Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-ToEndAllJihads: Difference between revisions
copy markup from 9k/Q697 |
m Why are some SWANA countries still so medieval? |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
over the years, the notion of an epic "bible story" where a knight takes up the sword to fight for a king but actually fights against an entire other army (see: Joshua's story, the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) has gotten widely secularized across European or North American literature to the point that the concept of somebody 'fighting for good equipped with the armor of God' has moved entirely away from actual medieval armies and at times is just literally merged into any individual going on any quest for what they think is Good. you can maybe already see where this is going. technically, every fantasy story where somebody leads a big army of Good against a big army of Evil is a crusade, and a jihad. Harry Potter is carrying out a jihad. when the series gets to book 7 you can't deny it. but in one way, every single story where an isolated knight fights a dragon and believes it's a righteous task contains a jihad. so you can take this concept some wonderful places.<br/> | over the years, the notion of an epic "bible story" where a knight takes up the sword to fight for a king but actually fights against an entire other army (see: Joshua's story, the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) has gotten widely secularized across European or North American literature to the point that the concept of somebody 'fighting for good equipped with the armor of God' has moved entirely away from actual medieval armies and at times is just literally merged into any individual going on any quest for what they think is Good. you can maybe already see where this is going. technically, every fantasy story where somebody leads a big army of Good against a big army of Evil is a crusade, and a jihad. Harry Potter is carrying out a jihad. when the series gets to book 7 you can't deny it. but in one way, every single story where an isolated knight fights a dragon and believes it's a righteous task contains a jihad. so you can take this concept some wonderful places.<br/> | ||
the final step, I think, is to totally remove Idealism and ask what happens in fantasy stories materially. this task isn't really culturally specific, it isn't specific to the United States or Germany or the Japanese empire or Spain as it was centuries ago much less to the Muslim world. so, broadly, fantasy stories are about historical periods and the shift from one historical era to another. they usually aren't about big transitions like monarchy into Liberal-republicanism (though nobody said they couldn't be), but more often you see things like the shift from one Chinese dynasty to a different Chinese dynasty, a competition between two countably plural monarchies. so they always kind of have to "lie" to you about sideways changes being big changes. {{nickel|YT/CynicalArtKillingHope26}} and the way they do that is pick some individual, maybe a knight, prince, lady, or queen, and focus on the concept of that individual having a jihad; they play up the jihad as being a really big deal that will genuinely change everything, when actually, that's not necessarily true. almost every time an individual succeeds by defeating someone, that change won't persist unless they create an enduring structure. like, completing one of these jihads is getting as far as Stalin. Stalin was ultimately defeated because all the Stalin followers were only holding down the country as talented individuals, and they did not quite overcome the struggle between factions of individuals to create an enduring structure to take their place after they were gone. the group of Stalin-followers has to get "[[EC:9k/RD/Q697 Aufhebung|aufgehoben]]". <s>god I have no idea if that was the correct tense.</s> that's broadly how a monarchy transforms into Liberal-republicanism, the local-states and the kingdom are sublated. you really do not see that kind of big change in most fantasy stories. one of the only examples I can think of that almost contains a transition that big is how Undertale has a premise of the monsters being sealed away in a dark cavern, and their king has to fight to protect them, and then there is a true ending where they all just get to walk out and inasmuch as the kingdom or cavern were 'real' (Deltarune has cast a little doubt on that) the society shifts into a new historical period where the dynamic of the king fighting the outside doesn't exist. society doesn't change because Asgore or Undyne wins a jihad, is what I'm saying. setting aside the notion of Undertale being an "[[EC:9k/RD/Q11,42|ethics adventure]]" and how fraught those are as models of reality... you could {{em|say}} society changes because the monsters stop attacking outside people but keep defending themselves, and because all the monsters come together instead of being divided like Asgore and Toriel are divided, or like is a much greater theme in Deltarune; Frisk can't truly make them change if they didn't want to change, but if they already want to come together, Frisk is welcome to come along for the ride. (the moment of all the Souls in the underground coming together provides a little bit of textual evidence.) in fantasy books, jihad vaguely amounts to the concept of making individuals or Filaments of people more important than populations; disguising chunk competition and empire as friendship; disguising expansion as defense; disguising contingency for Materialist prediction, historical materialism, and sublation. that's it. Stalin's error, if he made one, was not leaving behind a set of instructions to make himself and the central party obsolete, and to put his effort into correctly solving all the actual steps of those instructions to the extent it was possible. progress negates itself, and sublates itself. the point of inventors is to become less and less necessary in order to produce their inventions because the invention became integrated rather than specially walled off and defended. creative destruction was such a {{censor|damn}} lie. it really did invalidate the entire point of inventions. Liberal "democracy" is a lie too in that it has lied every time a policy has to be taken back for any reason, or is maliciously torn up by the other party. the reason people believe there is no such thing as progress is because capitalism {{em|bans progress}}. while progress looks like Stalin fading away because he realizes that's what his task is. that actual produced goal is far more important than almost any concept of "democracy". it really should be used to judge how effective they all are | the final step, I think, is to totally remove Idealism and ask what happens in fantasy stories materially. this task isn't really culturally specific, it isn't specific to the United States or Germany or the Japanese empire or Spain as it was centuries ago much less to the Muslim world. so, broadly, fantasy stories are about historical periods and the shift from one historical era to another. they usually aren't about big transitions like monarchy into Liberal-republicanism (though nobody said they couldn't be), but more often you see things like the shift from one Chinese dynasty to a different Chinese dynasty, a competition between two countably plural monarchies. so they always kind of have to "lie" to you about sideways changes being big changes. {{nickel|YT/CynicalArtKillingHope26}} and the way they do that is pick some individual, maybe a knight, prince, lady, or queen, and focus on the concept of that individual having a jihad; they play up the jihad as being a really big deal that will genuinely change everything, when actually, that's not necessarily true. almost every time an individual succeeds by defeating someone, that change won't persist unless they create an enduring structure. like, completing one of these jihads is getting as far as Stalin. Stalin was ultimately defeated because all the Stalin followers were only holding down the country as talented individuals, and they did not quite overcome the struggle between factions of individuals to create an enduring structure to take their place after they were gone. the group of Stalin-followers has to get "[[EC:9k/RD/Q697 Aufhebung|aufgehoben]]". <s>god I have no idea if that was the correct tense.</s> that's broadly how a monarchy transforms into Liberal-republicanism, the local-states and the kingdom are sublated. you really do not see that kind of big change in most fantasy stories. one of the only examples I can think of that almost contains a transition that big is how Undertale has a premise of the monsters being sealed away in a dark cavern, and their king has to fight to protect them, and then there is a true ending where they all just get to walk out and inasmuch as the kingdom or cavern were 'real' (Deltarune has cast a little doubt on that) the society shifts into a new historical period where the dynamic of the king fighting the outside doesn't exist. society doesn't change because Asgore or Undyne wins a jihad, is what I'm saying. setting aside the notion of Undertale being an "[[EC:9k/RD/Q11,42|ethics adventure]]" and how fraught those are as models of reality... you could {{em|say}} society changes because the monsters stop attacking outside people but keep defending themselves, and because all the monsters come together instead of being divided like Asgore and Toriel are divided, or like is a much greater theme in Deltarune; Frisk can't truly make them change if they didn't want to change, but if they already want to come together, Frisk is welcome to come along for the ride. (the moment of all the Souls in the underground coming together provides a little bit of textual evidence.) in fantasy books, jihad vaguely amounts to the concept of making individuals or Filaments of people more important than populations; disguising chunk competition and empire as friendship; disguising expansion as defense; disguising contingency for Materialist prediction, historical materialism, and sublation. that's it. Stalin's error, if he made one, was not leaving behind a set of instructions to make himself and the central party obsolete, and to put his effort into correctly solving all the actual steps of those instructions to the extent it was possible. progress negates itself, and sublates itself. the point of inventors is to become less and less necessary in order to produce their inventions because the invention became integrated rather than specially walled off and defended. creative destruction was such a {{censor|damn}} lie. it really did invalidate the entire point of inventions. Liberal "democracy" is a lie too in that it has lied every time a policy has to be taken back for any reason, or is maliciously torn up by the other party. the reason people believe there is no such thing as progress is because capitalism {{em|bans progress}}. while progress looks like Stalin fading away because he realizes that's what his task is. that actual produced goal is far more important than almost any concept of "democracy". it really should be used to judge how effective they all are | ||
{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=618|Q2=618}}ruining the word {{i|jihad}} -> I wanted to title this page "the jihad to end all jihads" because my mind was already a century in the future where this was a funny and harmless play on words, literally describing an effort to negate the entire concept of fantasy quests so there would be no more fantasy quests. it was very funny in my head. but unfortunately people take the word as hate speech against White Christians (???) so I had to just take the most unambiguous part of the title, "ToEndAllJihads". | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
== Related == | == Related == | ||
<ol class="hue clean"> | <ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}Why are some SWANA countries still so medieval? [https://globalvoices.org/2024/09/11/from-mena-to-wana-why-terminologies-matter/] / Why is Qatar so medieval? (sense) -> this is actually a really fascinating question. it's not a question you ask {{em|specifically}} because you hate other countries. this question may have gotten super popular after September 11th 2001, and received a bunch of really bad answers, but that isn't to say the question is bad. there's a lot to be learned from asking why every country that is approximately countable hasn't moved away from monarchy. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
== Ideologies or fields == | == Ideologies or fields == | ||
Revision as of 22:29, 26 May 2026
Main entry
ruining the word jihad
/ vulgarizing the word jihad until it is no longer a slur and is only an Arabic loanword that happens to mean every possible thing it could mean in Arabic ->
the word jihad refers to a kind of personal or localized quest for what someone believes to be right. [1] historically, the nature of this quest was often religious: people understood morality or order through religion, therefore kingdoms went on crusades to conquer other kingdoms either in a political sense or to force them into their religion, and some kingdoms full of Muslims called these jihads. (jihad is actually uncountable but I think that's a little silly. I improperly pluralize uncountable nouns to make various points all the time, so why not this one? from what I can find right now... it might sound something like jihadāt, because a lot of collective nouns containing countable objects are treated as feminine nouns. or maybe I accidentally did that rule backwards, I don't really know. anyway, my point is, there's theoretically an answer to how to pluralize the Arabic word jihad, and I just want you to be stuck with that cursed knowledge.) [2] [3]
over the years, the notion of an epic "bible story" where a knight takes up the sword to fight for a king but actually fights against an entire other army (see: Joshua's story, the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) has gotten widely secularized across European or North American literature to the point that the concept of somebody 'fighting for good equipped with the armor of God' has moved entirely away from actual medieval armies and at times is just literally merged into any individual going on any quest for what they think is Good. you can maybe already see where this is going. technically, every fantasy story where somebody leads a big army of Good against a big army of Evil is a crusade, and a jihad. Harry Potter is carrying out a jihad. when the series gets to book 7 you can't deny it. but in one way, every single story where an isolated knight fights a dragon and believes it's a righteous task contains a jihad. so you can take this concept some wonderful places.
the final step, I think, is to totally remove Idealism and ask what happens in fantasy stories materially. this task isn't really culturally specific, it isn't specific to the United States or Germany or the Japanese empire or Spain as it was centuries ago much less to the Muslim world. so, broadly, fantasy stories are about historical periods and the shift from one historical era to another. they usually aren't about big transitions like monarchy into Liberal-republicanism (though nobody said they couldn't be), but more often you see things like the shift from one Chinese dynasty to a different Chinese dynasty, a competition between two countably plural monarchies. so they always kind of have to "lie" to you about sideways changes being big changes. and the way they do that is pick some individual, maybe a knight, prince, lady, or queen, and focus on the concept of that individual having a jihad; they play up the jihad as being a really big deal that will genuinely change everything, when actually, that's not necessarily true. almost every time an individual succeeds by defeating someone, that change won't persist unless they create an enduring structure. like, completing one of these jihads is getting as far as Stalin. Stalin was ultimately defeated because all the Stalin followers were only holding down the country as talented individuals, and they did not quite overcome the struggle between factions of individuals to create an enduring structure to take their place after they were gone. the group of Stalin-followers has to get "aufgehoben".god I have no idea if that was the correct tense.that's broadly how a monarchy transforms into Liberal-republicanism, the local-states and the kingdom are sublated. you really do not see that kind of big change in most fantasy stories. one of the only examples I can think of that almost contains a transition that big is how Undertale has a premise of the monsters being sealed away in a dark cavern, and their king has to fight to protect them, and then there is a true ending where they all just get to walk out and inasmuch as the kingdom or cavern were 'real' (Deltarune has cast a little doubt on that) the society shifts into a new historical period where the dynamic of the king fighting the outside doesn't exist. society doesn't change because Asgore or Undyne wins a jihad, is what I'm saying. setting aside the notion of Undertale being an "ethics adventure" and how fraught those are as models of reality... you could say society changes because the monsters stop attacking outside people but keep defending themselves, and because all the monsters come together instead of being divided like Asgore and Toriel are divided, or like is a much greater theme in Deltarune; Frisk can't truly make them change if they didn't want to change, but if they already want to come together, Frisk is welcome to come along for the ride. (the moment of all the Souls in the underground coming together provides a little bit of textual evidence.) in fantasy books, jihad vaguely amounts to the concept of making individuals or Filaments of people more important than populations; disguising chunk competition and empire as friendship; disguising expansion as defense; disguising contingency for Materialist prediction, historical materialism, and sublation. that's it. Stalin's error, if he made one, was not leaving behind a set of instructions to make himself and the central party obsolete, and to put his effort into correctly solving all the actual steps of those instructions to the extent it was possible. progress negates itself, and sublates itself. the point of inventors is to become less and less necessary in order to produce their inventions because the invention became integrated rather than specially walled off and defended. creative destruction was such alie. it really did invalidate the entire point of inventions. Liberal "democracy" is a lie too in that it has lied every time a policy has to be taken back for any reason, or is maliciously torn up by the other party. the reason people believe there is no such thing as progress is because capitalism bans progress. while progress looks like Stalin fading away because he realizes that's what his task is. that actual produced goal is far more important than almost any concept of "democracy". it really should be used to judge how effective they all are- ruining the word jihad -> I wanted to title this page "the jihad to end all jihads" because my mind was already a century in the future where this was a funny and harmless play on words, literally describing an effort to negate the entire concept of fantasy quests so there would be no more fantasy quests. it was very funny in my head. but unfortunately people take the word as hate speech against White Christians (???) so I had to just take the most unambiguous part of the title, "ToEndAllJihads".
Cases
- If Princess Celestia attacked another kingdom based on the connection of righteousness to monarchy, it would be a jihad / ruining the word jihad (generic)
- Harry Potter is carrying out a jihad / ruining the word jihad (generic)
Related
- Why are some SWANA countries still so medieval? [4] / Why is Qatar so medieval? (sense) -> this is actually a really fascinating question. it's not a question you ask specifically because you hate other countries. this question may have gotten super popular after September 11th 2001, and received a bunch of really bad answers, but that isn't to say the question is bad. there's a lot to be learned from asking why every country that is approximately countable hasn't moved away from monarchy.
Ideologies or fields
- (none)