/lit/ - Literature

>>10729319
>Marxism exists in continental thought as a fish in a barrel
t. Foucault

>>10729337
>Foucault
>Far right

>>10729319
Because you only hear about leftist philosophy.

Also, right-wingers tend to feel comfortable with being true to reality just thanks to common sense, so they usually don't feel the need to question things in order to deepen their understanding of the world, while on the other hand leftists have to constantly think in order to counter reality, therefore they do a lot of intellectual efforts (even if it drives them mad). You know, the stuff we call mental gymnastics. At least they do exercise.
That's why they have lots of thinkers and why counter-revolutionary thinkers are rare.

>>10729319
Because the "far right" dislikes new development and new ideas, and thus don't produce much philosophy.

>whomst've is Michel Foucault

>>10729319
Ivory tower, etc

>>10729352
>>10729356
This
The right like to stay in their own bubbles while the left try to bend the world around then

>>10729344
He didn't imply that.

>>10729380
Foucault isn't far right famalam

>>10729386
left-wingers are more than comfortable staying in their own bubbles as well. They'll criticize everything, true, but only from a predetermined stance of social humanity from which they are rarely willing to budge.

>>10729352
>don't feel the need to question things in order to deepen their understanding of the world

I don't see how you can possibly think this is a good thing

>>10729384
>why aren't there more intellectuals and academic working at the supermarket with me (there're only all these philosophers)
>IVORY TOOWEER!

>>10729394
He did, via the context of OP's posed question.
>>10729412
What does that even mean?

>>10729406
Your eyes might have seen the words on the page, but you failed to actually read them.

>>10729437
Then explain what you meant by namedropping Foucault.

>>10729416
Calm down my dude. Your post isn't very coherent but you seem upset by what I said.

>>10729462
>I'll dishonestly pretend not to have understood the perfectly clear meaning and finish him off with a "u mad"
Shouldn't you be on /b/?

>>10729414
The conservative is at comfort in his world. That is an ideal state of being. The leftist is fundamentally broken and retreats to the world of ideas to soothe his abnormalities.

>>10729485
No conservative can ever be at comfort with the world, because it will never for long remain what he thinks it should be like.

>>10729494
The conservative does not have a fixed view of what the world should be like. He is not a rationalist.

>>10729475
That post was a jumbled mess of two statements, neither of which seem to relate to what I originally said or the thread at large. It was then followed by a repeat of what I said but with all capital letters and extra letters added for emphasis. All of this in response to a two word post relating to a phenomenon that has been well documented over the last several decades in which professors who lean right feel stifled politically on university campuses because of their extreme minority status, especially in the humanities which this thread specifically focuses it's questioning.

>>10729517
You're right, he isn't a rationalist, but that doesn't stop him from being uncomfortable when things change.
>>10729530
>two short statements
>a jumbled mess
>one merely mentions the supposed ivory tower that you posted about, the other comments on what kind of anti.intellectual trash believes in such shit and why
>doesn't relate to what you said though
Is this a jumbled mess to you too, newfriend? Do the mean greentext arrows confuse you?

I was wondering to myself recently why Leftists happen to be so insecure and anti-intellectual and then it came to me that since the turn of the 20th century there hasn't been a single first-rate or original Leftist/liberal thinker.

Meanwhile Right-wing/reactionary thinkers have dominated nearly every single field of study from the 19th through mid-20th centuries-- philosophy (Schopenhauer, Nietzche, Heidegger), economics (Pareto, Veblen, Schumpeter), religious studies (Eliade, Jung, Schuon), literature (the modernists, Yeats, Joyce, Pound, Eliot, Pessoa, Nabokov), math, et cetera

I think the reason why the left-wing has become so antiquated and derivative is because they've simply ran out of fresh source material.

>>10729579
>Nietzsche
>Schopenhauer
>Right-wing

>>10729319
some people prefer actually doing things instead of telling others how things "should" be and what others "should" do.

>>10729587
Although Nietzsche was influential on both the left and the right, his work on morality and his disgust for egalitarianism places him within the right.

>>10729600
>His disgust for morality places him on the right
Are you for real

>>10729612
>his disgust for egalitarianism
yes

The intellectual and artistic classes were homogenized during WWII because the allies believed it was necessary to defeat fascism intellectually as well as militarily.

>>10729619
Being anti left is not enough to be classified as right wing, especially if you consider that he says many anti right things as well.
He's beyond the political compass.

>>10729579
I wouldn’t have called Veblen a ‘right wing thinker’...

Kant, Mill, Proudhon, Marx, Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Weber,

Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson, Dobbs, Sweezy, Galibraith,

More recently there is Rawls, Cohen, Taylor. Habermas etc

Frankly it’s always been the abundance, not the lack of ideas holding the left back.

>>10729319
I think you haven't read much philosophy if that's what you think. Many of the respected philosophers in the canon weren't explicitly political, and many wrote before your arbitrary left-right spectrum was created by a bunch of butthurt Frenchmen in the 18th c. Even the best Marxist and post-structuralist philosophers aren't even really left-wing (Deleuze, Baudrillard, Foucault, etc.) I don't know this meme is so popular around here, most like psuedo-communists like yourself reading a small bit of philosophy that suits your ideological taste and then being like HURRR ALL GOOD PHILOSOPHERS ARE LEFTWING HURRR DUMB RIGHT WINGERS CAN ONLY WRITE TOUCHY FEELY NO PHILOSPHICATIN. Was Plato left wing? Kant? Jesus christ you sound like a retard. Also: not far left ≠ far right.

>>10729319
And the most hilarious thing about Schmitt is that most of the productive development of his work has been carried out by people on the left.

>>10729352
You are correct, taking the world at face value, uncritically will make you a right winger. It’s only natural then that anybody who is in pursuit of the examined life is on the left.

>>10729678
Kant and Weber are not unambiguously left-wing. Other than Keynes and Galbraith you're scraping for many of these. Rawls is highly overrated and he's only as prominent as he is because he gives a respectable veneer to the popular liberal prejudices of university lecturers. Cohen and Taylor I will give you. Habermas is also occasionally useful.

>>10729695
>And the most hilarious thing about Schmitt is that most of the productive development of his work has been carried out by people on the left.
Schmitt's work doesn't require "development". What you mean is that the most useful bastardisations of Schmitt for the left have been carried out on the left. Whatever.

>>10729695
>And the most hilarious thing about Schmitt is that most of the productive development of his work has been carried out by people on the left
And Foucault's ideas have been best put into practice by neoliberals. It's a strange world.

>>10729695
>anybody who is in pursuit of the examined life is on the left
Not when they pursue truth.

>>10729600
>>10729671
He's an authoritarian.

>>10729771
Nietzsche is whichever the ideology the person reading him chooses to project on to him. There is an almost infinite number possible Nietzsche readings, why do you think his views are always so hotly contested in the academy and how left-wing and right-wing faggots both claim him.

>>10729786
where does he self-contradict this?:
>My philosophy aims at an ordering of rank: not at an individualistic morality. The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd -but not reach out beyond it: the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally different valuation for their own actions, as do the independent, or the "beasts of prey," etc.
or
>I have declared war on the anemic Christian ideal (together with what is closely related to it), not with the aim of destroying it but only of putting an end to its tyranny and clearing the way for new ideals, for more robust ideals- The continuance of the Christian ideal is one of the most desirable things there are--even for the sake of the ideals that want to stand beside it and perhaps above it-they must have opponents, strong opponents, if they are to become strong.- Thus we immoralists require the power of morality: our drive of self-preservation wants our opponents to retain their strength-it only wants to become master over them."

leftists who tried to co-opt him were re more dishonest than right wing interpreters

>>10729485
>The conservative is at comfort in his world.
because he is wilfully oblivious to anything that might discomfort him, doesn't question things because he's afraid the answer might be uncomfortable, and ultimately cares about being comfortable more than he cares about truth.

and then admits it as it it was a positive characteristic when on fact it is patently obvious to anyone paying any attention that he is being intellectually dishonest and insecure.

>>10729815
I think they're more selective than dishonest. Rigjt ignores other parts of his work too.

>>10729868
>because he is wilfully oblivious to anything that might discomfort him, doesn't question things because he's afraid the answer might be uncomfortable, and ultimately cares about being comfortable more than he cares about truth.
>and then admits it as it it was a positive characteristic when on fact it is patently obvious to anyone paying any attention that he is being intellectually dishonest and insecure.

glad you're self aware anon

>>10729319
>not the case in Lierature
It is though, sure you can find some right wing writers but you have to look for them. There's actually a real reason why its hard to write 'conservative' literature - one of the basic tenets of storytelling is the exploration of the reason/meaning/justification of a persons actions, if you believe a person life is largely abou personal chpices, what would you write about? There;s a quote from a writer about needing to be born with an inability to judge people for their own mistakes--that sort of humanization is the meat of a lot of narrative

>>10729720

>Schmitt's work doesn't require "development".

>politics by definition not conceivable in the interior
>voluntarism in terms of the friend/enemy distinction betrays an embarrassing lack of historical consciousness and is prima facie ridiculous
>pedestrian conception of the state

Schmitt's work definitely requires development, otherwise it falls apart at a minimum of scrutiny.

>>10729868
There is no truth-with-a-capital-t. All truth is contingent and historically conditioned. The leftist lives a delusion.

>>10729900
>conservatives lack intellectual empathy

>>10729900
>It is though, sure you can find some right wing writers but you have to look for them. There's actually a real reason why its hard to write 'conservative' literature - one of the basic tenets of storytelling is the exploration of the reason/meaning/justification of a persons actions, if you believe a person life is largely abou personal chpices, what would you write about?
holy fuck you're dense my man
>>10729904
this

>>10729896
>I know you are but what am I
this response has all the intellectual weight of a six year old in a school playground

>>10729485

>comfort is an ideal state of being

Bourgeois letzter mensch scum, get the fuck off my board

>>10729671
>he's beyond good and evil
damn..............

>>10729902
>politics by definition not conceivable in the interior
What?

>voluntarism in terms of the friend/enemy distinction betrays an embarrassing lack of historical consciousness and is prima facie ridiculous
What?

>pedestrian conception of the state
Pedestrian how? Let's have actual critique rather than hot air.

I get that you've read a few leftist fantasists who have tortured some kind of "original insight" out of a radical reading of a right-wing theorist they can't help but admire. That doesn't mean their blather makes sense or is a worthwhile development of Schmitt's profound thinking about politics and law.

>>10729917
no I didn't go and make that statement about all left-wingers because that would be stupid. How about not dismissing things you don't fully understand out of hand and stop projecting your own intellectual insecurity and dishonesty.

>>10729771
so was Stalin, would you call him right-wing?

>>10729904
>There is no truth-with-a-capital-t. All truth is contingent and historically conditioned.
conservative relativism, how interesting. I don't think I've seen that before.

>>10729946
cough heidegger

>>10729946
that's not a conservative idea though, even it fits with some interpretations of conservatism.

>>10729911
>>10729913
You fellas seem calm, rational, and make good points.

>>10729925
>dismissing things you don't fully understand
all I'm dismissing is the idea that it's possible to be both comfortable and fully aware of the world.

memes and frogs are more suited to conservative intellectuals

>>10729922

1: Politics is friend/enemy distinction. A people is constituted through this exteriority. This leaves no conceivable politics of the interior without fracturing the people and with this fracture the entire system falls apart.

2: What the words mean. Literally. You do not choose your enemies. Schmitt's conception that the sovereign constitutes the people by deigning who is enemy and who is not is ridiculous. Just as often, your enemies choose you. With that, the Hobbesian sovereignty on which it all rests fails, and the entire system falls apart.

3: Primarily a consequence of 1 and 2, but there is plenty of literature on the subject.

>I get that you've read a few leftist fantasists who have tortured some kind of "original insight" out of a radical reading of a right-wing theorist they can't help but admire. That doesn't mean their blather makes sense or is a worthwhile development of Schmitt's profound thinking about politics and law.

No you don't, and I haven't. I adore Schmitt's critical project, but saying his entire oeuvre is in no need of improvement betrays a blindness to his flaws that is both severely retarded and catastrophically counterproductive.

>>10729959
>Let me throw out some poorly worded "takedowns" of a conservative strawman I concocted
>wahh you guys are just making fun of me I wanna have an rational intellectual debate

You're worse cancer than the /pol/ and memerson fags.

>>10729337
Source?

>>10729965
>all I'm dismissing is the idea that it's possible to be both comfortable and fully aware of the world.
who said conservatives are comfortable? who is to to say you're not comfortable in your own worldview?
>>10729972
woah that's really funny guy cool insight you just had there

>>10729946
Relativism here does not mean "all things are valid" or some such nonsense. Everything is historically contingent and the unplanned, traditional produce of time should be nurtured because it embodies the collected wisdom of generations. This is Burkean or Oakeshottian conservatism 101.

>>10729946
Conservatism, and right wing thought in general, is more dependent on relativism than any brand of leftism. Today's leftism is highly dependent on moral realism and absolutism.

>>10729974
>Politics is friend/enemy distinction.
Politics is defined by the friend/enemy distinction. A linguistic equivalent of what you said would be something like "economics is profitable/unprofitable distinction". Not quite.

>A people is constituted through this exteriority.
Can we speak in English rather than continental mumbo-jumbo eg "exteriority"? I understand what you're getting at but the pseudo-intellectualism is unbearable.

>This leaves no conceivable politics of the interior without fracturing the people and with this fracture the entire system falls apart.
Schmitt is talking about politics in a decisive, existential sense. Of course domestic politics in a crude sense - elections, discussion, policy - can occur in Schmitt's framework. If it intensifies to politics in the existential sense, you get inevitable civil war. The United States in on that path today. This is just semantic nonsense.

>What the words mean. Literally. You do not choose your enemies.
No you don't because enmity is a consequence of incompatible ways of being or identities. An enemy threatens you in an existential way.

>Schmitt's conception that the sovereign constitutes the people by deigning who is enemy and who is not is ridiculous.
Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. In a time of crisis, an actor emerges who identifies the situation and solves it with force because power is logically prior to law and re-emerges when the restrains of law become irrational. It's not a person who actively "constitutes a people by deigning who is enemy" in times of peace. In times of peace, the identity of the sovereign is hidden or contested. The sovereign and the enemy exist as an extreme possibility upon which the rest of our political life is premised. You're reading this all much too literally. Schmitt is not a tedious philosopher of everyday life. Weimar was a trainwreck and he was preparing himself for its grim conclusion. His thinking applies in like circumstances.

>>10729424
>What does that even mean?
that leftists are as willing to refuse to consider some people as subhuman as rightwingers are willing to refuse to consider those same people as human

>>10729926
Unironically yes

>>10729579
>Veblen, Schumpeter
>right wing/reactionary

>While he (Schumpeter) agrees with Karl Marx that capitalism will collapse and be replaced by socialism

>As a leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, Veblen attacked production for profit.

>>10729319
Nietzsche was the most influential philosopher from the 19th century and the most read philosopher in the 20th century. He's not far left. So, what are you basing this on?

>>10730074
OP is likely basing it on existentialist and postmodernist philosophers of the 20th century

>>10730068
Wikipedia - always the finest way to gather a nuanced understanding of an intellectual's political views!

Lets be honest, in conservatives own terms - they just have low IQ's. The fact that a mediocrity like Peterson is their Lord tells you something.

>>10730092
But they all read Nietzsche. Even today, despite what the French wrote about in the 20th century, there is a bigger influence from Nietzsche.

Look at this thread, even dummies on 4chan talk like Fox news pundits. There's no substance to anything. 'You're dumb (insert meme) lol' or something solely party political. Theyre empty headed people.

>>10729319
Because people with far right philosophy have jobs. Meanwhile leftists create self-replicating ideological bubbles like academia because they would be homeless otherwise. No skin in the game, read Taleb.

>>10730143
Gabish?

>>10730132
As far as this thread is concerned, that doesn't seem exclusive to any political orientation.

>>10730131
that doesnt lessen those french marxists prevalence in academia

>>10730132
>LMAO it's just like fox news
>I'm not empty headed at all look at me

>>10730196
Okay, but academia =/= philosophy, OP should have specified.

>>10730231
Philosophy doesn't exist independently of academia today, and you know it.

>>10730255
Not true at all. In fact, the only place it exists is outside academia.

>>10729319

Why wouldn't people abandon this?

>>10730268
if you think that was really made by antifa then you're about as dumb as /pol/ hopes most people are

>>10730303
You're right, but it does sound like something that someone on the trve left would say even if they wouldn't put it on a poster.

>>10730311
They'd say "stop being white" instead. Ethnonationalism is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not done by whitey.

>>10729983
>who said conservatives are comfortable?
>>10729485

>who is to to say you're not comfortable in your own worldview?
I constantly question my worldview and it is in a constant state of development, and this process involves a fluctuating level of comfort, often an increase in discomfort as I realise that something about my worldview contradicts the world as I observe it, and then a return to a relative comfort as I adjust my worldview to fit that observed world, and so on.

there is also a constant undercurrent of discomfort which is broadly existential.

>>10730317
you realize how hypocritical you sound? I like to think of myself as similar hence I don't dismiss entire schools of thought that I haven't read with shitty strawmen

>>10730311
>but it does sound like something that someone on the trve left would say
no it doesn't

>>10730257
>the only place it exists is outside academia
that's not true but you're right in that any proper philosophy department (i.e. in the anglo world) isn't contaminated by it

>>10729319
hmm

>>10730315
They'd probably just say that because they conceive of whites as the dominant group. Eliminating whiteness would eliminate blackness to the desired extent.

>>10730331
I was specifically responding to the poster who said
>right-wingers tend to feel comfortable with being true to reality just thanks to common sense, so they usually don't feel the need to question things in order to deepen their understanding of the world
which I think is indeed a characteristic that is common to most conservatives, and it is a very bad way of constructing a worldview. if you question things in order to deepen your understanding of the world then I've not said anything to criticise you.

>>10730385
>which I think is indeed a characteristic that is common to most conservatives, and it is a very bad way of constructing a worldview. if you question things in order to deepen your understanding of the world then I've not said anything to criticise you.
I'm not a conservative by any means but I've come around to understanding their perspective by questioning my previous left wing assumptions. Stop generalizing most "conservative" thinkers. In a sense the "right" is becoming more and more counter-cultural in a way that wouldn't have been possible until at least the advent of modernity. If most Conservative thinkers just said "it's muh common sense" that would be retarded I agree. Question all your assumptions and don't blindly put yourself and others in arbitrary categories. I wish most left-wingers I know would actually try on some Burke for size without dismissing it beforehand. Try it out you might even enjoy yourself.
>bad way of constructing a worldview
>implying there is a good one

>>10730367
>They'd probably just say that because they conceive of whites as the dominant group. Eliminating whiteness would eliminate blackness to the desired extent.
That might be their rationalization, but in the meantime they're just blatantly pro-black nationalism, identity etc. And not just for blacks, but Latino's and Asians as well. With all this focus on identity, they have no one to blame for white identitarians but themselves.

>>10730413
this was a helpful answer actually.
also there are lots of leftists who also don't question their worldview and I would be equally critical of that.
I do still object to the original post I replied to.

>bad way of constructing a worldview
>implying there is a good one

there are certainly better or worse ways to construct a worldview.

>>10730465
>there are certainly better or worse ways to construct a worldview.
t. ideologue

>>10729900
>sure you can find some right wing writers but you have to look for them
>t.s. eliot
>you have to look for them

>>10730546
so "it's muh common sense" is just as good as "Question all your assumptions and don't blindly put yourself and others in arbitrary categories."?

>>10730464
Black nationalists aren't part of the political left even is they have some common ground. They're mostly opposed (think Dubois v. Garvey).

>>10729771
>He's an authoritarian.
>Nietzsche
No, anon. Likewise calling him right wing because he calls on tradition to dismiss it is a fool's errand. He's at best so far off left that the left won't acknowledge him, but the idea that he's for authorities is patently off course. He hoped that we'd get rid of grammar because it was as bad as being Christian.

>>10730942
No, but they are part of the radical left, and therefore they are also part of antifa.

>>10731061
>So far off left
>an anti-democrat and anti-egalitarian
pick one

>>10729926
Josef Stalin was nazbol

>>10729319
Because Leftism is probably seen as the easier sell for publishers and publicists, ironically causing Marxism to win via Capitalism.

>>10731394
nazbol is still leftism

>>10729356
Lol the left doesn’t have a single Carlyle or Nietzsche

>>10729485
This right here. There is no point in human history at which it there were more rights and easier living. Therefore, only the least competent retreat into the universities. They can’t distinguisg themselves by any other means.

>>10729579
Don’t forget Borges, Mencken, Fitzgerald

>>10729587
>racist authoritarian skeptical of enlightenment
>le moderate nietzsche

>>10729352
extreme self-own
>>10731549
Nietzsche isn't a right winger you stupid fucking nigger he shit on nationalism and racialist thought over and over, going so far as to call the Germans brutes, unworthy, lesser people.
>>10731394
>made up ideology
wow yeah man he must have been that and not an M-L wow crazy how you can just claim people posthumously and then obfuscate what they really were
>>10731537
its not a real ideology, its has no fucking adherents outside of Russia and online in the West

there are no Nazbol rallies, there are neo-nazi rallies with people pretending to be Nazbols tho. They align themselves with the right wing, they're just Nazis who wish Capitalism was nicer to white people

>>10729671
He says nothing anti-right. Maybe anti-conservative.

>>10731585
Nietzsche was a racialist and not all right wingers adore nationalism. You read a few of his writings in defense of Jews and thought he was on your side lmao

>>10731586
he shits on racialist thought, shits on nationalism over and over again. In every single one of his major works he goes out of his way to talk badly about Germans, nationalism, anti-semitism etc. He hated Jews and equality, he also fucking despised the German hierarchy and would've resented Hitler

>>10731596
He disliked the Germans because he was a racialist. He thought the race had weakened.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>10731594
no he absolutely was not a racialist at all, he exalts the French and Italians as the greatest cultures on Earth but doesn't go on and on about them being biologically distinct from other peoples. He never at any point defends Jews at all, there is not a single passage in his works that is not either an insult or a backhanded compliment, he was a firm anti-Semite and I accept that and have no desire to change that. He was not a racialist at all. He says "we Europeans" not any race, just "we Europeans". If you mean he thought niggers were dumb, of course, that doesn't make him an Alfred Rosenberg racialist or a Nordicist.

>>10731585
>>10731585
fuck you nigger it's a real ideology just because you're ignorant does not mean that it does not exist

>>10731600
No, he disliked them because he thought they were fucking pathetic: he shits on them for participating in the Crusades, shits on them for Martin Luther, shits on them for being weaker than the Romans (who he adored), shits on them for being Idealists, shits on them for being nationalists, he repeatedly over and over again has nothing but evil things to say about Germans and Jews. Those are the two groups he goes out of his way to insult. He calls them brutes, even speaking about the Vikings he calls them dumb fucking brutes and compares them unfavorably to the Romans and Greeks who he thought of as noble types.

>muh left vs right

>>10731612
Politics really is garbage.

>>10731606
its not a real ideology its just an excuse to say nigger and hate Jews and steal ideas from M-L's who you can't stand because its a fucking stupid belief system. You are Nazis LARPing as Marxists and its unbelievably embarassing. Everyone who is Nazbol is just a Nazi who prefers soviet aesthetics. You are guilty of all of the sins of the Right Wing by default. There is nothing redeemable about Nazbols. Dugin is a fucking hack traitor to the Left and unusable moron for the right wing you should fucking kys

>>10731608
He praised the Jews for being the "purest" race in Europe. Shitting on politics doesn't mean he didn't take race into consideration also.
>Romans and Greeks who he thought of as noble types.
He praises those two groups all the time for having achieved a state of racial strength.

>>10731585
Fucking self owned binch!! LOL corn cobbed! xD hey do you have a twitter account too anon?

>>10729695
Please get off this site, le epic deep thinker child. The norm for not thinking at all in modern society is somewhere between neoliberalism and welfare-prog. Plus analytic philosophy, micro econ (and to an extent macro), lots of political theory is more significantly right wing than it is centre-left-- e.g. nozick and menger are obviously more thorough, and receive more attention, than rawls or richard Wolff or w/e. You're really embarrassing yourself.

>>10729424
>What does that even mean?
Are you fucking illiterate? Can you read?

Why do left wingers always do this online? "LOL, uh... . what sweetie?" etc. etc.
You sound repulsive as fuck.

>>10731549
Nietzsche isn't right or left and to think that he is shows how little you understand about his philosophy. you probably just think MUH WILL TO POWAH = republican 'freedoms'

>>10731612
Seriously.
>hey guys what if we gave arbitrary ratings to every political position and then weighed people according to those numbers? that sounds like a great way to identify the groups people belong to, and I need to sort people into groups because what am I worth without my tribe?

>>10731624
yes that was a backhanded compliment, he absolutely did not mean it as some form of praise towards them
>reasserts incorrect argument
>He praises those two groups all the time for having achieved a state of racial strength
no he praised them for having the highest level of culture and excellence in human history, for embodying strength and wisdom, for being life affirming cultures and for being healthful, vital and domineering, irreverent and ARISTOCRATIC. He did not praise them in the same terms that you are. He was not thinking about them in the same sense that a nordicist was. You can keep trying to graft your understanding of race from Rosenberg, Haufhoser and Lanz onto Nietzsche but he would reject it as idealist. Any race could pick up this mantle of power, as long as they were life affirming and Evil. This was his criterion for being noble. The Germans he saw as moralists, as brutish fucking animals who could be led around by higher types of mankind (Rome). Nietzsche hated Germanic culture, all of it, the only parts that he had respect for were their ancient habits of raiding other peoples and being beautiful and violent. Outside of this he had nothing but disrespectful things to say about their entire history, his comments about the Vandals are not kind, he praises them and then denigrates them for being dumb fucking swine who ruined rome, then at every single stage of their development beyond the Fall of Rome its just endless vitriol for the Germans. In The Anti-Christ, in BGE, in Zarathustra and in Twilight of the Idols he shits on them. He does the same thing for the Jews. He despised these peoples. Again, his favorite humans were the Romans specifically and then the Greeks, the renaissance Italians and the Enlightenment/Baroque (really just the Baroque) French. This is why he breaks into Latin, Italian and French so often in his writings. He hated the English too, another Germanic people.

Germans are a civilization of followers, he realized they were slavish in this sense. Jews are a civilization of priests and they were of a bad conscience in this sense. He thought the Italians were going to be a domineering force in European politics and this never came to be. I don't know exactly how he would've reacted to Hitler considering how old he would've been at that point, probably would've died before the cult of Hitler got as large as it did in '38 but if we can look at Spengler, who studied N closely, its very clear he probably would've been repulsed by it and called it garish, ostentatious, pretentious, and another example of moralist Germanicist servility. He wanted Rome, not Berlin. I'm sure if there was a Hitler type who was not so antithetical to a good spirited life in Italy he would've supported them. Napoleonic types are the one's he admired, secularized materialist authoritarians who of genius. Hitler was an idealist demagogue

>>10731644
Leftists like to act dismissive and smug. It's just in their dna

>>10729319
Because any far right wing rhetoric had been mercilessly suppressed history in order to make suicidal egalitarianism, like liberalism for example, more attractive.

>>10731660
>beleives in aryan replacement theory
>calls jews the purest and strongest race in europe
>says Germans have too much pre-aryan blood
>yes that was a backhanded compliment
I'm not reading the rest of this lol.

>>10731670
In history*

>>10729406
Foucault is far-right philosophy written in vaguely Marxist terminology so it could be acceptable in Paris.

He is the true heir of Joseph de Maistre.

>>10731671
you're fucking retarded anon

>>10731691
Sorry, there's just no reason to think it was a backhanded compliment. You're contorting things in order to fit them into your pet theories.

>>10729946
Conservatives developed relativism, at least in the context of Western philosophy. They did so in reaction to the liberals of the Enlightenment who believed society worked according to the same precision as Newtonian mechanics, and was able to be engineered as such through reason.

Marxists were not much different, with the difference they believed that whatever change in society was the result of rigid laws based on economic relations. Only conservative thinkers like de Maistre, Chateaubriand, Ranke, later taken up by Schmitt and Heidegger and through them imported to the so-called left.

Even economic protectionism which is favoured by European leftists has its roots in the conservative economic romanticism of Adam Muller, who influenced Friedrich List and the historical school of economics.

By any objective standard, much of what passes as "left-wing philosophy" and economic policy in the modern world is conservative, while what is being promoted as conservative, such as free-markets and philosophical universalism, is originally radical, liberal and progressive.

>>10731686
How on earth could you think Foucault is far right? Liberal, sure, but far right?

>>10731772
See >>10731741

He takes on the relativism and hostility towards reason from the original conservatism of the Counter-Enlightenment. He is much closer to being a far-right, ultra-conservative thinker in this regard than a liberal, at least in the European sense.

>>10731827
But he himself associated with far left groups all the time.

Who needs left-wing philosophers when these guys found the truth?

It really is telling how disgusting Marx and his ilk are as human being and their kind of sub-human levels of humanity bleed into their written works with the stench of a stroganoff filled log of shit. Fuck Germans.

>>10731886
I'm talking more about the content of philosophy than the political activity. Bill Kristol associates with right-wing groups, but his work is by any objective standard leftist.

>>10731933
If Bill Kristol is a bad example, he is not a philosopher, but a journalist, I could mention Leo Strauss as another example of leftist thinker who associated with right-wing groups during his lifetime.

>>10731927
Weak bait
Go fuck yourself

>>10731956
Left-wing intellectuals are disgusting and their ideas are disgusting. Right-wing guys like these are decent human beings with profound insight into the human condition and society.

You can call it bait, I call it transcendenal truth.

Kek

>>10729671
>He's beyond the political compass.
This is where the discussion on Nietzsche should have ended. He didn't preoccupy himself chiefly with the political; his musings are philosophical, which is apolitical by nature.

This thread:
>Right wingers don't do philosophy cuz they dum
>left winger do philosophy cus they dum
>roght wingers actually do philosophy

>How come far left philosophy is much more prevalent than far right philosophy?

For the same reason left wing sentiments are more common in civil servants/government workers and right wing sentiments more in rural populations.

>>10731278
>democracy is left
Nigga did you even the Greeks?
>the left is egalitarian
No, you would need a system in place to make things equal, which would impede natural liberty

If you think democracy and egalitarianism are far left, you should know you're probably retarded.

>>10732025
How about....conservatives and regressives both have disgusting histories and the only pure thread of light through history ran through the enlightenment, into the age of liberalism and then manifested itself as Libertarianism.

Therefore, left and right wangoz are pathetic and should be ashamed of themselves.

>>10731623
lmfao

>>10729485
>The conservative is at comfort in his world.
Utterly false. Only dumb people are comfortable. Read Evola, ride the tiger faggot

Leftism is a political position that works for someone who is intellectually concerned with ethics, whether or not they are actually an ethical person. Philosophy takes a lot more effort than religion does in explaining ethics, because it rarely appeals to god or tradition to answer questions. Both are against the spirit of philosophy. Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, who are probably the most sophisticated and significant ethical philosophers (though this fact isn't known to people who receive simplified summaries of their conclusions without their arguments, hoping to receive quick and easy ethical advice), never directly appeal to tradition or religion to explain ethics. Since skepticism is a common thread through philosophy, this is no surprise. That appeals more to the left, who wants to tolerate people of every religion (perhaps other than their own), and who also want lifestyles contrary to western religion (which is generally young people, who are also generally leftists).
This carries over to political philosophy, which for the most part isn't left or right wing at all, these being modern terms. Political philosophy, being speculative, concerns itself usually with how things should be, and how that could be achieved. This is much more of a progressive activity than a conservative or reactionary activity, since it is concerned with what is good or just in general, and with restoring or maintaining some present or lost goodness or justice. The eternal or objective justice or goodness that philosophers think about drives them to be perceptive to where it is currently and historically lacking, and desire them in the future.
It's hard to find a place on the right or even the center when you can never be completely satisfied with how just or good the world has ever been.

>>10732262
>Evola
>Conservative

>>10729319
https://heterodoxacademy.org/research/

>>10732276
You know damn well the word is used as against the left for the purposes of this thread and arguments, not the narrow anglo-american definition, so keep your retard meme faces to yourself you insufferable faggot.

>>10730465
>this was a helpful answer actually.
No problem friend, and I agree there are probably better and worse ways of constructing a worldview.

>>10732276
Well he did want to conserve and bring back the aristocracy....

>>10730603
that's some other guy not me, I think your reply was reasonable anon, this is me >>10732300

>>10732292
If you didn't have a room temperature IQ you would realize that this doesn't apply to the comment you (he?) replied to, imbecile.

>>10731549
>Nietzsche
>Right wing

>>10729579
the economics part is wrong though, it has been left leaning for at least a century, all modern respectable economists are social democrats, only exceptions is picrelated and mankiw maybe, who slightly deviate

>>10732262
Wrong, go cultivate your Garden.

>>10729691
I'd argue political philosophy is vast majority socialdemocratic(dworkin/rawls), if not socialist (cohen)

>>10731927
austrian economics debunked (redpill overdose)
TRIGGER WARNING: FACTS AHEAD!!

tl;dr
>gold standard is unstable and not a viable currency, susceptible to fraud and dependent upon mining
>they are openly anti-scientific, rely on "praxeology", they are philosopher at best
>dumb ideology funded by koch brothers think tanks (CATO) to convince ignorant armchair economists
>every prediction they had is proven wrong
>they business cycle theory is wrong
>they don't use scientific method, no maths, no statistics, nothing, just speculation
>only used as political rhetoric by ron paul to rile up his gadsen-flag hillbilly voterbase
>all of peter schiff's predictions are wrong, he has been preaching doomsday for decades
>mainstream economics agrees with less than half of their policy
>literally no respects austrian economists today, abandoned as early as 1950's
>only good thing to come out of it was Hayek, who wasn't even Austrian since he rejects praxeology. He contributed to price theory, and added to the socialist calculation problem. Also his philosophy is superior and way more nuanced compared to mises/rothbard.

>>10732454

top global econ journals, ZERO positive austrian results, all negative! outdated! wrong! pseudoscience!

https://academic.oup.com/qje/search-results?page=1&q=austrian&fl_SiteID=5504&allJournals=1&SearchSourceType=1
https://academic.oup.com/restud/search-results?page=1&q=austrian%20economics&fl_SiteID=5508&allJournals=1&SearchSourceType=1
https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/mac/search-results?within%5Btitle%5D=on&within%5Babstract%5D=on&within%5Bauthor%5D=on&within%5BjelCode%5D=0&journal=6&q=austrian+economics
https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/jep/search-results?within%5Btitle%5D=on&within%5Babstract%5D=on&within%5Bauthor%5D=on&journal=3&q=austrian+economics

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_economics
ihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_neoclassical_synthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_consensus_of_economics
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220480309595230
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.nl/2017/04/economics-is-inexact-science.html
https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/39717/Master-Thesis-Nicolas-Bernerman.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1530995
https://recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com/top-ten-austrian-economic-lies-and-mistakes/
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/top-ten-lies-and-mistakes-of-austrian-economics/
https://hallingblog.com/2015/09/08/praxeology-an-intellectual-train-wreck/
https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/search?q=austrian&restrict_sr=on
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138469

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/marketfailures.html
https://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/introductory/marketfailures.pdf
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1py0a8/eli5why_is_the_gold_standard_bad_feel_free_to/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/eej.2012.32

>>10732404
>all modern respectable economists are social democrats
>mankiw "slightly deviates" from social democracy

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

>>10732458

you are getting (((nosed))) lolberts
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21711504-his-theory-management-inspired-austrian-school-economic-thought-worked-wonders

want to learn REAL economics? no problem, open source PDF book
https://openstax.org/subjects/

Blogs (neurtal-center right)
http://marginalrevolution.com/
https://uneasymoney.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/blogs
http://econlog.econlib.org/

>>10732465
you got me, he actually is an anarchist

>>10732474
Really though, I have no idea what you mean. Economists these days tend to be very market oriented but do support regulations to varying degrees. They all are fine with some welfare provisions and virtually all favor free trade. They are not exactly social democrats. Just because they are not full-blown laissez-faire doesn't make them social democrats.

>>10729319
because most philosophers are, like leftists, daydreamers. that's way.

>>10732492
Oh god, you are one of THOSE, aren't you?
Unironically reads naomi klein/david harvey/nancymclean and other conspiracy theorists. MUH ECONOMISTS DESTROY GIBS, EBIL CORPORATIONS FINANCIAL CREISES TRICKLE DOWNTOWN!111

>>10730341
>that's not true
What philosophers did the academic institution of the last century produce that weren't massive pseuds?

>>10732501
No, I lean towards the free-market and market solutions end of things, except in that I support environmental regulations. I think that's what makes the most sense and is in the most contact with reality. I am definitely not a fan of Naomi Klein.

>>10732521
Not the anon you're arguing with, but you should check out government bottle necking with regulations and licensing.
tl;dr, government creates regulations, private business adapts to it, takes it off the hands of government, government losses administrative and overall power, private interest becomes noncompetitive because too many industry standard licenses for average people to start businesses.

>>10729352
The purpose of this post is ideologically motivated

>>10729319
Leftists are a complete joke as intellectuals.

They act literally like Puritan lunatics at the mere mention of racism. So much for 'radical questioning of taboos', bunch of fucking lemmings

>>10729319
I don't think there's such a thing as 'left' or 'right' philosophy. Philosophy is philosophy.

>>10732501
>economics destroys gibs
no economics is a pseudo science that’s used by the owner class to justify massive transfers of wealth from labor to capital
>occupy downtown
we should have gone a lot further than that

>>10732310
Yes it does, you -100 IQ

>>10731703
you should never be allowed to read N, no one from the right wing or left has anything in common with him

>>10729946
Conservatives are just slow liberals; progress of the short bus.

>>10732539
I am aware of the ill effects of licensure systems. I mostly only support regulations for environmental protection, externalities, and possibly some in finance a la Taleb. I think these are cases where regulations actually make sense. I am extremely wary of licensure systems, "safety" bureaus, government required employee healthcare, and so on.

>>10732560
but Marxism isn't a pseudo-science of course. it's totally legit

>>10731061
This is an important consideration, a lot of the best thinkers on the Left are actually hated by most of the Left. There is no unified Cultural Marxist Cadre, and in fact many have been attacked in the same ways we see randoms attacked in MeToo, or how the Right dismisses people for not being white enough.

>>10731927
Nihilist Zionism is for edgy 14-year-old youtubers.

>>10732560
>2018
>being a marxist

>>10732454
Your memes aside for a moment, what will you say when the next crash comes and its in fact worse than the GFC?

Somehow I doubt you will admit Peter was right (despite his 2nd Peter was right video being on Youtube), I think you would make many excuses for why Austrians and "gold bugs" are still wrong.

They call this the backfire effect I believe.
Did you know that the Fabian Socialists decided to help the neo-cons push Keynes into the mainstream as a midpoint for Socialism?

I would feel sorry for people like you holding us back, keeping us in chains if it weren't so disgusting and cowardly.

>>10732568
>"Nietzsche doesn't care about race"
>"You should never be allowed to read my God Nietzche"

>>10729517

>The conservative does not have a fixed view of what the world should be like.

>He is not a rationalist.

That would make him an idealist not a rationalist.

The conservative tries to solve problems at the root, the leftist tries to impose his idea of how the world should be based on his "morality" and never really solves the problem, the leftist talks and tries to change society by force and through movements and cults, the conservative works and tries to change society through cooperation and self sacrifice (not in the sense of selflessness). The conservative is pragmatic, the leftist is idealistic.

>>10730255
Anglo-American academic philosophy is engaged with drastically different philosophers than those favoured by the humanities in general

>is [non-political figure] a [political alignment that did not even exist during said figure's lifetime]?

>>10729565
>still arguing the formatting and not the content of the post
Does constructing an argument confuse you?

>>10729319
politics isn't real dumbass

right wingers are usually busy WORKING

>>10729671
>He's beyond the political compass.
Daaaamn bro. So you're basically saying he's, not good nor evil? Pretty deep stuff.

>>10733545
Hey boomer

Modernity tends always further left on the rails of democracy and capitalism. The death of God, materialism, consumerism, scientific obsession, over-study of oppression, all of these are intertwined and share roots. I just want to see them plucked and the earth salted

>>10729319
Because right wing "literature" is write from a place of privilege; it's always nothing more than a justification of why the author/author''s group deserves to dominstead others. It's not academic in any respect. It's thinly viewed trickery

The left is the camp of science, reason, and truth. There is no argument against socialism that cannot be attributed to the arguers wish to dominate. Period.

Right wing philosophy isn't less prevelent, it literally doesn't exist. The search for truth is inherently left wing.

>>10729319
Right-wingers are boring and care only partially about the arts, or life. They are set on their beliefs because it works for them.

>>10729972
>memes and frogs are more suited to conservative intellectuals
so right wing gramscians you mean

>>10730132
>how to add nothing while still trying to sound smarter, the shitpost

>>10730367
>They'd probably just say that because they conceive of whites as the dominant group. Eliminating whiteness would eliminate blackness to the desired extent.
but the left is strengthening whiteness, they just are strengthening the category while putting a "bad" label to it, which makes it much easier for the extreme right to change that label from "bad" to "good" once the category has been established by the left

>>10735671
Imagine being this moronic

>>10729416
I genuinely believe that anyone into practical ethics or political philosophy should not live too distant from such experience.

>>10735671
Classic leftist chicanery. Fact of the matter is that you leftists desire domination just as much as anyone else, but you slickly try to hide it. The historical record does not lie, however. I'd rather have politics with an honest rightwinger than a sly leftist.

>>10735671
>Because right wing "literature" is write from a place of privilege;
This is extremely funny, because almost all major leftist thinkers are/were rich academics who enjoyed fame and fortune.

>>10735889
Doubly amusing because every example of leftist states employed domination and violence just as ruthlessly as any rightwing dictator.

Anyone slightly right wing gets forced out of their department, funding removed, pestered constantly by snowflake students. The left can't handle an intelligent person who disagrees.

>>10729900
worst post of the day

>>10729319
The Left favors philosophy, the Right favors aesthetics.

>>10735946
Aesthetics is a part of philosophy. There are plenty of left wingers who worked on aesthetics and there are also plenty of right wingers who have worked on metaphysics, political philosophy, ethics etc.

>>10735946
It's the other way around

>>10729319
>How come far left philosophy is much more prevalent than far right philosophy?
When you say far left, do you mean solely Marxists? Feminists/identity politics people? Anarchists? People like Chomsky? Left-wing (i.e actual) National Socialists? When you say far right, do you mean hypercapitalists? Fascists? Ethnonationalists? Far right and far left are used to describe anything that is not liberal capitalism. To answer your question though, it's because the far right typically already has their worldview for the most part expressed. What more can be said about the topics and principles laid down, besides how they might pragmatically be applied to a current society? The far left has no such luxury, and within the space of egalitarian and anti-egalitarian leftism there are so many competing standards and identities vying for power that works can be written from each of them individually. You won't get ahead in philosophy by rewriting Hobbes, no matter how accurate he might have been.
>You have exceptions like Heidegger and Schmitt
Heidegger was not "far right"; you are ignorant regarding National Socialism, which I would say is beyond right and left, though if I had to place it within those two, I would be characterize it as a radical leftist platform. The association of "nationalism" with the right-wing was not always the case; many of the European nationalist movements sought to unite with anyone who could understand the language of a nation and thus could gain similar values and culture.

>>10729319
Far right philosophy was appropriated by the far left. Things are almost indiscernible now. Nietszche is far right or far letf?

>>10735946
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, and without ontology, epistemology, logic, ethics its fucking useless

Because far right philosophy is awful

>>10731648
>right=conservative
Yeah I’m sure the racist authoritarian would agree with you lmao

>>10732788
>(you)

Because people on the left side of the spectrum are sitting around thinking about shit while people on the right are busy working.

If you refuse to make vast all encompassing bullshit theories about the world then you get selected out of political philosophy in academia.

>>10738579
This. I studied political philosophy as an historian at Cambridge and there were a few moments - studying property rights for example - where almost all the set literature is leftist in orientation because the one or two pieces of right-leaning writing are so adequate that nothing else is really worth saying. The leftist masturbates with ideas at public expense.

>>10740228
What are your political views yourself? And what pieces of literature are "adequate"?

Tell me about some essential right wing literature so I can form my own opinion instead of reading through this thread.

>>10740434
I'm a conservative but I don't take political philosophy too seriously and don't strain myself overmuch to enforce some naive ideal of ideological consistency. I like Oakeshott.

I can't remember which pieces I read for the political philosophy of property rights. This was many years ago. But I did get the sense that these reading lists are loaded with leftists because each left-wing participant in the debate is trying some different kind of mental gymnastics while the conservative position is generally established by walking straight forward.

>>10740463
Is it true that most french philosophers (especially political theorists) are regarded as incredibly obscurantist and obtuse, and interest in them is therefore dying out?

>>10740470
In modern social and political philosophy, yes. I barely studied any of them. Foucoult seemed to be the only one worth reading. Obviously Montesquieu, Rousseau, Sieyès, Tocqueville etc remain essential.

On left-continental philosophy more broadly, when I was at Cambridge I remember reading and very much enjoying one examiner's report that expressed some horror at the constant decline in interest in the Frankfurt School (which is taught and examined in two parts) and subjects like A3 The Rise of Marxism, A5 Marxism and the Revolutionary Crisis of WWI, and A6 Lukács. They noted that The Crisis of Weimar (the reading for which was >90% Schmitt or Schmitt scholarship, with Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law chucked in) was on a constant upward trend along with A12 Hayek and A13 Liberal Critics of Totalitarianism (basically Hayek, Popper, Arendt etc). I think students who gravitated towards intellectual history and pol phil were more right-leaning than the faculty average although still predominantly left-wing. The old left topics are just stale and eg Later Frankfurt required students to, in a single week, read or otherwise familiarise themselves with:

T. Adorno, ‘Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda’
H. Marcuse, Technology, War and Fascism
H. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man
J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action
J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms

Unreal overload. Rawls I think was on slight decline too but Nietzsche and Weber remained major subjects of interest.

Schmitt was a point of interest for many in the faculty, which the examiner probably didn't realise. Tomaselli very much encouraged me to study Schmitt. Nakhimovsky (now at Yale) had written about Schmitt's interpretation of Vattel. Duncan Kelly had and was continuing to write about him. Joel Isaac established an entire Special Subject about the crisis of American constitutional liberalism between the 1930s and 1960s that was heavily based on Schmittian pol phil (and required study of Political Theology). It was quite interesting to observe.

>>10740228
>>10740463
It is almost as if property rights are one of if not the big contention of the Left...

>>10740514
How is Schmitt regarded in modern political scholarship? I know some people want to 'erase' him because he was an unrepentant fascist, but apparently he was still massively influential.

Also that reading list seems absolutely awful, Habermas especally.

>>10729437
>>10731686
>>10729337

>>10740530
Interest has risen sharply over the last decade - primarily because of his importance to debates about emergency government.

I think most of his readers respect his intellect (there are exceptions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PhdIkq-rMc))

I'm more of an historian than a philosopher so I can speak more directly to that. There is a spectrum from outright hostility (a small minority - Raphael Gross is the most important on Schmitt's anti-Semitism), to respect and mile contempt (Scheuerman, Dyzenhaus), through to what I think of as serious dispassionate appreciation, even with disagreement (Kennedy, Meier, Cristi, Bendersky, even Agamben). He had some famous admirers on the left who, unlike Zizek and Mouffe, didn't try to warp his politics to their own agenda - Walter Benjamin and Michel Foucoult are the most important.

>>10740552
>a faggot philosopher who wasn't even trained as a historian and who died of aids wrote a history of sexuality

>>10735671

The Left's dominating concern is equality, but equality unconstrained by hierarchy is monstrous, because it is built upon an incomplete abstraction. Leftism is inherently reductive, hence abstractive, hence divorced from reality. The Right at its best embraces the texture of reality in all its complexity.

Where the Leftist sees only unjust domination (because power is all he understands, and he reduces all government to it), the Rightist at his best knows that the world is more than brute power- that the hierarchies imposed by God, nature and kingship elevate rather than oppress, and make the highest flourishing of man possible.

>>10741012
What is this "incomplete abstraction"?

>>10741036
autism