ANUS conceives of history (read: civilization) as an impediment to evolution. There's merit to this argument, and not only because it advocates eugenics.
Social Darwinism in the broad sense is obviously in conflict with the Vedic interpretation of history(cyclic) and, as suggested, is Hegelian/teleological. Hitler's vision of National Socialism and William Pierce's cosmotheism are as much forms of social Darwinism as American Manifest Destiny, Bolshevist Russia, or Imperial Rome. They are all ideologies of progress: of looking forward to a brighter, more glorious future. Not that they didn't revere tradition. Tradition is a foundation; it's a support structure. Sacred texts like the Bible, the Aeneid, the Communist Manifesto, the Second Treatise of Government.
But there's a different way of looking at it: mythology. "I believe in a past that never happened, and it should happen again." Arising ages, pre-classical cultures thought of history as a descent. A lost Golden Age deteriorating into a woeful morass of potenitally apocalyptic stupidity and weakness. The only thing one could do was to defy Fate before it beat one into eternal and irrefutable submission.
What does this mean for anyone reading this? Do you believe in free will? in individual responsibility? Do you believe in destiny? in ultimate purpose? Do you believe in neither?
I believe that we have to be held to be responsible for the unforeseen consequences of our actions, for example. I also believe this is tragic. Finally, I believe a lack of resolve to complete the task is worse than robotic obedience.

[neoclassical]

Most often, when one is facing such existential questions, it is best to rise above the human viewpoint. Suddenly, supposed inconsistiencies are solved.

That is one reason why the doctrine of the cycles is superior to the modern view of evolution and 'increased individual happiness.'

It frees one from existential anguish. Our ancestors were happier, because they did not focus on the human.

[ASBO]

It frees one from existential anguish. Our ancestors were happier, because they did not focus on the human.

What bothers me most about the modern time: people can only focus on one thing at once, at best.

Our ancestors focused on the whole enchilada. They didn't dumb it down. They recognized the human, but also didn't go into denial and see it as absolute, nor did they believe in absolutes.

They were happier because they focused on reality, not the individual.

Individualism leads to pretense, humility, guilt, shame, pomposity, politics, two-chord black metal and bloviation.