What is the main reason that the far left has a much stronger philosophical history/academic presence than the far right? I'm interested in perspectives from both the left and right on this, as well as centrists who dont have any strong opinions on anything. This obviously doesnt include novel writers, since there are quite some far rightists there, and i do not count theologists as real philosophers here, at least not in the 20th century.
>inb4 /pol/ there's no fucking way im going to get a good answer there, and im not really far right myself. Just a conservative.
>women are correct because they talk more and loud Yea, nah.
Ayden Russell
>What is the main reason that the far left has a much stronger philosophical history/academic presence than the far right?
They don't.
You perceive radical liberals to be leftists because you lack a critique of your own social relations of being. To be plain: you're so dumb you think cunts who cry about charity want to help us.
Grayson Cook
Capitalists don't sit around reading books all day. They get shit done.
Ryder Phillips
Every philosopher until the 20th century could be called far right.
>if they trigger SJWs they're right wing What a dolt.
Elijah Richardson
Hegel was an anarchist
Jacob Stewart
Marx included.
Aaron Rodriguez
>What is the main reason that the far left has a much stronger philosophical history/academic presence than the far right? Because culture is the battleground of the left, whereas economics are the battleground of the right. They both won. The result is that leftist books are sold by capitalist publishers. Both sides are liberal though.
Christopher Torres
I think from marxist viewpoint one could say that, university is an ideological apparatus, and you have to have intellectuals that could produce ideas that serve to maintain status quo. if you mask impotent, moralistic nonsense as critique of current society, then you have a leftist academia of today. you have a little domesticated kitty that acts like a tiger. because of that "lefty" ideas become ruling ideas. we no longer need to change the society, just use pronouns and say "colored people" instead of blacks
Jeremiah Hill
All "far right" ideas today are just what was standard for every older society.
>has a much stronger philosophical history/academic presence than the far right
Why you’ve just conflated two terms which are not the same at all.
>philosophical history Conservatism is embedded in old literature. It’s why Yea Forums is a mainly conservative board: we read a lot of older literature
>academic presence So haughty dogma? I mean, I hate to say it but academia these days is sufficiently corrupt. They almost don’t care about actually expanding knowledge anymore, especially of spiritual or objective moral matters. They are more concerned with materialism and moral nihilism, degrading this once beautiful country.
The moar you know :3
Ryder Wright
>you have a little domesticated kitty that acts like a tiger. I'd rather have sabcat.
Jaxson Nguyen
The far right has dominated aesthetics, art and military accomplishment.
Nicholas Sanchez
>this once beautiful country imagine being older than 12 and thinking this country wasn't uglier in the past
Alexander Jones
are you tricking me into saying whats up cat
Thomas Wright
I dunno about your cuntry cunt, but over here we're pioneering new and uglier ways of be'en.
Adam Davis
Western philosophy at least post-Enlightenment is bad, if most of your intellectuals in the humanities keep coming to the conclusion of "We need Communism. We need Communism. We need Communism." and bashing their head against the wall, it is time for a re-evaluation of what premises get us to this conclusion.
Jace Cook
Nah mate, just wobbly things.
Nathaniel Gomez
Yes it was prettier in the past than it is today. Once upon a time we depended on our neighbors and God to show us the way.
Now we declare materialism to be an important philosophy. I thought the wars should have taught us that we can stick together with God. I thought we didn’t need this sort of government intervention in our lives to do that. I thought we didn’t need others to tell us what to do.
We know well enough by ourselves. That’s the American way, as it always has been. Our neighbors and God. And if something happens with God, you can bet it would happen here. Not the atheist shithole that is mainland Europe.
:3
Easton Gutierrez
>Everyone i dont like is a liberal Almost every major French Intellectual of the 20th century was involved with the left. Many were commies or at least fellow travelers, and even the liberal ones cannot be placed on the right whatsoever.
Robert Watson
No wonder: read up on the French Revolution and what it did to the once prosperous country of France.
Read Edmund Burke. Everyone, including butterfly, read Edmund Burke. France used to believe in God too.
Right wingers who do go to school usually are just using it for a job or whatever and dont really care about intellectual masterbation as much.
Jose Evans
you can only do that on the American political spectrum
Samuel Richardson
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Although I should like to say, if you are a conservative a la Yea Forums you probably don’t identify with the Republican Party even, and these are the types you’re talking about.
Yes: one thing should be clear. Both /pol/ and Yea Forums are conservative, but if you’re an obvious member of the ‘Republican’ party and watch Fox News, to /pol/ you go! And stay there please. ;3
Luke Rivera
>Everyone i dont like is a liberal No, mate. Everyone is a liberal. It is pretty much the sin qua non of post 1789 intelligentsia.
>Almost every major French Intellectual of the 20th century was involved with the left.
That doesn't make them any less of a liberal or more of a Communist than Karl Marx: a notorious anti-praxical bourgeois larper.
>even the liberal ones cannot be placed on the right whatsoever.
IIRC Foucault and Camus actually supported proletarian autogestation, the rest were tankie shits. So there's two liberals you can't place on the right.
Owen Rivera
>look, I've been using a lot of words I don't understand to form assumptions I can't validate and since my worldview is now a mess, I'd like someone to validate my shower thoughts for me by making history and dictionaries explain why I'm right about this despite having no reason to believe anything I learnt off the internet is not lies >Pls don't send me to /pol/ for this It's what they're doing too, sunflower.
Ryan Murphy
>No wonder: read up on the French Revolution and what it did to the once prosperous country of France. it allowed one of the sickest cunts that ever lived to take power and lead his empire to victory
I'm really curious what you define as 'liberal' and what your own political stance is.
Colton Reed
>tfw you dont have any opinions and dont want to substantiate the ones you have, but you still want to feel smug this is you
Jace Smith
I've plenty of opinions: many are even about literature and I can support them from the text. It's far more smugness than the anime image you're thinking of can convey.
Jordan Russell
Liberalism views the autonomy of consciousness and the legal individual as methodological assumptions in social science. It centres bourgeois "self-ownership" as the natural ontology of being (vide: the collective proletariat; the church / royal house; as comparable subjects.)
This ontology is supported in its cultural reproduction through individuating aesthetic objects. The transcendence of the individual's consciousness. The individual's relationship with god. The text reception as a moment of individual sublimity.
Politics, for the liberal, becomes a politics of moral policing (try Foucault). Bad subjects must be disciplined into self-regulation within the state's system. The State occupies a position as a superintending individual capable of mediating all specific individuals. The correct ordering of individuals and the relationships between individuals then follows. "Bad bourgeois" need to be "reeducated" into being "proper citizens" of a new "socialist state." None of these concepts arise from proletarian reproductive relationships: they are pure 1789.
If I'm attacking Marx from the left on the basis of his class background and bourgeois-liberal methodology gee, I wonder what my epistemological and methodological position is.
Jeremiah Bennett
No one gives a shit, go back to badphilosophy and jerk off with the other rejects
Isaac Carter
>No one gives a shit >I'm really curious what you define as 'liberal' and what your own political stance is.
Jose Garcia
what a cope
Eli Bell
He's wrong, no one really cares. Like i said, back to plebbit
>In our time it is fashionable to exalt work of whatever sort and no matter how it is accomplished, as if it had some superlative value in itself independently of any consideration of another order. Contrary to what the moderns think, any work that is done indiscriminately by anyone solely for the pleasure of acting or because of the need to ‘earn one’s living’ hardly merits being exalted, and indeed it can only be regarded as something abnormal, opposed to the order that ought to regulate human institutions, to such a point that, in the conditions of our age, it only too often acquires a character that without any exaggeration qualifies as ‘infra-human’. What our contemporaries seem to ignore completely is that work is not truly valid unless it conforms to the very nature of the being that accomplishes it and results therefrom in a spontaneous and necessary way, as it were, so that it is no more than the means for that nature to realize itself as perfectly as possible.
Nathaniel Watson
>Nobody cares >B-but /pol/ cares Those are contradictory statements.
Kayden Price
...
Nolan Young
Leftists are men of words, rightists are men of action. And that's not supposed to be a jab, I genuinely think there's a deeply rooted orientation difference there. Any right wing movement or ideology, whether it's libertarianism, fascism, conservatism etc. puts a lot of emphasis on personal agency, physical fitness or competency for survival. It's unironically a primitive, anti-intellectual political neighborhood. Which is why I prefer it to vacuous rhetoric of the left.
Daniel Thomas
Mods seem very arbitrary with what is allowed on Yea Forums and what should go to /his/.
Jayden Watson
>He's wrong Interesting view on the perversity of desires, pretty Zizekean.
Logan Hill
>namedropping charlatans even though it's not warranted yup, it's a reddit midwit alright
Levi Martin
No, I'm pretty sure Lacan was designed to analyse self-aggrandising little shits telling other people what they believe.
John Wood
What's funny is that this plebbitfag caused the quality of the thread to drop much faster than this shitposterRedditors with an unwarranted sense of self-importance are truly the greatest scourge for this board.
Dominic Jones
It is basically this, which is a source of power and a weakness for both sides. The left elevates the intellectual above all, even above the proles they claim to represent and wish to emancipate, thereby making it a highly attractive position for intellectuals and generally people who focus on thinking, rather than acting. The right is usually concerned more with pragmatism, with 'what is', and sees things that have existed for ages as something that's not going away, and often as something that should not go away, either. This makes the right more appealing to common people (despite the left's appeals to them), bordering on being philistine, and anti-intellectual to varying degrees. Yet it also allows them to act much more freely and be far more pragmatic than the left, which gets bogged down so easily when they actually have to act.
Dont, it's garbage. If you want good anti-semitic literature (lol) just read Céline's works besides Journey and Death on Credit.
Carson Jones
The French Revolution was the single best thing to ever happen in Western Europe, and Robespierre was the very personification of virtue
Levi Diaz
you unironically can’t though
Jeremiah Adams
Read Jonathan Haidt's Righteous mind and Mencius Moldbug's Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives.
The battle between left and right isn't symmetric, and right and left represent different parts of the human moral compass. Due to technological progress the values of the right have increasingly become superfluous and marginal, while the ideals of the left have become more attainable (or rather less harmful in practise). If you read these authors you'll understand why there has been a seemingly unstoppable leftward shift since the French Revolution.
Liam Bailey
Maybe a might-makes-right anarchist like Redbeard, or just a leftist in denial like the Unabomber. But yeah, that's basically it.
Daniel Hill
For the left the end justifies the means. So subversion and subterfuge are valid.
Kayden Sanders
What is virtue?
Xavier Brown
the left have built a sanctuary in academia because they would find no success outside of it. they're painfully aware of this truth and doing everything possible to retain their position of 'intellectual' comfort
Robert Butler
Whatever Robespierre says
Ethan Reyes
No philosopher worth a damn would be considered 'far left' by today's standards, not even close.
