Who do you prefer? Voltaire or Rousseau?

Liberalism in general did enormous damage to Christianity

How about neither. Both are enlightenmentfags, and caused more death than any other people in history other than perhaps Martin Luther. De Maistre, Hobbes, and Carlyle are superior.

Attached: quote-i-must-give-you-a-piece-of-intelligence-that-you-perhaps-already-know-namely-that-the-wolfgang-amadeus-mozart-137-88-46.jpg (850x400, 66.9K)

Based mozart

Junie B. Jones

Oh you are just such an edgy boy. Here is the attention you crave you absolute baby.

It's not edgy at all, it's just a fact. Voltaire and Rosseau are both trash. Which isn't even to say Carlyle or Maistre are intellectual giants, they are just significantly less retarded.

Contrarianism doesn't make you unique.

Who said anything about contrarianism or uniqueness? Of course it's not unique, these views have been completely normal for most of history. Rosseau and his ilk should be criticized for an overabundance of desire to be seen as "unique" and "new." There is nothing new under the Sun.

>Implying being a traditionalist is edgy, when in fact liberalism was seen as a radical ideology very recently.
These guys are the direct reason why the French Revolution happened. The cancers of nationalism, communism, liberalism, socialism, fascism, and other "isms" came from the "questionings" of these two. Not saying that some of those ideologies don't have some credibility, but generally if the people that espoused those idoloegies bothered to actually read history, the great tragedy that was the 20th century which caused hundreds of millions of deaths in the name of "ideology #1244" wouldn't have happened.

Nice to see another Christian traditionalist on here. God speed.

Fuck you, and I'm not even an anglo

You forgot about Marx.

why atheists are desperate to feel unique in private, also why do they push in public for universalism at the same time?

are there any good british philosphers

It's not really a preference if you are into philosophy, Rousseau is the only answer. VOltaire lived in a based way, however.

Rousseau was a good philosopher. Voltaire was an useless clown. Not really comparable.

As a human being Rousseau was a much, much worse person. Voltaire had plenty of personal faults but never committed major evil acts unlike Rousseau. As a writer Voltaire was by far the better. As a thinker Rousseau was somewhat the better.

Retarded inbred French royalty and nobility was the reason why the revolution happened.

The more you learn about this corrupt shithole rotten from top to bottom that was "ancien regime", the more are you surprised hpow long it lasted.

Attached: taine_taxation_1.jpg (1196x653, 431.3K)

This is a fair Yea Forums answer where either literature nor metaphysics takes sides thanks user thread may work out!

lmao no

I love Rousseau's Reveries but Candide will outlast anything else by either or them.

All of that was on the tracks since the enlish revolution, of which the french revolution is a mere exportation.
Also Voltaire was for enlightened despotism and a great buddy of Frederick II of Prussia, not exactly that revolutionary type.

>but never committed major evil acts unlike Rousseau.
didn't he fuck his niece, and get his wealth from shady business dealings?

Voltaire because he is more fun

Based. Religion is for morons.

But what if I called you a Redditor? Or soijaked you? What then?

Yeah, spending all that money on funding democracy in America did not work out so well for the ancien régime. But that is still only a "how", rather than a "why." It's not the catalyzing factor in what happened.

The why is that the ancien régime and its tax structure was completely anachronistic especially regarding the second order. The nobility had no functional use anymore, it was a plain drag on the country. The 1789 revolution was necessary and the constitutional monarchy may have worked if Louis XVI and the faction behind him weren't so hellbent on sabotaging it with his veto power.

>and its tax structure
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the tax structure, taxes had been hiked to unsustainable levels to fund the American Revolution.
> The nobility had no functional use anymore
This is incorrect. Most of them still held hereditary offices in government. And "functional use" is already presupposing that in order to have worth, one must "work", a Marxist inversion of value, so it is already possible to see how you are skewing the discussion here. The only sense in which the nobility had become decadent was in the aesthetic divagations at the court of the king.
>The 1789 revolution was necessary
No, it wasn't. It was contingent on prior circumstances like everything else. The ancien régime was successful for almost a millennium beforehand, and could have easily lasted much longer just as the Prussian and German states did. There was no "necessary" reason the Germans had to become constitutional.

Diderot, évidemment.

>There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the tax structure, taxes had been hiked to unsustainable levels to fund the American Revolution.
It was an agglomerated bunch of ancient rights that spared some and some not irrespectively of the economic reality and of course the second order was largely tax exempt.
>This is incorrect. Most of them still held hereditary offices in government. And "functional use" is already presupposing that in order to have worth, one must "work", a Marxist inversion of value, so it is already possible to see how you are skewing the discussion here. The only sense in which the nobility had become decadent was in the aesthetic divagations at the court of the king.
The whole point of the nobility as a caste of landed cavalrymen was to make war, and that's why they were exempted from work and taxes. In the 18th century a dedicated warrior caste was no longer a necessity, it was actually a hindrance. Nobles themselves desired to do business and work but couldn't because it would mean loss of privileges. That led either to a do-nothing lavish lifestyle funded on taxes, for nobles who had money. For those who don't, the king reserved positions in the military so that at least they don't derogate, thus preventing non-nobles from climbing the ranks, in an age when military was getting more and more professional. Everybody was losing with this system at this point, because it was made for a completely different time when the state was weak and war the affaire of landed cavalrymen bound by feudal links.
>No, it wasn't. It was contingent on prior circumstances like everything else. The ancien régime was successful for almost a millennium beforehand, and could have easily lasted much longer just as the Prussian and German states did. There was no "necessary" reason the Germans had to become constitutional.
The ancien régime well outlived its natural term, the whole structure made no sense given the modern nature of state, administration and war and such it was faced with either reform or violent uprooting. The king made sure violent uprooting happened.

Attached: Gabelle.jpg (1195x1600, 455.67K)

he pushed for the atheist definition of rape, instead of keeping it as taking a woman home from her parents' home

>>are there any good british philosphers
no
what you call british philosophers are just intellectuals who pushed for the atheist meme that ''commerce=freedom''
That's literally all they did lol.

yes and in copying the anglosucm intellectuals voltaire said literally that going into commerce like a good little bourgeois is what makes you free, instead of being servile to priests and kings

voltaire was just a french bourgeois drone of the british ones

Hobbes, Hume, Smith, Mill, Whitehead

Not fair at all, Rousseau was a much better thinker

>It was an agglomerated bunch of ancient rights that spared some and some not irrespectively of the economic reality and of course the second order was largely tax exempt.
Yes, so there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Only conditional problems predicated mainly upon exorbitant debts owed by the crown for silly reasons. Naturally there could be some tax reforms enacted to cope with the circumstances, but even if this occurred, the ancien régime would still likely have collapsed, because the burden of debt due to mismanagement of expenses would still have been saddling the entire country. So in the end it was nothing fundamentally wrong with the system of taxes, just with financial mismanagement, over-expenditure.
>The whole point of the nobility as a caste of landed cavalrymen was to make war
According to whom? No one from any of these time periods would agree with you. Part of their duty was war (albeit less so than in the distant past), part of their duty administration, part of their duty simply serving their superior, be it the king or someone else, with the finesse and loyalty a nobleman is obligated by his status and rank to possess. This allows for an undisposed caste of elites, not beholden to any financial or ideological interests, to develop themselves, develop the state, develop culture (whether directly or through patronage), and generally maximize the potential of themselves and their lord(s). This is exactly what you consider a "do-nothing" lifestyle, where to you someone "does nothing" if they don't work with their hands and legs, like a man with no higher potential. In practice of course the French aristocracy were generally not as well endowed as the Prussian or even English. Whether this is a result of the king or even French philosophy and culture itself I am not sure, it doesn't really matter.
>Everybody was losing with this system at this point, because it was made for a completely different time when the state was weak and war the affaire of landed cavalrymen bound by feudal links.
Again, this makes no sense at all when you consider Prussia and the later German Empire, which worked fine under many of the same principles, with the major difference that it had more competent rulers.
>The ancien régime well outlived its natural term
How would you define its natural term in opposition to Prussia which still had large swathes of landed nobles well into even WW2, after the old kingdom and empire itself had collapsed? "Natural term" is as ambiguous as the "natural right" of man. According to you it outlived its natural term, which is simply because you've decided based on your own beliefs that monarchy and aristocracy is "outdated" (which nonetheless is simply derived from the beliefs of the same writers you are trying to absolve of guilt). When contemporary historical examples clearly display that that is not the case, and even that they are superior to the alternatives which arose in their place.

Like... as backup in a fight or to date?

> John Locke

The man who fooled Christians into believing in religious tolerance

Why do people blame Rousseau for the French revolutionary terror?

Was he right?

Attached: D2E935FE-F1BC-433E-BB69-B0B4C788664B.jpg (807x380, 24K)

Rousseau because he was a Muslim

>Yes, so there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Only conditional problems predicated mainly upon exorbitant debts owed by the crown for silly reasons. Naturally there could be some tax reforms enacted to cope with the circumstances, but even if this occurred, the ancien régime would still likely have collapsed, because the burden of debt due to mismanagement of expenses would still have been saddling the entire country. So in the end it was nothing fundamentally wrong with the system of taxes, just with financial mismanagement, over-expenditure.
Problem is that the tax structure was traditional in nature and as such hardly reformable. That led the monarchy to use expedients of all kind, from creating meme venal offices to debt, often detrimental to the kingdom due to the poor technique of the day (see the 40 maidens of Geneva). The only way to reform the tax system was to summon the Etats-généraux, that's what Louis XVI and well it didn't go according to the plan.
>According to whom? No one from any of these time periods would agree with you. Part of their duty was war (albeit less so than in the distant past), part of their duty administration, part of their duty simply serving their superior, be it the king or someone else, with the finesse and loyalty a nobleman is obligated by his status and rank to possess. This allows for an undisposed caste of elites, not beholden to any financial or ideological interests, to develop themselves, develop the state, develop culture (whether directly or through patronage), and generally maximize the potential of themselves and their lord(s). This is exactly what you consider a "do-nothing" lifestyle, where to you someone "does nothing" if they don't work with their hands and legs, like a man with no higher potential. In practice of course the French aristocracy were generally not as well endowed as the Prussian or even English. Whether this is a result of the king or even French philosophy and culture itself I am not sure, it doesn't really matter.
According to the nature of the second order which is that of the bellatores. They were exempted from taxes and forbbiden from working because they were supposed to pay the blood taxes. Noble virtues didn't lay in arts, sciences, education, much less in finesse, but in war and feudal loyalty Accordingly the education of a nobleman, aside religion, consisted exclusively in horsemanship, handling of weapons and good manners. A part of the nobility getting intrested in intellectual matters was pretty much a sign of its embourgeoisement, thanks to the salon culture most prominently. Incidentally that kind of salon nobles were often impeded by the forbidding of work for their caste and often advocated for the upheaval of the order system. They're typically the men who made 1789 and the night of the 4 august.

>Again, this makes no sense at all when you consider Prussia and the later German Empire, which worked fine under many of the same principles, with the major difference that it had more competent rulers.
The german empire wasn't an ancien régime. It hadn't orders proper with their definite roles and a legal and financial structure traditionalistic in nature. It was a plain constitutional monarchy with a vestigial junker class that populated the officer corps.
>How would you define its natural term in opposition to Prussia which still had large swathes of landed nobles well into even WW2, after the old kingdom and empire itself had collapsed? "Natural term" is as ambiguous as the "natural right" of man. According to you it outlived its natural term, which is simply because you've decided based on your own beliefs that monarchy and aristocracy is "outdated" (which nonetheless is simply derived from the beliefs of the same writers you are trying to absolve of guilt). When contemporary historical examples clearly display that that is not the case, and even that they are superior to the alternatives which arose in their place
There's still nobles all over Europe but they're not privileged as a warrior class missioned with the conduct and effecting of war. It's now the mission of professional soldiers educated in that prospect. Nobles plainly melted with the bourgeoisie as they should have done in the late 18th century if it wasn't for their pride.

He wanted to nuke the soviet union and start ww3 unironically. There are better Theory-Practice criticisms than Mr Lord Anglo Box.

ask the people what they thought

Attached: topten.jpg (610x626, 126.42K)

God I want to hatefuck Voltaire so much until he pray god to help him

Almost a bad take as popper saying hegel caused nationalism somehow

rousseau. Voltaire is for faggots and americans

Rousseau was a trash socialist

À la fin des Cent-Jours, au nom du parti libéral, il se rendit à Gand pour porter un message à Louis XVIII. Il lui indiqua que seule l'adoption d’une politique libérale pouvait assurer la pérennité de la Restauration, avis mal reçu par les conseillers du roi. La question était alors de savoir si le retour à la monarchie se ferait sur des bases libérales ou par un retour à l’Ancien Régime d’avant 1789 prôné par les ultras. Dans ces circonstances remarquables, ce fut ce jeune professeur de 27 ans, sans nom et sans expérience politique, qui fut choisi pour porter ce message au roi, preuve que la Révolution, comme Guizot le disait, avait « fait son œuvre ». Sa visite à Gand, alors que la France était l’objet d’une seconde invasion, fut le sujet d’amers reproches faits à Guizot au cours de sa vie par ses opposants politiques, pour son manque de patriotisme4. L'« Homme de Gand » était l’un des termes peu flatteurs utilisés contre lui pendant sa puissance.

Sade

Attached: 1605752484989.jpg (657x527, 44.95K)