any philosophers who represents a genuine break with modernity — räthsel

I think I could guess what you are getting at here, but perhaps some clarification might help. A complete break with modernity, or just specific strands of it? A complete break would seem to imply a fundamentalist type of belief system. (Not saying it’s necessarily bad, it would just have to be comprehensive to even begin to counter-act all of modernity.) As for specific aspect objectors, there are many writers who might qualify (whether or not they are strictly philosophers). My favorites are Ken Wilber, who objects to the “flatland” materialism of the age; and Daniel Quinn, who posits that our “totalitarian agriculture” mindset has dire consequences.

Someone else mentioned Wilber and I think he is probably the philosopher to go for.

are there any philosophers who represents a genuine break with modernity and if so, who is the greatest example of this? — räthsel

There is an informal school of thought called 'perennialism' or 'traditionalism', centred around the writings of a rather reclusive French convert to Islam, by the name of Rene Guenon. His most famous book is called The Reign of Quantity. There are a number of other people often associated with him, specifically, Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burckhardt, and Ananda Coomaraswamy. Oh, and Julius Evola, and I suppose Oswald Spengler might be another.

All of them are unremittingly, witheringly hostile to the 'idea of modernity' generally. They see 'the modern world' as a degenerate shadow of a faded civilization.

As it happens, a lot of these are highly attractive to those with conservative and fascist political views - which is understandable, but also a bit unfortunate. But it's safe to say, they're generally counter-cultural in their attitude and are hardly taught in Western universities (although Coomaraswamy's writing on art criticism is pretty mainstream.)

If you're interested I have some further sources.

I am interested, yes.

Check out Mark Sedgwick's blog. Also the publishing houses Sophia Perennis and the Author's List on World Wisdom.

There's a huge literature in this subject, albeit not very well recognised by the mainstream. But well worth becoming acquainted with, in my opinion.

Cheers.

This review on Sedgwick’s blog looks noteworthy https://traditionalistblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/remarkable-new-book-draws-on-guenon.html

the merely functional abyss in which we live today? — räthsel

What are you referring to there, exactly?

I was reading Collingwood, who distinguishes between three types of living, which are either merely functional, creative (I think this is similar to the idea of genuine Being) or both. Collingwood also seems to think that archaic systems like those of the occult are also functional, but can and should be utilised in a truly creative way of living.

The way I take it, after reading some ideas from Heidegger, is that modernity is essentially opposed to the idea of creativity and I believe Spengler agrees. All three political positions of modernity lead to the same thing; functionality taken for itself. To try to be creative within the context of modernity is impossible; some paradigm shift needs to occur which recognises all three positions as bankrupt and returns us to a state of true creativity.

How are they defining "creative/creativity"? (And in contrast with "functional" would be helpful)

I think Oscar Wilde defined art and creativity quite well; something completely useless. What he means by this is that it is useless to most people. Plotinus and Eckhart write of the difference between Being and Nothingness, no? And this is adopted by Heidegger and Sartre. We inhabited the middle realm between the two, but fell in to the abyss of nothingness, through the emergence of modernity. Our only hope, then, of returning in to the realm of Satya Yuga, as Evola puts it, is a complete and utter paradigm shift.

So Collingwood is using Wilde's definition? And he's saying that there's a distinction to be had between "merely" functional living and "completely useless" living ("completely useless" to most people), while Heidegger and Spengler are saying that "completely useless" living (to most people) isn't possible at present for some reason, whereas it used to be?

I am not going to dignify you with any more answers.

Again, I asked how he defines "creative/creativity." If someone is going to make a distinction between "creative" and "functional" and say things like "it's not possible to live creatively," aren't we allowed to wonder just what they're claiming, whether what they're claiming has any merit, etc.?

One would imagine a certain level of inference is necessary to think at all.

So it's forbidden to define a term then? We have to just guess what people might be referring to, and interpret them however is required to make what they say insightful/correct? (And if so, why didn't you give me the same courtesy?)

If it is overly pedantic, it is annoying, as I am sure you know.

But I can't do anything with a "functional/creative" distinction and "it's impossible to live creatively" otherwise. It just sounds like nonsense.

But since when are these threads your personal blog? I don't give a flying fuck if you think it sounds like nonsense.

I didn't realize I'm not allowed to express my opinions on a message board.

Then start a thread about your favourite type of sandwich in the relevant sub-forum.

Well, or I can comment here as I have.

What exactly do you have left to say?

Functioning (transcendentally or imminently) in the modern world requires the individual to live creatively in their approach.

Maybe you could clear this up. What does "creative(ly)" refer to re living?

If a man truly understood the meaning of living functionally, he would lose all creativity and die, since the truth of function is death. This is what I think Céline means. We can only put our hope in a genuine shift in the matrix of our thought, on a communal, perhaps national, level. Only then can we live as truly creative beings, enlightened to the reality of a higher way of life.

“Creativity is dead,” says Lacan. However, according to Hanfkopf , it is not so much creativity that is dead, but rather the economy, and some would say the paradigm, of creativity. In a sense, the example
of the neodialectic discourse of functional living which is a central theme of Baudrillard's The System of Objects emerges again in post-structuralism. However, Debord would see 'functional living' as a subcultural formalism that denotes the difference between functional identity and class.

Can people just do this on this forum? Is there no moderation?

No, you're right. We strictly enforce no challenges, no skepticism, etc. to anything on this philosophy board.

There is moderation.

↪Terrapin Station I think Oscar Wilde defined art and creativity quite well; something completely useless. What he means by this is that it is useless to most people. Plotinus and Eckhart write of the difference between Being and Nothingness, no? And this is adopted by Heidegger and Sartre. We inhabited the middle realm between the two, but fell in to the abyss of nothingness, through the emergence of modernity. Our only hope, then, of returning in to the realm of Satya Yuga, as Evola puts it, is a complete and utter paradigm shift. — räthsel

So Collingwood is using Wilde's definition? And he's saying that there's a distinction to be had between "merely" functional living and "completely useless" living ("completely useless" to most people), while Heidegger and Spengler are saying that "completely useless" living (to most people) isn't possible at present for some reason, whereas it used to be? — Terrapin Station

The question Terrapin asked of you was fine. You have not characterised 'functional or 'creative'. Seeing as they are technical terms within another philosopher's account you are referencing, and it is not fair to assume common knowledge of what those terms mean in the account with all participants in this discussion, it would have been nice for you to actually say what they mean for the author you reference.

That said, Terrapin often comes off as adversarial even when he is not. Part of how he posts. But you can actually have decent discussions with him if you thoroughly answer the questions. or you can ignore the questions if you think they are irrelevant or uninteresting.

Stop the flamewar you're trying to have. Neither of you will gain anything from it besides a warning, and it wastes my time.