5 ms·

J.M. Greer recently wrote a post that elegantly makes the same argument. It's the best essay I've read this year, and I think about it quite a lot, actually.

J.M. Greer recently wrote a post that elegantly makes the same argument. It's the best essay I've read this year, and I think about it quite a lot, actually. He's right about Tolkien, too. > https://www.ecosophia.net/the-three-stigmata-of-j-r-r-tolkien/ https://www.ecosophia.net/the-three-stigmata-of-j-r-r-tolkie... > . . . It’s occurred to me more than once recently that one of the most distinctive things about the Western cultures of the last century or so is the way it’s become so obsessed with wholly imaginary worlds, as different as possible from the one we actually inhabit. That’s a very odd habit, when you stop and think about it.

janmarsal 2y ago
Western culture? Last century? Really? We're story telling monkeys, and we've been obsessed with myths and stories since forever. More often than not taking it so far as it becoming a religion. It's the most distinctively human thing to do and this behaviour predates written history.
- lukan 2y ago
  It is, yet it is a new thing to claim rationality, yet still base most decisions on fantasy.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  You don't read many old books, do you? The most popular stories of the 19th century -- consider Maupassant, Victor Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, etc. -- were set in the real world of that same era. Even the pulp fiction of that era, the "penny dreadfuls," were generally gothic stories set in the real world. This is quite nice, as it allows you to learn a lot about history by reading books from that time. It almost gives you an immersive sense of history, in a way. Even the oldest legends of Europe -- Arthur, Holger Danske, Orlando Furioso, the 8th century BC Iliad, and I could go on -- ostensibly concerned themselves with the real world. (And, to strengthen Greer's point, often contained noble Saracens and other villains.) Same goes for Asia, by the way. The great legends of Asia -- from the Three Kingdoms, to the Water Margin, to the Tale of Heike -- were at least nominally "real." Not concerned with imaginary worlds. The myths we create today are qualitatively different in straightforward and obvious ways.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Hm, the most popular book in the 19. century was probably still the bible. And in a list I found here, I would say the majority is still quite concerned with the real world: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th_Century https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th... Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter just replaced the bible in my opinion, but the people in the 19.century had reasons to flee into imaginary worlds as well.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    What about religious text? They were always very much concerned with other planes of existence. Places outside of the real world. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have stories set in their own worlds, separated from reality. Maybe it is inevitable. In previous centuries, the world itself was largely unknown. Most people never left the city they were born in until they died. Reading something set in a different real place was in many ways the only way to experience it. What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe in a world that was becoming a tad less mysterious (we already had telegraphs, trains, steam ships and so on), some started to look toward fantastical, fictional world to have the illusion of an unknown world.
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      People used to take the Bible and other religious texts very seriously, and they believed in their literal truth -- far more than they believed in the truth of the Iliad or Charlemagne's Paladins. What's more, the Bible mostly presents something like a historical account with supernatural effects. So I'm not sure what we can draw from this. > What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene? Its connection to our real world is tenuous at best, I'd say.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        > People used to take the Bible and other religious texts very seriously, and they believed in their literal truth I don't disagree. But in a world where even reality was very much a mystery (so you had myths of ancient lost civilizations, cities of gold, etc and so forth), maybe religion, as literal as it was taken, was enough to satisfy the common people with its otherworldly descriptions of places. My point is that I think it is natural that as the world becomes less mysterious and religion becomes increasingly seen as allegorical, the craving for fictional worlds where not all is known becomes more appealing. > Maybe Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene? Its connection to our real world is tenuous at best, I'd say. Maybe the oldes I can think of is the land of Avalon in Athurian legend? Still would have a tenuous connection to the real world.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I think there is something fundamentally different between religious texts and even mostyths and fantasy/sci-fi stories. When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When the ancient Jews were listening to stories of Genesis or Moses, they were reading about what they believed the world to be. Even to the extent that they believed certain aspects of those stories to be parables and not an exact description of reality, the main point was to elucidate aspects of what the real world is, or how it should be. In contrast, when you read The Lord of the Rings, you're reading a pure fantasy, about a world that you're not expected to believe is real in any particular way, and where the reflections on any real world concepts are buried deep in the subtext (unlike, say, a teaching by the Buddha).
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. How do we know this?
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      We know by the number of real kings who claimed descent from Gilgamesh that there were enough people who believed this that it was worth it politically. Same as we know enough people in medieval Europe believed in the literal truth of Christianity to make it worth for kings to claim to be chosen by God for their purpose. Contrast this to the lack of modern day leaders claiming descent from Batman, or claiming the legitimacy of the Ministry of Magic. Of course, there would have certainly been people who did not believe in the literal truth of these stories - either as some form of early naturalism, or simply because they believed in other stories (like how devout Christians view the Bible as literal truth, but think the Veddas are just stories, and vice versa).
  - fidotron 2y ago
    > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When people tell their kids about Santa Claus is that because they believe he exists? There are always credulous people, but even in highly religious communities you will find amazingly large numbers of people only there for the community and just going along with public displays of adherence to whatever the belief system is. “True believer” is a term for a good reason.
zeristor 2y ago
Its almost like it becomes a religion; with the emphasis on almost.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  with the decline of regular religion, something had to take its place. and it's not like people got less fanciful or spiritual, they just changed where they invest that energy.
mrkeen 2y ago
I couldn't get through this. Dunking on Star Wars, LOTR, and NATO strategy all at once. Someone hire this guy immediately and make him executive director at the ministry of creative arts and war! I thought I was going into a piece of writing that would be critical of drawing comparisons between fantasy and the real world, but the author did the exact opposite. He drew the comparison between the Ukraine counter-offensive and magic swords, and put those words into NATO's mouth.
- lukan 2y ago
  No, he made the theory, that too many in NATO believed their own sides fiction. (And orcs for russian soldiers is a literal slang) As someone who followed all of that quite extensivly, I tend to confirm this. Otherwise that disastrous offensive last year never would have happened at all. As it was quite clear from the beginning, that it was bound to fail - but the imagination that the glorious win of the righteous forces of history is about to happen. So it needed to happen, despite objections from reality seeing people on the ground. Because the russian minefields and fortifications and russian artillery supperiority turned out to be very real. And they were real before.
  - rebolek 2y ago
    He made a theory that Russia is not the bad guy. They invaded a country without a reason. They literally are the bad guy. Some random percent of Russians believe that Putin is great? Of course they say that, otherwise they would be in prison. He has a point about West sending trash to Ukraine. But saying it's somehow Anduril? You have to be quiet open minded to accept his associations. The guy makes some good points but buries them in a ton of his opinions that it's hard to find the points he makes.
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      > They invaded a country without a reason. They had their reasons or at least rationalizations, though you don't see them and they might not make sense to you. > They literally are the bad guy. Maybe. I agree that the invasion was a very grave evil. Even so, it doesn't mean that they're destined to lose, and we shouldn't think that way. Mongols were bad guys but won so much that they got tired of winning. It's a very grave fallacy to believe that the Good Guys always prevail. And, besides, the Russians you ask would surely say, "Wait, you think those Banderite Ukrainians are the GOOD Guys?! And here I thought we were the Good Guys! Throughout its entire history, Russia has always fought and always conquered evil." > Of course they say that, otherwise they would be in prison. You can't seriously believe this. I'd invite you to hang out on the Russian internet (or Russian Telegram) for a different view. Have a look at what they write in their own language, when talking between themselves.
llm_trw 2y ago
That piece is as much a victim of western magical thinking as the people who it criticizes. The issues that we're seeing in Ukraine are purely material - offensives are no longer possible due to technological advances and the defensive position always wins. The fact that every Russian advance is also being ground down by a country with a quarter it's population is proof enough of this. That we found this out in a small scale conflict is a blessing - our forefathers found it out in 1914 in a very unpleasant way across 1000km of trenches. This is not a permanent state of affairs - a tank will be invented and it will break the stale mate in months.
maxerickson 2y ago
That's quite a trick to dive into a fantasy that the problem with your opponents it that they are living in fantasy.
beretguy 2y ago
I don't find it odd at all. In fact, I'm disappointed about hiatus of HxH manga because I want to see more of Dark Continent. Gigantic animals, extinction level threats, etc. - it's super interesting! I feel like humans have this interest for discovering the unknown, solving mysteries, seeing things never seen before. What's not to like about it? That's the same exact reason why I like Astronomy and quantum physics - I'm interested in things that are on the edge of what we know. Whoever thinks creating imaginary worlds is weird must be fun at parties.
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
I will say, the original article, this one is rather dull and doesn’t really capture much of anything. OA spends so long on personal waffling and frivolous political commentary, ironically undermining a free and fair election and the will of the people. This article, ironically enough, does seem to actually show some degree of an argument. I haven’t read all of it, but I can definitely agree with what I’ve read so far, that the Western liberal narrative is that they are “righteous heroes” against the “wrongs”, and complexity tends to be lost on those who believe as such. Although, I will say, more to the specific quote, we have told stories of fantastical worlds for centuries. Tolkien is inspired by elven worlds mirroring ours, tales of expenses underneath the Earth, talks of star people and sky cities. So much wholly imaginary worlds have existed in many cultures, and frankly the solely Western perspective feels rather tiny when you consider that this is a global phenomenon and has consumed far more than just America or NATO.

janmarsal 2y ago

Western culture? Last century? Really? We're story telling monkeys, and we've been obsessed with myths and stories since forever. More often than not taking it so far as it becoming a religion. It's the most distinctively human thing to do and this behaviour predates written history.

lukan 2y ago
It is, yet it is a new thing to claim rationality, yet still base most decisions on fantasy.
A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
You don't read many old books, do you? The most popular stories of the 19th century -- consider Maupassant, Victor Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, etc. -- were set in the real world of that same era. Even the pulp fiction of that era, the "penny dreadfuls," were generally gothic stories set in the real world. This is quite nice, as it allows you to learn a lot about history by reading books from that time. It almost gives you an immersive sense of history, in a way. Even the oldest legends of Europe -- Arthur, Holger Danske, Orlando Furioso, the 8th century BC Iliad, and I could go on -- ostensibly concerned themselves with the real world. (And, to strengthen Greer's point, often contained noble Saracens and other villains.) Same goes for Asia, by the way. The great legends of Asia -- from the Three Kingdoms, to the Water Margin, to the Tale of Heike -- were at least nominally "real." Not concerned with imaginary worlds. The myths we create today are qualitatively different in straightforward and obvious ways.
- lukan 2y ago
  Hm, the most popular book in the 19. century was probably still the bible. And in a list I found here, I would say the majority is still quite concerned with the real world: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th_Century https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th... Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter just replaced the bible in my opinion, but the people in the 19.century had reasons to flee into imaginary worlds as well.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  What about religious text? They were always very much concerned with other planes of existence. Places outside of the real world. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have stories set in their own worlds, separated from reality. Maybe it is inevitable. In previous centuries, the world itself was largely unknown. Most people never left the city they were born in until they died. Reading something set in a different real place was in many ways the only way to experience it. What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe in a world that was becoming a tad less mysterious (we already had telegraphs, trains, steam ships and so on), some started to look toward fantastical, fictional world to have the illusion of an unknown world.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    People used to take the Bible and other religious texts very seriously, and they believed in their literal truth -- far more than they believed in the truth of the Iliad or Charlemagne's Paladins. What's more, the Bible mostly presents something like a historical account with supernatural effects. So I'm not sure what we can draw from this. > What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene? Its connection to our real world is tenuous at best, I'd say.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      > People used to take the Bible and other religious texts very seriously, and they believed in their literal truth I don't disagree. But in a world where even reality was very much a mystery (so you had myths of ancient lost civilizations, cities of gold, etc and so forth), maybe religion, as literal as it was taken, was enough to satisfy the common people with its otherworldly descriptions of places. My point is that I think it is natural that as the world becomes less mysterious and religion becomes increasingly seen as allegorical, the craving for fictional worlds where not all is known becomes more appealing. > Maybe Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene? Its connection to our real world is tenuous at best, I'd say. Maybe the oldes I can think of is the land of Avalon in Athurian legend? Still would have a tenuous connection to the real world.
tsimionescu 2y ago
I think there is something fundamentally different between religious texts and even mostyths and fantasy/sci-fi stories. When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When the ancient Jews were listening to stories of Genesis or Moses, they were reading about what they believed the world to be. Even to the extent that they believed certain aspects of those stories to be parables and not an exact description of reality, the main point was to elucidate aspects of what the real world is, or how it should be. In contrast, when you read The Lord of the Rings, you're reading a pure fantasy, about a world that you're not expected to believe is real in any particular way, and where the reflections on any real world concepts are buried deep in the subtext (unlike, say, a teaching by the Buddha).
- krisoft 2y ago
  > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. How do we know this?
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    We know by the number of real kings who claimed descent from Gilgamesh that there were enough people who believed this that it was worth it politically. Same as we know enough people in medieval Europe believed in the literal truth of Christianity to make it worth for kings to claim to be chosen by God for their purpose. Contrast this to the lack of modern day leaders claiming descent from Batman, or claiming the legitimacy of the Ministry of Magic. Of course, there would have certainly been people who did not believe in the literal truth of these stories - either as some form of early naturalism, or simply because they believed in other stories (like how devout Christians view the Bible as literal truth, but think the Veddas are just stories, and vice versa).
- fidotron 2y ago
  > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When people tell their kids about Santa Claus is that because they believe he exists? There are always credulous people, but even in highly religious communities you will find amazingly large numbers of people only there for the community and just going along with public displays of adherence to whatever the belief system is. “True believer” is a term for a good reason.

zeristor 2y ago

Its almost like it becomes a religion; with the emphasis on almost.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
with the decline of regular religion, something had to take its place. and it's not like people got less fanciful or spiritual, they just changed where they invest that energy.

mrkeen 2y ago

I couldn't get through this. Dunking on Star Wars, LOTR, and NATO strategy all at once. Someone hire this guy immediately and make him executive director at the ministry of creative arts and war! I thought I was going into a piece of writing that would be critical of drawing comparisons between fantasy and the real world, but the author did the exact opposite. He drew the comparison between the Ukraine counter-offensive and magic swords, and put those words into NATO's mouth.

lukan 2y ago
No, he made the theory, that too many in NATO believed their own sides fiction. (And orcs for russian soldiers is a literal slang) As someone who followed all of that quite extensivly, I tend to confirm this. Otherwise that disastrous offensive last year never would have happened at all. As it was quite clear from the beginning, that it was bound to fail - but the imagination that the glorious win of the righteous forces of history is about to happen. So it needed to happen, despite objections from reality seeing people on the ground. Because the russian minefields and fortifications and russian artillery supperiority turned out to be very real. And they were real before.
- rebolek 2y ago
  He made a theory that Russia is not the bad guy. They invaded a country without a reason. They literally are the bad guy. Some random percent of Russians believe that Putin is great? Of course they say that, otherwise they would be in prison. He has a point about West sending trash to Ukraine. But saying it's somehow Anduril? You have to be quiet open minded to accept his associations. The guy makes some good points but buries them in a ton of his opinions that it's hard to find the points he makes.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    > They invaded a country without a reason. They had their reasons or at least rationalizations, though you don't see them and they might not make sense to you. > They literally are the bad guy. Maybe. I agree that the invasion was a very grave evil. Even so, it doesn't mean that they're destined to lose, and we shouldn't think that way. Mongols were bad guys but won so much that they got tired of winning. It's a very grave fallacy to believe that the Good Guys always prevail. And, besides, the Russians you ask would surely say, "Wait, you think those Banderite Ukrainians are the GOOD Guys?! And here I thought we were the Good Guys! Throughout its entire history, Russia has always fought and always conquered evil." > Of course they say that, otherwise they would be in prison. You can't seriously believe this. I'd invite you to hang out on the Russian internet (or Russian Telegram) for a different view. Have a look at what they write in their own language, when talking between themselves.

llm_trw 2y ago

That piece is as much a victim of western magical thinking as the people who it criticizes. The issues that we're seeing in Ukraine are purely material - offensives are no longer possible due to technological advances and the defensive position always wins. The fact that every Russian advance is also being ground down by a country with a quarter it's population is proof enough of this. That we found this out in a small scale conflict is a blessing - our forefathers found it out in 1914 in a very unpleasant way across 1000km of trenches. This is not a permanent state of affairs - a tank will be invented and it will break the stale mate in months.

maxerickson 2y ago

That's quite a trick to dive into a fantasy that the problem with your opponents it that they are living in fantasy.

beretguy 2y ago

I don't find it odd at all. In fact, I'm disappointed about hiatus of HxH manga because I want to see more of Dark Continent. Gigantic animals, extinction level threats, etc. - it's super interesting! I feel like humans have this interest for discovering the unknown, solving mysteries, seeing things never seen before. What's not to like about it? That's the same exact reason why I like Astronomy and quantum physics - I'm interested in things that are on the edge of what we know. Whoever thinks creating imaginary worlds is weird must be fun at parties.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago

I will say, the original article, this one is rather dull and doesn’t really capture much of anything. OA spends so long on personal waffling and frivolous political commentary, ironically undermining a free and fair election and the will of the people. This article, ironically enough, does seem to actually show some degree of an argument. I haven’t read all of it, but I can definitely agree with what I’ve read so far, that the Western liberal narrative is that they are “righteous heroes” against the “wrongs”, and complexity tends to be lost on those who believe as such. Although, I will say, more to the specific quote, we have told stories of fantastical worlds for centuries. Tolkien is inspired by elven worlds mirroring ours, tales of expenses underneath the Earth, talks of star people and sky cities. So much wholly imaginary worlds have existed in many cultures, and frankly the solely Western perspective feels rather tiny when you consider that this is a global phenomenon and has consumed far more than just America or NATO.