Why are most philosophers leftist?And what does that say about /lit/ where people claim to be intellectual and yet more than half of posters are right wingers?
Most philosophers are normoids who groupthink just as much as anyone else. They want a comfy academic job and don't actually care about philosophy as a calling to a greater duty to pursue truth, goodness, excellence, etc. That you mention the left/right dichotomy makes you one of those normoids and not someone capable of serious thought.
Dumb people in general tend to gravitate toward conservatism and right wing politics. Name three conservative intellectuals, I bet you can't
>>24936437Because they fucking love to hear themselves talk. The "intellectual left" is a dead meme.
As always, intellectual discussion comes from wherever young people are free to take in and discuss new ideas. If not from those young people themselves, but those that guide them and champion those ideas in the wider world, etc.In the past it was in universities where this happened, and it generally had a left lean due to society generally being typically more conservative and aligned to traditional values.Now the effects of those leftists have made their mark in wider society and those ideas are part of what younger people are now arguing against. University no longer has the monopoly on free expression, since the internet, particularly this place has replaced it. Especially when those universities have generally mistaken the content of the 1960s onwards expression as a thing to be dogmatically defended now, ironically pushing the pendulum away from them.So if can't infer the answer, let me be explicit: your perception of intellectualism is rooted in the current authoritative framework of what that is. Ignoring that people like Derrida had to face a period of mockery/incomprehension and academic disregard before time has cemented their intellectual status.So give it time, the kind of ideas you see posted here will be intellectual soon enough.
>>24936437Imagine studying your entire life and your whole contribution to humanity is that everything that there is supposed to be as is. Don't get me wrong, brilliant people did that, but it was done already in the 17th century. This is why people won't bother with them, there is nothing new.
>everything is either left or rightIt’s so tiring, especially coming from people that supposedly want to engage with philosophy.
>>24936437>Why are most philosophers leftist?Because they don't want to have to get a real job?
>>24936660>>24936732let's be real, you're only saying this because you're a right winger. Leftists proudly say that they're leftist all the time.Sure, not every philosophy is about politics or economics but whenever a philosopher expresses his political opinion, it's on the left the majority of the time
>>24936437What does it say about you that you want uniformity of thought and for others to follow intellectual fads to be seem as legit?Or are you just an ideologue who instead of defending your left wing ideology on its own merits try to push it via a status game via "all the cool people are left-wing, why aren't you"?Or are you just a troll?
>>24936793There are right wing and conservative thinkers, the thing is that they don't get any attention, so it is basically as if they didn't really exist. They only started being a thing after leftists started being the establishment and even then, it is still not like they have anything new to bring to the table.
>>24936795I don't want you to stop being whatever that you currently are, however I want to know how can right wingers justify their beliefs when, historically, influential thinkers are mostly left wing. People said that communism doesn't work because of historical precedents of failed communist countries, can the same process be applied to right wing ideas? If right wing ideas failed to gain any relevancy again and again then is it wise to keep holding these ideas?>>24936797It's laughable to say that leftists are the establishment, especially the economically left. You know that the majority of philosophers are socialist right?
>>24936664ScrutonBurkePlato
>>24936809You're dunning kruger lil bro. There's not a single worthwhile leftist work of art or thought.
>>24936809>how can right wingers justify their beliefs when, historically, influential thinkers are mostly left wing.Do you search for the truth or are you a drone who tries to repeat the biggest fads among the elites?Also, history didn't begin in the 20th century and most influential thinkers are far from being what we call left wing.Plato and Aristotle, for example. Epictetus. Cicero. Aquinas.Even if you go for the 20th century you have Heidegger and Wittgenstein who were not left wing in any way and they are arguably the best Philosophers of that century. Heck, the best female philosopher is Anscombe who was a conservative Catholic.
>>24936727Why should there be anything new?
>>24936809They are considering the intellectual landscape. >>24936810Those like this anon are too busy sniffing their own farts instead of deriving the actual essence of whatever the fuck they actually want and using that to create new things. The right-wingers that do anything are liberals.>>24936827>using left wing to refer to someone who died before this century started>>24936832Well, we might as well stop doing things and enjoy living in this piece of shit world. Or even better, we could go back to the good old days when people used to wage world wars, that sounds fucking great.
>>24936838>Those like this anon are too busy sniffing their own farts instead of deriving the actual essence of whatever the fuck they actually want and using that to create new things. The right-wingers that do anything are liberals.That's not what liberalism is, and no great philosopher argued for liberalism.
>>24936437Derrida wasn't a leftist, and leftists aren't DerrideanThe term "AntiFascist" is exactly what Derrida critiques with his deconstruction, a binary opposite they invented for themselves (even tho, communists existed before fascist, and then rebranded themselves as anti-fascist, and fascism was a direct reaction against communism) which portrays them in a good, original, morally righteous position and everyone who is not an anti-fascist is a fascistAre you gay? No? Then you are homophobic! Are you jewish, a semite? No? Then you are antisemitic! These seem absolutely absurd, yet you have to be a anti-fascist, a communist degenerate who wants to give sex change surgeries to children, or you are a fascist
>>24936843No, I'm talking about that the new things come from liberals. Conservatives don't bring anything new to the table, they are mainly about being annoying with people who are trying to do something.
>>24936793Let’s be even more real: the left and right are places reserved for powerless plebs; the ruling class is neither left nor right, and if they pretend to be it’s purely for the sake of maintaining said position of power. Don’t believe me? Fine, ask yourself: have I ever argued politics with anyone of true influence? Christ, even Trump was a self proclaimed democrat for decades. It’s all bullshit,
>>24936846This idea is based on what? You've yet to name a single good liberal idea or philosopher. They don't exist. It is the liberal hubris which makes him such an insignificant contributor and a significant detriment on humanity, and why you seriously believe that all philosophers ar liberal when the truth is harshly opposed to this idea.
>>24936838>using left wing to refer to someone who died before this century startedSo, the left wing started only in 2001?If so, most thinkers in history were not left wingers.John Finnis is alive and Milton Friedman died in 2006. Are they left wing? Are Vermuele and Deneen left wing?
>>24936852https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_RawlsI haven't said any of that, I just said that the right wingers that bother doing anything other than being annoying are liberals.
>>24936854No, but this whole left wing and right wing thing is recent. If you asked someone in the 17th century, they wouldn't identify themselves as any of that. Are you pretending to be stupid? They would be loyalists and patriots. Or some other shit like that depending on the political context.
>>24936855And that idea is based on nothing. Anything great, in terms of thought, that has come has been from people more right oriented.
>>24936855And I missed the John Rawls addition. LMAO. that guy's ideas are garbage, and will be laughed at in the future, are laughed at now by the philosophically educated and would be laughed at, by everyone in the past. Textbook example of my point, all liberal philosophers are low iq losers who seem to think they're geniuses, and that combo makes them just destroy things, they never build anything.
>>24936858I will repeat a few questions here.John Finnis is alive and Milton Friedman died in 2006. Are they left wing? Are Vermuele and Deneen left wing?In your view, in the era of Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Anscombe there was no left and right division? None of them were left-wingers. Or would you say Heidegger of all people was a left winger?
>>24936859https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=poli_facI'm not the only one saying that.
>>24936437>no true scotsmanfuck off
>>24936865Are you pretending to be retarded, or did you honestly still didn't get it? It doesn't make any sense to say that Plato was right-wing.
>>24936869Oh so it's based on consensus. You know fags were hanged back in the day? Was that right because everyone agreed?
>>24936869>leftists think leftists had the most impact on philosophyk.
>>24936876Why the fuck would someone get famous for doing nothing? Explain how justifying doing nothing should be recognized more than anything else, when it was already done before.
>>24936875You didn't answer any of my questions. Why are you avoiding that? Are John Finnis, Milton Friedman, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Vermuele, Deneen and Anscombe left wingers or people who lived before this category existed?
>>24936875Plato's ideology is closer adhered to by right wing philosophers, so yes it is fair, regardless of whether he was alive for left right divide or not, by this logic Plato wouldn't be in line with Neoplatonism.
>>24936880You could copy that entire first row and ask an AI how many of those were leftists. That is exactly what I did. I'm just answering the question that OP posed. Why would someone be recognized for doing nothing new?
>>24936881No conservative philosopher of consequence advocated for doing nothing, you're an uneducated imbecile with too much confidence. It's so funny that you don't even know that at least 30% of the guys in your own list are right wing, and leftists don't allow anyone else in academia, so it's just them there now, so obviously they'll vote more for leftist philosophers anyway. But if you had a serious dialogue about these ideas, leftist ideas get raped in under a minute.
>>24936437Chuds don't read and they aren't interested in philosophy
>>24936882It doesn't make any fucking sense to say that there is a continuity between communists and gender leftists. Are you pretending to be retarded? They aren't even worried about the same things.
>>24936876So you’re saying it’s wrong because everyone believes it’s wrong currently?
>>24936890There is not one (1 (single (uno))) leftist who has ever created any idea of value.
>>24936892But people don't think it's wrong currently? Leftism, I assume the "it" is.
>>24936889I know, anon. The thing is that they aren't doing anything either. It is easy to stick with whatever 20% of society that is working and saying that that is the way, but it doesn't fucking work. So they should start moving their fucking asses or shut the fuck up.
>>24936891You didn't answer my questions. Did you quote the wrong post?Are John Finnis, Milton Friedman, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Vermuele, Deneen and Anscombe left wingers or people who lived before this category existed?
>>24936895Way too many pronouns to make sense
>>24936897This is like asking if someone is a fan of Taylor Swift. Were they, anon? What do you think. I already answered your question thrice already. Can you make sense of this? Were those dudes fans of Taylor Swift? What do you think?
>>24936901No, but could they be, based on their music philosophy? Yeah, and that's a good enough qualifier.
>>24936838If we had stopped doing things that we ought not to be doing back in the day this world wouldn't be a piece of shit
>>24936902No, it is not. People have their own particular interests. Milton Friedman would maybe be all for this gender stuff. >>24936905The problem is that while the world is a piece of shit, it used to be worse in the past.
>>24936901The thread topic is not Taylor Swift fandom. It is being a left-winger.And you didn't answer my questions.>Are John Finnis, Milton Friedman, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Vermuele, Deneen and Anscombe left wingers or people who lived before this category existed?
>>24936797>>24936727Yet another thread where leftists assume that the right is necessarily "wanting to stay the same". I'm going to copypaste something I posted some time ago. >That there are no conservative intellectuals is an undeniable fact and the most obvious reason for this is that conservatism is by definition not a foward-looking ideology and as such will never bring anything new to the table. You can't be an intellectual if all you're capable of doing is regurgitating ideas and concepts from the past.>By definition intellectuals and deep thinkers seek to expand their own minds, and the minds of humanity. Conservatives by definition just want to keep things the way they are.Your understanding of the political categories of conservatism and progressivism is plain wrong, because you assume that conservatives want to conserve whatever exists now rather no matter how blatantly wrong it is.First you have to understand that conservatism and progressivism are nominal and not substantive political categories of political philosophy, just like left and right (unlike "anarchocapitalism" or "fabian socialism", which are substantive and fit in the realm of political philosophy). Essentially they are just realpolitik names to account for the natural tendency in the political game, which is that all the political agents seeking to take over the ruling power tend to gather so that they have more options to, in fact, take over. But, of course, the opposition has to bring different ideas to the table in order to persuade and acquire legitimacy (this applies for non democratic regimes as well, all of them require legitimacy, the only thing changing is the dominant social segment where legitimacy is sought), because otherwise they won't undermine the ruling power's legitimacy whatsoever, so that's why it seems that left/right and progressivism/conservatism have any specific meaning, but it's merely accidental in the aristotelian sense of the word.Because of this, many people who are way off the current societal trends, like the amish, are called "conservative". How can they be conservative when a wide majority find them too extreme and if the state were governed according to their principles, many reforms should be promulgated? It's simply because the word "conservative" has an inertia from the moment it was coined to refer to the standard christian lifestyle which is now largely dead. And since that word belongs to realpolitik, it means whatever people use that word for, so you can't redefine conservatism as "wanting to stay the same, wanting to conserve even the things which clearly don't work" because then no conservatives would try to pass laws and conservatism would be tautologically wrong; it's clear that conservatives don't totally conform to the current state of things and want to change things for a greater good, albeit in a different direction from progressives. Your definition of conservatism is an implicit begging the question.
>>24936907>>24936909>No, it is not. People have their own particular interests. Milton Friedman would maybe be all for this gender stuff. Does it make any sense to say that he was a leftist because of that? You are acting like a retard. Things are more complicated than left and right, I know that math can also be hard when it gets over the amount that you can count on your fingers, but trust me that there are numbers beyond that.
>>24936911You didn't answer my post>Are John Finnis, Milton Friedman, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Vermuele, Deneen and Anscombe left wingers or people who lived before this category existed?
>>24936910I haven't said any of that. I said that CONSERVATIVES are all about shitting on people who are trying to do something. And this is why they don't get any recognition. I'm being realistic, anon. If you are a critique of art, would you be more or less famous than the artists you are criticizing? It should be simple to understand. And I also said that right wing LIBERALS usually have their own contributions to the intellectual landscape.
>>24936727this anon gets it.Right wingers are necessary but they are destined to lose because society will always change and the ones who advocate for changes will eventually be correct
>>24936916Would you say Heidegger didn't create anything new? Or that he was remotely liberal?
>>24936914Absolutely. I did answer your post. It absolutely makes sense, right wing is good and everything else before it was right wing too and good. Did you understand it now?
>>24936916I'm starting to think you're a troll anon. Right wingers are the only people who've achieved anything for humanity in a political sense. Left has only brought the world down, by a significant margin. We would all be living in a post crime and poverty lalaland if it wasn't for the corrosive ideology of the left being imported globally. Right wing economics and ethics had brought us there but alas. Your whole idea has repeatedly been explained to be vacuous and a strawman and you don't even acknowledge that.
>>24936437>Why are most philosophers leftist?they are paid for with taxpayer's money... in fact "subscribed to" would be a better definitionthey bear no resemblance to philosophers of olden days who dedicated themselves to investigating issues... these "philosophers" more akin to a reserve force ready to bury you in essays, debates, and even books if you have the smallest objection to what the communist party members desire... hence their success in the west>The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and getting stronger in their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit.>And what does that say about /lit/ where people claim to be intellectual and yet more than half of posters are right wingers?1. you need a tightly controlled environment to produce (brain-wash) leftist intellectuals... after the fall of the USSR, which provided the pressure for the teachers to get their shit together, such controlled environments disappeared... and they won't waste their remaining cadres on such a low return-on-investment place as /pol/... compare that to right wingers who all think for themselves and apply rationality instead of some memorized fairy tales2. they were already beaten on the "battlefield" of economy (50s, 60s, 70s) and science (70s, 80s, 90s), that's why they resorted to entertainment ("new left" i.e. junkie and LGBT culture of the 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s)... so whenever you see a thread pushing LGBT shit, remind yourself that you are seeing the last vestige of the commie dream
>>24936919Samefag, right wing or conservatism =/= things shouldn't change. You've built a low effort and mind definition of conservatism based on the name and your socialist professor. Conserving society is conservatism, if that requires changing society then that's a conservative idea. Leftists want global grey goo.
>>24936922So, you would agree those people were not remotely left wing (in eras where there were many left wingers) and that they were (or are, in the case of the living ones) influential thinkers?
>>24936927Hence Globohomo. It's an entendre.
>>24936920I'm talking about the 21st century, dude. If your whole thing is all about being anti-feminist, anti-woke, anti-gender and so on. You aren't really doing anything, anon. Is it that hard to understand that the right wing isn't doing much nowadays?>>24936916It is what I said here. If you are just criticizing things, you can't possibly get more famous than the thing you are criticizing because you depend on it to have your own thought.
>>24936937The op doesn't specify it's just about the 21st century, there's not one good philosopher of the 21st century, left or right.
>>24936928Yes, evil is right and good is left or something. That is good. People who are good and influential are right and left is wrong and bad and shouldn't have any influence, this is why modern times are bad, you are absolutely right. People are doing everything wrong, and everything will be destroyed by God in the end of times. Amen.
>>24936938Then his question doesn't make any fucking sense because most philosophers predate left and right politics.
>>24936937>I'm talking about the 21st century, dudeYou are moving the goalposts. But let's accept the moving goalposts.Vermuele and Deneen are some of the most influential thinkers around and their Common Good conservatism are constructive rather than being just criticism. They are not remotely liberal either.Would you accept your criticism was wrong?
>>24936916I understand why you think that my post implies a misunderstanding of yours, because you talked about conservatives and I start talking about "right wing">I said that CONSERVATIVES are all about shitting on people who are trying to do something.But in my post >>24936910 (the other replies are not me, I don't why people don't specify that they are nta) I explain why conservatism is not necessarily about denying changes in the political system. Would national socialism be right wing liberalism according to your definition because they had a very clear political project with its own unrealised eschatology to make come true? Of course not, they were totalitarian, which is antithetical to liberalism. Progressivism/left/right/conservatism and liberalism (in the American sense of the word, liberalism in the European sense of the word has content, and it means focusing rights on individuals rather than on groups) are realpolitik names without content, they are just useful to account for the political rivalry between parties which ally to overthrow other coalition with different ideas. I advise you to read my post carefully.
>>24936881>>24936948It has to be something new, mein Duden. They weren't influential, because someone beat them to it.
>>24936940You are not answering the question and seems like you are still avoiding it>Are John Finnis, Milton Friedman, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Vermuele, Deneen and Anscombe left wingers or people who lived before this category existed?Could it be you were proven wrong and doesn't want to concede?
>>24936949I'm talking about 21st century, anon. Every time someone shows up as a right wing thinker, it is to say that they are anti-something. It is hard to achieve anything when you aren't bothering doing shit and are just reacting. Just look at whatever people are talking on the media, it is exactly what I said. This is the laziest shit possible, like those dudes who stream 'content', but that is just them watching something that other person made.
>>24936953Vermueule and Deneen are doing something fairly new and they are extremely influential, both in academia and in politics.I think it is interesting that you argue that the thinkers mentioned before such as Heidegger don't count since they died before this century. When did Foucault die?
>>24936954Are you pretending to be retarded? They can't possibly be anything like that. I already answered this question five times already, let me repeat it again using AI friendly language, I will answer your question here: they couldn't possibly be any of that. I'm done talking to you, this has to be a bot trolling.
>>24936961Right wing belief in God came first, then atheism. Free trade came first, then socialism. Metaphysics came first, then materialism. Etc etc. So no, left reacts to the right.
>>24936838Right wingers who actually do things are people with jobs. Most lefties I know are jobless, pot smoking hippies who don’t do shit but complain about le system while actively adding fuel to the decline themselves. There’s plenty to criticize of the cuckservatives but I’d much rather be friends with a cuckservative than a lefty (unless I wanted to have sex with a lefty girl).
>>24936961Vermuele and Deneen prove you wrong. They are not doing just criticism, but proposing something new. Will you concede?
>>24936966Then if you agree they were not left wingers you were proven wrong.
>>24936964>>24936881Can you count? Just get that table, copy and paste it in some AI and ask it to classify them in the political spectrum and count, anon. I'm not saying that it is impossible, I'm just saying that this is what people are doing nowadays. >Those like this anon are too busy sniffing their own farts instead of deriving the actual essence of whatever the fuck they actually want and using that to create new things. The right-wingers that do anything are liberals.I'm sure that there are people who do something, but most of them are like I said in this post, anon. You could say that a lot of leftists are deranged and borderline crazy and I would agree with you, but consider that you aren't doing anything. Is it that hard to understand?
>>24936973Yes, those are two names against 20-30 leftoids. Every rule has its exception, anon. Just paste that table in some AI and ask how many of them aren't leftoids.
>>24936968Is this some joke? Humanity was polytheistic for most of its existence. Can you do math?
>>24936968good insight, goes well with my forgotten effortpost >>24936925left wingers are basically criminals who learned to read (although their arguments, which they only use to manipulate and intimidate, can always be reduced to "they are just as bad as us!"), that's why you see them arguing that primitive societies (i.e. theft, murder, & rape based) were "socialist" or "communist"
>>24936907No, not really. Our perceptions have changed for the worst, so did our approach to existence. It can be felt in art, in records, even in manner of speech of the older generations. Material comfort and safety are no substitute for substance.
>>24936975No, because those dudes aren't there: >>24936881.
>>24936983>polytheist spilled the beans alreadylol talk about premature ejaculation
>>24936988Well, it is how things go, anon. They move forward, monotheism had its time. Now, it is getting overshadowed by secularism, people are doing it without even noticing, they 'believe in God', but it is just a show without any actual substance. Peterson talks about that in his Maps of Meaning book, the God from the middle ages isn't the same as our God.
>>24936983You have to be a troll. I don’t think anybody can be this pedantically stupid
>>24936990Ahh, so conservatism is weak when it is anti something but when leftists are anti whatever, that's progress! Amazing.
>>24937000They are anti-something while doing something, anon. You are missing an important step on the revolution, that it is not a 360. You are going somewhere else.
>>24937005How do you define "something" because according do dictionary, everyone does something.
>>24937000>>24937005And this is why you guys always end up losing. And the reason why there are gays in conservative parties, and there will be trans in conservative parties in 20-40 years from now. You guys just don't get how reality works.
>>24937007>>24937008I have things to do at home, unfortunately, I'm not paid to lecture anons on 4chan. I'm sure you can figure this out considering that example that I just gave you.
>>24936437>more than half of posters are right wingers?@grok is that true?
>>24936982But you argued that conservatives never build anything, that they only criticize. One exception is already enough to disprove you.
>>24937014But they are exceptional, most people who entitle themselves as right-winger thinkers aren't doing any of that, they are mostly being anti-woke or whatever other shit leftists are doing.
>>24936979You are moving the goalposts.You argued>It has to be something new, mein Duden. They weren't influential, because someone beat them to it.They both qualify, since they do something extremely new and are extremely influential, both in academia and in real life.Also, Heidegger doesn't count because he died before 2001, but Foucault counts?
>>24936882>Are John Finnis, Milton Friedman, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Vermuele, Deneen and Anscombe left wingers or people who lived before this category existed?They were right-wing, but this thread seems to be about contemporary thinkers, not early 20th-century thinkers (who btw didn't represent the majority back then). And yes, Friedman is a contemporary right wing thinker >Deneen & Vermueletopkek the only time I hear about them is from the christian anon that keeps saying that the church will regain its former power on the Fukuyama threads. >>24936910Wordplay. It's not "wanting the same" but reverting or maintaining a specific order. That other anon is right too, the reason there's very little proper conservatives as intellectual thinkers is because they would find themselves in the position of denying that there any contradictions within society or that the current status-quo was "wrong" because it evolved from wrong premises.Now, it is a possible position, but it's hard to maintain.>>24936925lol, the classic "well they're paid with taxmoney so this explains why they're left wing"It's genuinely amazing that one could create such an effortpost to be wrong on literally everything that you said.>>24937018>Also, Heidegger doesn't count because he died before 2001, but Foucault counts?Kinda, Heidegger's theories were published in the early 1950s, whilst Foucault's relevance was mostly in the 70s. >>24936437Simple, the current intellectual paradigms relies on Hegelian logic, and hegelian logic works on contradictions. It doesn't take long for anyone with a minimum of knowledge to realize that there are some contradictions between Freedom and the Geist and traditional gender roles/capitalism etc. Whether or not this is right is another issue, but I would argue that the hegelian/marxist paradigms presuppose a progressive reading of history.
>>24937018They both count, anon, but are you actually counting? Can you work your sum? There aren't half as many as leftists. It is simple math, it should be simple to understand. And those aren't exactly contemporary thinkers either. Consider what thinkers are doing nowadays, and think for yourself. Why are you so butt hurt about this shit? Just move your ass instead of not doing anything. It is not that hard.
>>24937026>famous early 20th century philosopher John FinnisYou don't read philosophy. You are just an ideologue who tries to get points for your side.
>>24937039I just copied your greentext, I didn't bother specifically pointing out which were from the 20th centuries, and which were relatively minor thinkers with little influence
>>24937018But here is where things get messy, I don't think it makes sense to call Heidegger a 'right-wing', he was a literal nazi, he would despise all this Israel worshiping that happens with the right-wing nowadays. It is like I said on that example of Milton Friedman and gender politics, he would probably be ok with it considering that there is a lot of money to be made with it.
>>24936919Yeah man, as a conservative, I really want the current society to stay the same, trannies, niggers, pajeets et all.
>>24936437institutional captureeveryone below this post is coping and sucking huge amounts of cock.
>>24937042>John fucking Finnis>relatively uninfluential thinkerTell me you don't follow philosophy without telling me you don't follow philosophyOP is a retard.
>>24937026>lol, the classic "well they're paid with taxmoney so this explains why they're left wing"it's a classic because it's truethey are all state-funded and will do whatever those throwing them the scraps tell them to dosame for "artists"I'd say "let's cut funding to 0% for public education and arts/culture and let's see how many leftist philosophers remain then" but the funding was already cut, compared to cold war days, and we can see the consequences (i.e. what OP remarked)with USAID gone I don't think you'll be around for much longer either, "comrade"
>>24937014I'm not going to (you) ever fucking moron in this thread, but conservative is not the same as right wing in most contexts, despite these two terms being essentially meaningless and entirely contextual. >TO CLARIFY FOR RETARDSA Conservative = >A person who rejects the project of the French Revolution and does not believe society can be torn down and rebuilt by intellectuals along rational principles.>A Person who believes that society/laws/culture/institutions/etc as it is is the way it is because it is a projection-hologram of the inner collective unconscious, volksgheist, soul, culture, egrergore, group mind of the people, and therefore will resist and wriggle out of any legislative attempts to operate on it, in the same way a 20$ stock will dump back to 20$ after some whale pumps it to 30$. A conservative is not some who says "I HATE NIGGERS 4th REICH NOW!". That is a fundamentally progressive and left wing position, in the only sense that "left-right" means anything, because on the ground flour and most fundamental level, you're a Rousseauian/French-rever who believes he can rebuild society vs let things be decided by crowd-cultural wisdom.(This also makes the answer to OPs question obvious, "why come no conservative politcal phil!????" They reject the premise of the question, though some write anyway to pay the bills)
>>24937100Hey girl/fag/"PoC".So let's say you were over at a new friend's house for the first time. Everyone's hanging out, having a good time. But then, all of a sudden, you feel a rumble-rum in your tummy-tum. You wouldn't just let it rip right there, ruining your pants and your new friend's nice white couch and everyone's good time, would you? No, I don't think you would, because you're a kind and considerate person. You would excuse yourself to the appropriate space, in this case the bathroom, shit your pants in there, and then clean yourself up before you came back out.Well, the internet is like your new friend's house, and 4chan is kind of like your new friend's nice white sofa, and saying things like "tell me you [x] without telling me you [x]" is exactly the same thing as shitting your pants. You came in here and you took a big, fat, steaming Reddit right on our couch. What you should have done was excused yourself to the appropriate space, in this case the metaphorical bathroom of Reddit, and shit your pants in there.So the next time you feel a big stinky-stink like that coming on, go ahead and just fuck off immediately to Reddit. It's really not asking a lot, it's just common decency.Thanks in advance!
>>24937100Anon he does ethics and legal philosophy. These are not major domains.This is like me telling you that Hoppe is an influential thinker because he's a major figure within his own little niche of ancap, it's disingenuous. Or that Chadha is influential because she influenced Buddhism>>24937181>they are all state-funded and will do whatever those throwing them the scraps tell them to doIs that why most of them don't support the state or the administration, and why most of them often support public protest/demonstrations ?>with USAID gone I don't think you'll be around for much longer either, "comrade"Professors in the USSR actually did support the state all the time because they knew that their position depended on it. The current state of academia doesn't because the state wants them autonomous.
>>24936437why is bro so popular isn't his body of work limited to like saying that words are social constructs
who's gonna pay them? certainly not the private sector
>>24936660If you exist after the French Revolution it exists. No amount of subjectivism is going to change this.
>>24936845That’s a lot of words to avoid admitting that you’re a fascist.>The term "AntiFascist" is exactly what Derrida critiques with his deconstructionWhere specifically did he say this?
>>24937293>Is that why most of them don't support the state or the administration, and why most of them often support public protest/demonstrations ?Yeah the protest for George Floyd was lit! Why did yall miss the Covid ones? And why did state follow along with one but not the other?
>>24936664D.C. Schindler, Peter Simpson, Patrick Deneen.You could add, as being more well-received by the right and having ideas that run contrary to most of the left's heavy commitment to a metaphysics of brute difference and freedom as potency: Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, David Bentley Hart, etc.In fact, I would go as far as to say that traditionalism has thrived recently precisely because its intellectuals are simply superior to those in the dominant paradigms. It faced a serious uphill battle due to the fact that leftist ideology and mainstream conservative liberalism and neoliberalism (e.g., Reagan, Thatcher), as well as centrist liberalism (e.g., Fukuyama, Pinker) all have elements that make them opposed to it at an extremely fundamental level. And it's thrived in America despite core elements of Protestantism being hostile to it. Nevertheless, it has grown in influence, even if its popular culture instantiations often tend to be pretty hollow (this is true for all intellectual movements though). To be sure, it often gets blended into and corrupted by conservative liberalism, or gets coopted by fringe racist and nationalist ideologies that are themselves not very traditionalist outside of aesthetics, but strains of it resist this move very well. I cannot think of any mainstream liberal, conservative liberal, or leftist thinkers who are still publishing who can really stack up. Sure, Fukuyama and Zizek, or Harris and Denette, might stack up favourably against a pop star like Peterson (who is still more of a conservative liberal at heart), but I would say guys like Schindler are really a tier up or two. You'd have to go back to figures like Adorno to find someone as versatile and subtle in the now dominant camps.I think this is perhaps the reason the establishment studiously ignores them and when people want to write books on traditionalism they focus on Evola, or pop figures. In particular, Post-modernism and critical theory have been hit with devastating attacks on their genealogies and accusations of badly misreading (or just not reading) pre-Enlightenment thought, and then applying broad brush criticisms to dismiss it, while themselves still being beholden to a ton of Enlightenment baggage, and as near as I can tell the response to this has been to simply ignore it and hope the attack by more historically focused philosophers goes away. I did see one response to Nietzsche's "inventive" history of Christian thought that said it was ok if he was playing loose with the facts because he was involved in the mythopoetic and "play" and I think it's pretty obvious that this is abject sophistry. Clearly, if one is allowed to make up what one's opponents say, and construct one's own history, it is pretty easy to create "devastating" critiques.
>>24936437>more than half of posters are right wingthe vast majority of the guys LARPing as right wing online are just bored trolls trying to provoke a reaction out of people
>>24936437There are no right wing intellectuals just as there are no right wing artists. It's a contradiction in terms.
>>24936437>heh, see comrades, we have all of the intellectuals who write about trying to fix society with laws and policies, those idiots who reject the idea of fixing society with law and policies haven't written anything! clearly, we are superior!
>>24937702True.But if you try and point out to a communist that his argument is like comparing the number of Catholic biblical scholars to the number of atheist biblical scholars, and then saying therefore Catholics must be superior, he'll just get upset and start shitlfinging due to low IQ.
>>24937687/thread
>why are 20th ce sois/tiny hats and their 21st century disciples mostly leftists?
>>24936437>leftistMeaning?Hobbes for one is a dick rightwinger, but what do these terms mean again? This isn't pre-beheading of the French king anymore.The dichotomy is Freedom/Control
>>24937393>.C. Schindler, Peter Simpson, Patrick DeneenLiterally who?
Has anyone read Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments by Nathan Robinson?
>>24937746>The dichotomy is Freedom/Controlno, thats a proxy that both sides claim, while objectively> where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedomsatanists claim that their right to be faggots and not be talked down to for it makes them the free ones. the real sides are Jesus and satan
>>24939302I proudly say nigger for my lord and savior, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, with no shame and full confidence!
>>24939302the point of that meme, that facebook is gay and only worth interacting with for revenue, is by now generally understood, and only a few diners use it to post their daily specials
>>24936437Academia is an ivory tower.
Why does leftism as a political identity rely so heavily on external approval? There seems to be a pathological need for their favourite thinkers/artists to agree with themYou don't believe in your own primacy?
>>24936437Every caste strives to advance its power/position.>What prospect of advance does the capitalist system offer scribes?Nothing. Maybe 10k a year in book sales.>What prospects does a communist state offer a scribe under communism?Everything. Power. Resources. Women. A chair on the Central Committee.Scribes have been upset about their lot since their demotion after the decline and fall of the Catholic Church, when they were in a position to veto heads of state.
Another retarded faggot trying to gaslight this board into believing in the intellectual superiority of the left.
>>24936437>Direction brained idiot who probably thinks the modern conservatism found on Burke's principles is right wingUhhuh, so about those books you don't read and don't actually like...
>>24936437Because knowledge inevitably read to leftist beliefs. If you read history, you'll see that the conception of a nation state is very modern and that before it there wasn't a concept of unified nation and unified people with uniform traditions that were somehow traditional but any local powers, customs, flavours of belief existed. If you read more, you'll see there was never a concept of tradition, that everything changed, and that often the concept of tradition was used to introduce actual novelties into social systems (occultism, Buddhism after Theravada, Kabbalah, tantra being prime examples).If you read ethnography, you'll understand that what is taken as standard and traditional differs from culture to culture, that is amenable to change, and that all the traditions are actually learned behaviors, not something innate. And that is considered male and female standards (gender) may differ, too, and change with time. And that women tend and tended to get the short end of the stick.If you read linguistics, you'll see that language, its forms, and definitions of words, the meaning added to words, differed in different times, and continues to differ on the horizontal plane (dialects) and the vertical plane (lingo and slang). That there never was and there isn't a pure monolithic form of language that conveys meaning straight, without deviations. If you lean psychology, you may understand that what often is considered an individual, a citizen, is actually nothing more but rote learning of behaviours, of customs, and language, and that often it's less an act of learning as an act of submission to foreign power (state power).If you read wide enough, and are sharp enough, you will come to the same conclusions as postmodernist left leaning philosophers without touching them directly. Iirc, most fundamental postmodernist thinking came from a background o history studied, anthropology, linguistics.The problem with conservative, right wing, traditional thinking is that it relies on concepts that are dismantled through simple historical studies. It can't offer any solid rebuttal that isn't dismantled by simple academic reading.People here aren't that intellectual. They're just contrarians who don't understand that the reason they have a more or less comfy life is because of strong leftist policies that balanced the conservative leaning ones. It's a known fact that the best countries in Europe are countries with a strong left wing and strong left policies. And, even on /lit, the strongest critics of the left and postmodernist philosophy is>Niggers>Trannies>Homos>WomenAnd only then>Immigrants (why do immigrants immigrate to left leaning countries if they're such degenerate shitholes?)And, the obvious one, >Jews.As a last note, traditionalism is hardly traditional. Evola creatively reinterpreted occult material to support his worldview. Guenon did the same. In this sense, traditionalism is as modern as Theosophy and Crowley.
if anything post-structuralism's skepticist, empiricist bent evidences a conservative tendency.
>>24940104The reason you didn't make it far in life is not because you were born in Eastern Europe, nor because of your stupidity. It's not even because you're trying to compensate your stupidity with false erudition. It's because you're arrogant and stupid. The worst kind of stupid, because you'll only be corrected by trauma, if at all.
people without system are people without answer and don't worth taking them seriously
>>24940358>the system is the answerthe absolute state of this board
>>24940358thats the scary thing, derrida has system, he's almost autistically consistent in his rhetorics and techniques
>>24940358are you discounting my truth bb :3 kinda getting white male colonizer vibes from you who thinks objectivity is a valid frameworkeverything is a social construct even this enlightened conclusion
Philosophy is generally an intellectual, rational, and critical endeavor. Tradition does not subsist on intellect and reason. Philosophers are therefore typically out of step with the traditional inheritance of their society. Sometimes they even have to obscure their ideas for fear of persecution.
>>24940570even the tradition of being anti-tradition?
>>24936437Ahem... Hasty Generalization, False Dichotomy, Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem & Composition Fallacy. Checked and mate bruv.
Liberalism is making shit up according to your feelings, philosophy is doing that with a high level vocabulary. By its nature, if conservatism is adopting a working tradition you arent expected to "philosophize" about it you just do it cus it works. But all the definitions of these words have changed and none of it means what it did a hundred years ago. And as others pointed out, being locked in a left vs right binary inhibits thinking.
>>24940583no not that one. We just call it critical theory or marxism.
bump
>>24936810Plato is not a right or left wing thinker wtf?
by the end of his life derrida was discussing the ontological necessity of terrorism for the western state in a manner that can only strike a sycophant as genuine "leftist" in sentiment.
Political opinions are strongly influenced by class interests, the academics naturally support an ideology that says that we need to give total control over society to a vanguard of intellectuals in order to achieve utopia
>>24942192This anon knows.
>>24939270why doesnt fuckface post his arguments here? hiding in a book behind a paywall the most passive form of avoiding comments
>>24939421scribes have been directly in control since the faceless bureaucracy of judges became a thing, and the first act of judges was to create copyright to ensure revenue for politically correct scribes and prevent publication of non politically correct scribes
>>24940570prophets are required to be countercultural because the tradition is always in some way opposed to God. but theres a difference between an isaiah who advises an ok realm, a jeremiah who condemns a doomed realm, and an ezekiel who chastizes a stateless people. today is ezekiel times
>>24936437LOL
>>24936437Because of the modern Western Right follows quasi-Burkean liberalism, which has nothing interesting or novel to be said in its defense. Philosophers, who are incentivized to generate novel concepts for the sake of prestige and income, thus tend to lean towards Post-Marxist politics as a means to generate something new (or at least was new in the late 60s). Ironically, these same philosophers provided useful frameworks to those few on the Right who weren't satisfied with mere conservatism (Dugin, de Benoist, Milbank, Land, etc.).
>>24940104You wrote that whole wall of text just to make the le tactical nihilism argument. But why stop where you feel comfortable? Be honest and go all the way.
>>24936437This is straight up not true, and you only think that it is because of your Western bubble. Left wing thought is dominant in the West and China. That’s it. A majority the philosophers in the Muslim world are right wing af, as are the Hindutva/political Hinduism philosophers in India. Plenty of right wing Jewish, Buddhist and Sikh writers too in their native countries and in the diasporas.
>>24937008Conservatives are blissfully unaware of their role in the dialectic of the Left. Progressives will affirm some previously-unthinkable progressive position, conservatives will impotently attempt to negate it in favor of the status quo, progressives negate the attempted conservative negation through an academic and media campaign that resituates their position as "basic human rights", and conservatives reset their status quo to accept the progressive position as always having been "common sense". This will continuously repeat so long as conservatism continues to be the Right's Bantustan; the only way to beat the Left is to secede from the dialectical process altogether.
>>24942357It's much less clean than that irl. Reality swings both ways and there's as much in-fighting on the left as there are campaigns against the right. The pendulum swings both ways, it's just that the left constructs elaborate theories everyt time it does and the right feels slighted half the time.
>>24942350>leftist assumes Western particulars are universalMany such cases
>>24936437>right wang left wang is the only thing that matters>give us back our fukuyamyam!>we love liberalism!Sexual autoaffection = regular autoaffection. >we wuz liberals before it was cool?No it's all just masturbation. There's a cycle of symbolic, presence, and absence, and according to Derrida one more step and then it's just getting hard ons thinking about death and masturbating. That's it.>we get fukuyamyam back?I'm still not sure, for the kind of game theoretics he might be working on at the moment he likely is trying to figure out how to work irrationality in so he doesn't get sent all the way back to Kojeve. It's what I would do.>fukuyamyam!Damn right it's always been that way!
>>24936664All of them before 1870
>>24936881>Only 25 points for Nozick
>>24942633in what ways has Marxism at all challenged LiberalismLiberalism has absolutely triumphed over communism and the only thing that really poses a threat to it is virulent ultranationalist fascism
>>24942958You have alot of world building to do.
>>24942991please answer the question
>>24942995>no question markHow would I know if you asked a question?
>>24942999in what ways has Marxism at all challenged Liberalism?go ahead and answer
>>24943001You already gave yourself away. You get to find out when I do. Get back to making cobsons. If you can't show up with anything don't expect anything.
>>24943008I accept your concessionhey maybe some vantablack jungle ooze country will try communism again for 8 months before descending into a civil war so look forward to that
>>24943016Whatever works for you. I don't have time for you to sit around and deny the external world.
>>24943020again you have conceded, so I'm not sure why you're still engaging with me?
>>24943023You never showed up with anything. Why would I? If that's a concession to you then stop replying and go back to making cobsons.
>>24936664schmittevolajackie chan
>>24936437most philosophers are poor and poor people tend to be leftist (ressentiment)
>>24943025concessions within concessionsendless humiliation for you
>>24943078>nigga I'ze straight turditional. I'ze suck liberalism dick hard nigga. I don know nuffin. I'ze graduated polpill uni nigga, you just tell me which liberal dick to suck nigga. I'ze read Schmeeet nigga i'ze sucks every liberal dick. How you thank I gots ta be turditional tranhole tryin to figure out how to make bein turdy at all nigga. We'ze bein! Donna make me spam 2 mo weeks massuh. I'ze need dicks to suck now.Spam whatever you like. Your favorite dick to suck fukuyamyam might have 2 years before he has to scrap or just acknowledge his own nightmare contingency. Whatever that means to you means nothing to me. I already know you're a bitch.
>>24943187holy melty
>>24943202You responded to my post. Guess I struck a nerve.
>>24937332It's just a shitty label to try and group vastly different ideologies on many different topics. Why would anyone be so zogbrained as to accept such an oversimplification?>>24936793Only the lowest quality accept the label. Real people are more complex and real political philosophy is more complex than your faggot binary. I've met plenty of people who would be called leftist by some twitternigger like you yet they accept ethnostates and protectionism.
>>24936437Probably because you only read leftist academics and philosophers.
cuz communism was hip in the 20th century, and the soviet union was throwing around a lot of dough to support stuff that pushed their agenda.
>>24940104>postmodernist left leaning philosophersI understand leftist , but why post moder.why can't I use this thoughts to be a astral schitzo or whatever , that thinks everything is just the waves improving and I need to be connected to everyone by remote viewing on weed.this is all about making stuff wigily wobely right?
