The Samurai mentality and Bushido wouldn't be the best ethical traditions to build the post-war Japan.

The Western materialistic sense of living neither!

Mishima did not serve in the Japanese forces because he was young (around 19 and 20 years) and an intellectual ready to fulfil his life with literature. I guess his disappointment with modern Japanese society has a lot of points to consider of.
When Japan loses WWII starts a period of lack of confidence on "Japanese values" because they noticed that they weren't good enough to win the war. Since 1945, the new Japanese citizens started to be more Westerly. They use smoking instead kimono. The women are independent instead of being surrounded by Men. Samurai are no longer respectful and Japan became an economical potency without their roots and values.
In this precisely moment Mishima wonders if Japan would disappear if they give up their values and history because the modern society doesn't seem to look like the previous one of WWII. He did his best to re-establish the respect to the emperor and make Japan a country of samurai not entrepreneurs.
When he perceived that nobody didn't care that much as expected he ended his life with seppuku.
But it is important to highlight that for Mishima (and other Japanese artists) suicide is a beautiful ending. It is not perceived as bad as Westerns.

The Japanese have always been a people with a severe awareness of death. But the Japanese concept of death is pure and clear, and in that sense it is different from death as something disgusting and terrible as it is perceived by Westerners. — Yukio Mishima

Shouldn't decision-makers do the right thing regardless of traditions, perhaps even in spite of traditions as the case may be...? — jorndoe

How can you make the right decisions if you do not respect your traditions and values firstly?
We end up in a constant contradiction here

What I have tried to stand is that both values and traditions should not be along with politicians and markets because for me those are invaluables.

There is literally nothing worse. A regression to feudalism without even the minimally positive aspects of capitalism. — Streetlight

But I never spoke about feudalism either capitalism. I think it is a bad move to always mix social challenges with economy. For example: if I am a traditionalist it means that I want to reinforce my roots but it is not necessarily being connected to capitalism or "markets"
This is why Mishima was right. The nations ended up being kidnapped by markets and money.
Who cares about the GDP if I do not know what is the real value of being born in Spain, Japan, USA UK, etc...?

the problem is that the idea that one should sacrifice something for the greater good has become laughable in current societies — ChatteringMonkey

:100: :up:

a drastic pitch to the right as societies disoriented by the ruination of capitalism desperately search for something to give their lives meaning. — Streetlight

Isn't this a right path to choose to?

fascism with Japanese characteristics" — Streetlight

Fascism was an Italian movement for the population of Italy. Thus, an European revolution against socialism. But you have to keep in mind that Mishima was searching a way to escape from Weatern topics. I think Mishima was original in they way he has founded a group or militia. Please do not call him just "fascist" because he wanted to honour their Japanese heritage and traditions.

I do not even understand when you say fascism with "Japanese characteristics"... was Francisco Franco a fascist with "Spanish characteristics?"...

The way of the samurai By 三島 由紀夫, Mishima Yukio.

Palm-of-the-Hand Stories By Kawabata Yasunari (川端 康成)

Whoever this Fumerton is they sound rather silly or you are misrepresenting their point … — I like sushi

Calm down, I just copied and shared his f*cking work. You are judging without proofs if I am misrepresenting whatever. I do not know why the members of this site love to "waster their time" denigrating others.

This thread is like a time travel back to the scholasticism of the 13th century using quantum theory to revive that ancient nonsense. String theory vs angels on the head of a pin. What a waste of the digital resources — jgill

But, you are right, this thread is indeed a waste of electrons, over and out. — Wayfarer

It looks like @Hillary and me deserve to die because our friendly debate...

The argument is a “Kalam”ity.

Oh Jeez :rofl:

knucklehead tennis match taking up most of this thread.

Didn't you like our excited debate? :yum:

I never seen them and neither I want to. Pessimism and nihilistic context is more comfortable

I think you have very good arguments and a well refutation, but sadly, you end up defending God not matter the context or circumstances and that's weak

Do you think there will be no war then? Then I think it's the law to kill or be killed. — Vincent

Well, yes. But I guess this would happen in countries which are used to wars and violence.
For the rest of the world the gap between the rich and poor people will be bigger. But I do not see it as a war like Ukraine or Syria.

Actual existent is not the same as measurable. — Hillary

Why not? Measure is inside the characteristics of "Actual existent"

. If you want proof that bad, you can open your hart to them. And let them in. At least, the knowledge that they exist. Or you can look in quantum mechanical experiments. — Hillary

Sorry but I do not understand this.

You said:

They fit in actual existent — Hillary

Actual existent: Actual existence (observed, measurable, inactive or changing)

And then you ask:

Why you want to measure gods? — Hillary

I don't know. This is what I should ask you: why do you want to measure gods?

Will there ever be an apocalypse? — Vincent

To be honest, we are already in an apocalypse. Climate change is a big issue and it has changed how the earth works and so, our lives.
It is a silent apocalypse which will end up in lack of supplies as food and water.
It is not necessary to be in war to experience an apocalypse

They fit in actual existent — Hillary

How can you measure "God"? :yikes: so you have said this morning that measuring universe is wacky but at the same time time yeah, we can measure a subterfuge

Where does ‘God’ fit? — Possibility

In none of them :wink:

Question remains, where does that come from? — Hillary

(1) And our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument.

(2) And this is to be proven, better than any demonstration through words [λόγοι], from the observable [ἐνάργεια] itself.

But it doesn't explain how the stuff got there in the first place. — Hillary

No? Are you aware of those theories of astrophysics which describes the beginning of out universe? What about Stephen Hawking's theories?

So, the universe is there and physics gives no explanation for it's existence. What's contradictory about that? — Hillary

It is so contradictory from a realism argument. Physical objects and elements do exist. Simple. If the universe is there and it makes some effects, then it does exist.

And eternal intelligences don't need no reason to exists. — Hillary

... what?

Yes. And? — Hillary

That you sound so contradictory! :smirk:

Why does the universe and all life in exist in the first place? What is the reason? — Hillary

The surprising fact here is that you are questioning both universe and human existence but you are blind towards God's one. That's the clue of our debate

The universe is there... — Hillary

You also said:

you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there. — Hillary

I think you are not getting the point properly. What I defend is that thanks to knowledge we can prove, at least, our existence. This is due to the act of reasoning. It is a Cartesian thought. I think, therefore I am. Knowledge is one of the most solid proofs of humankind's existence.

Because I like to know why the universe is there. Why we are there. Gods offer an answer. — Hillary

And the answer is...? Because you said previously that God doesn't appear physically but we do so.
Then, we have more evidence of existence about ourselves than God.
Why are you asking more when we already exist thanks to our knowledge?

But if you would know fundamental physics, you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there. — Hillary

If there is not an explanation of why the universe is there, then why you connect it with God's existence

The child would be right though. I believed in god when a child. — Hillary

I am sorry someone brainwashed you. Nevertheless, it is not so late to take part in this issue and improve your critical thinking

Gods can't make themselves appear physically. That would destroy the natural order. — Hillary

Another contradictory argument! You said you believe on him due to physics but, at the same time, you say God can't make appear physically

Like I said, it's exactly physics I base gods on. — Hillary

OK. Prove God's existence through physics as you can prove the damn X-rays

The gods just created the basics of the universe — Hillary

"Universe" is a complex astrophysical study which is based on laws of physics and mathematics. It takes years to understand what is going on there because it is so vast and it looks like unattainable for humans.
It sounds childish saying that the basics of universe comes from God.

Why? — Hillary

One is based on knowledge and criticism (science) the other is based on faith and worship (religion). I think they're so incompatible.

According to your own criteria:knowledge exists thanks to God...

That's wacky and flawed

It is exactly the laws of physics I base the existence of gods on. — Hillary

I respect your faith on God. But, please, don't mix up science with religion here. Both are incompatible

Only gods offer a reason for existence. — Hillary

You just killed all laws of physics, chemistry, maths, law, etc... in one flawed statement.
"God" is not a reason for existence neither a proof of knowledge. It is just a subterfuge based on faith. It is more simple than you believe