How often do you get pissed off with the modern world?

[swordjumper]

I try to create an alternative environment around me ie I'm quite selective with my friends, any that express pro multicultural opinions or take up alien partners are soon dropped. I'm often depressed by the apathy of people around me to what is happening in our country. So many of them seem to have sold out or are intimidated by 'political correctness', I have no time for such people.
I often feel overwhelmed by the hoplessness of our cause, surrounded by the shitty products of a crap (multi) culture that I'm compelled to live in, but I gain strength knowing that I'm not alone and that one day the tide will turn in our favour.

[Pro Hibernia]

All the time or many times a day.

[M.R.]

I'm pissed off with the modern world. As simple as that.

No offense, but asking this question is like asking - how often a day you get pissed about the fact that there are tausands of immigrants in your land?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by M.R.

No offense, but asking this question is like asking - how often a day you get pissed about the fact that there are tausands of immigrants in your land?

An annoying thought, with the correction of hundreds of thousands - not something medically advisable to think about many times a day.

[Susi]

I find these days that I'm pissed off all of the time and no, it has nothing to do with my hormonal cycles or love life or any other personal things like that.

I'm sick and tired of the self-serving bastards that represent humanity at its "modern pinnacle". I'm tired of petty squabbles between those that should be allied. I'm sick of taking the blame for things I had no responsibility for which happened in the past. I'm growing weary of those who would live in the past and take no responsibility for the future.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

An annoying thought, with the correction of hundreds of thousands - not something medically advisable to think about many times a day.

Not in my country, here situation is not that bad, although it's true there are less than 2000000 Slovenians.

[Valdyr]

Constantly. I don't belong in this world.

[Ferran]

I think the question should be: Is there a moment you don't get pissed off with the modern world?

[Susi]

Usually when I'm on my own lying in the sun in the wood's clearing.

[Cirrus]

I don't really have a problem with the "modern world".

The current problems we are facing in Europe are rather a question of politics or 'misplaced' ethic values, but I don't think that things were necessarily so much better in ancient times (the notion of decadence is rather old, for example). We shouldn't idealize the past, because I don't think that people and society were so different of what we know today.

Every period get its problems, and those we face by now are not the worse we have ever known.

But maybe this is due to my cynic and individualistic nature... corrupted by the modern world.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The current problems we are facing in Europe are rather a question of politics or ethic values

...which are result of a particular worldview and the mindset created by the modern world.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

but I don't think that things were necessarily so much better in ancient times

Depends in which regard, in some things it was better. The humans have some basic set of moral principles which remain virtually unchanged, the only difference being how they are manifested in some epoch.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

the notion of decadence is rather old

Very old and also true. The Hindu scriptures already speak about that (Kali yuga etc).

Originally Posted by Cirrus

We shouldn't idealize the past

Absolutely not. Although I profess to be against the modern world, I never idealize the past. It is neither possible nor desirable to resurrect some old societal models. With ethics it is different, some ethical norms could be brought back in life.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

because I don't think that people and society were so different of what we know today.

People no, but society was very different. If we can speak of society in pre-modern times at all.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

But maybe this is due to my cynic and individualistic nature... corrupted by the modern world.

No, my friend, on the contrary, if you are cynical it says that you are NOT of the modern world. Because the modern world is too idealistic, in many, sometimes very perverse, forms. It is not cynical, just the opposite of that. Ever noticed how the word cynicism, which originally meant only one philosophical school, came to be employed as almost a curse exactly in the modern age? I never heard of any other philosophical school so vilified.

The modern world is too idealistic, some healthy dose of cynicism would be welcome to overcome that disease.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Marulus

...which are result of a particular worldview and the mindset created by the modern world.

Well, I don't think that all of those problems are caused by the only variable of modernity. It seems to me like a "catch-all" concept.
We must differentiate what is caused by our time from what is only our perception of things.

For example, nationalism as we know it is clearly a manifestation of... modernity. The term was born in France in the 18th century, and it spread to Europe after that. Also, the concept of "nation state" was spread worldwide by the Europeans only during the 19th century.
Then, it is somewhat ironical to complain about the loss of our national identity because of the modern world.

I think that we shouldn't have a single factor of explanation to explain our current problems in Europe and the so-called Western world. This is due to a combination of different things, that can't be unified under one name : some are new, others are not. I personnaly think that we can keep our European values (and I'm not speaking about liberal values, of course) and being a member of this modern world. It is a just a question of will.

But to blame the current human nature because of the modern world seems to rather have something to do with misanthropy, don't you think ?
I don't think that it is a good thing to stay the eyes fixed in an ideal past. The myth of a "golden age".

Depends in which regard, in some things it was better. The humans have some basic set of moral principles which remain virtually unchanged, the only difference being how they are manifested in some epoch.

Again, everything is relative. Slavery or war at any cost were considered moral not so long times ago, and I don't think that it is a great loss not to consider such things amoral nowadays.

Moral principles are adjustables, it differs from the time and from the nature of a population. What is inchanged is what it will lead to : if a society develop some strong family values, for example, their demography will be better than the one of a society that praise anti-familial values. But this have been observed long times before us, and this is not a direct effect of modernity. Like you say yourself :

Very old and also true. The Hindu scriptures already speak about that (Kali yuga etc).

If they knew it was because they have observed it before, and that they transcripted what they considered bad and decadent depending on their views (which are somewhat different from ours).

So, I don't deny the loss of certain values in our society, but I deny that this process is caused by modernity.

People no, but society was very different. If we can speak of society in pre-modern times at all.

Society was different because the needs of such a society was different (bascially, to survive).
But such an organisation is not adaptable to our times anymore (because of our demography and our technology). It would be sensless to be nostalgic of it. It doesn't mean that some rules of such societies (like a community-oriented system) are bad, rather the opposite.

The modern world is too idealistic, some healthy dose of cynicism would be welcome to overcome that disease.

Well, it is what I would call an "unrealistic idealism" (multiculturalism will save us, borders are useless, we need a global government, etc...) but associated with a great cynicism (we need immigration at any cost, because our economy need it anyway).

Anyway, this is less due to the 'modern world' in itself that to a certain kind of philosophy (liberalism and internationalism). And such values don't represent modernity in itself (like I've said, nationalism is also a "modern" idea). They only represent... themselves, and the people that believes in it because of the current domination of such ideas in our society. But I am forced to live with it right ? So, I live and I try to stay optimistic with my ideal anyway.

Seriously, all those people in this thread seemed so... depressed.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well, I don't think that all of those problems are caused by the only variable of modernity. It seems to me like a "catch-all" concept.

Of course it is not, it would be an oversimplification.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

For example, nationalism as we know it is clearly a manifestation of... modernity. The term was born in France in the 18th century, and it spread to Europe after that. Also, the concept of "nation state" was spread worldwide by the Europeans only during the 19th century.

Don't forget that almost simulataneously with the idea of national state, which occurred at the dawn of modernity, also the idea of a larger unification, in form of some world state, was born. Many saw nationalism and nation-states as only transitory state toward larger schemes, for example, German revolutionaries of 1848 asked for the creation of "United States of Europe" etc.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Then, it is somewhat ironical to complain about the loss of our national identity because of the modern world.

Some local and regional identities died down as result of modernity, no denying it. And some local languages as well.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I personnaly think that we can keep our European values (and I'm not speaking about liberal values, of course) and being a member of this modern world. It is a just a question of will.

By rejecting Liberalism, you reject one of the most important traits of modernity.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

But to blame the current human nature because of the modern world seems to rather have something to do with misanthropy, don't you think?

When I see modern mass-society and all idiocy that goes with it, I become - at times - absorbed by some sort misanthropic disposition. But such temptations are to be avoided.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't think that it is a good thing to stay the eyes fixed in an ideal past.

Absolutely not! I mean, what would somebody want to restore? Feudal lords and serfdom? No, thanks (although in modernity we have the so-called wage slavery). Multinational oppressive empires? No, thanks.

In my view, modernity is something to be overcome and not simply abolished or overthrown (an impossibility anyway). The new state of things would keep some characteristics of the modernity, but have to dispense of many more others. Berdyayev, a fierce opponent of Bolshevism and the October Revolution, already understood, in his years of exile in Paris, that a return to the old ways was (Czarism, that is) neither possible, nor desirable, and was awaiting some kind of inner transformation of Russia. It is in this sense that I understand the overcoming of the modernity.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Again, everything is relative.

Not quite.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Slavery or war at any cost were considered moral not so long times ago, and I don't think that it is a great loss not to consider such things amoral nowadays.

Was it considered moral? I think it was not considered as either moral or immoral, but it was taken as a fact of the existing order of the world, imperfect as it is. No, it is no loss that such things are considered immoral nowadays. These would be, I guess, some positive achievements of modernity.

But bear in mind that twentieth century section of the modernity, with its air-raids, phosphorus bombs and atomic weapons means a regression in relation to norms of civilized warfare which have been progressively accepted in Europe from the Later Middle Ages on and then later exported to the rest of the world, through European cultural influence, a kind of warfare whereby civilian populations were generally spared in the conflict, the military code of honour for soldiers emphasized (you could be shot for just stealing one chicken from the local population!) etc. The twentieth century warfare means a return to the kind of warfare conducted by Monglian hords, only with much more sophisticated weapons.

There is almost nothing good in the twentieth century part of modernity.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well, it is what I would call an "unrealistic idealism" (multiculturalism will save us, borders are useless, we need a global government, etc...) but associated with a great cynicism (we need immigration at any cost, because our economy need it anyway).

There is nothing more idealistic than the belief in infinite progress, infinite increase of profit, than utropian musing about ever more of prosperity of the masses to be attained, by "securing happinness for the biggest possible number of men" (Bentham). Economists are big idealists, not cyncis. An approach aimed at securing only the basics for existence, based on some kind of principle of autarky would be much more cynical. "What all this effort for? Give me a break." - a true cynic would say. I have no clue why is Diogenes from Sinope and his philosohpical school so much reviled in the modernity. Maybe precisely because of modernity's obligatory optimism and idealism?

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Anyway, this is less due to the 'modern world' in itself that to a certain kind of philosophy (liberalism and internationalism). And such values don't represent modernity in itself (like I've said, nationalism is also a "modern" idea).

I think they represent two phases of modernity.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Seriously, all those people in this thread seemed so... depressed.

Well, as for myself, rather disgusted than depressed.