Who is that again?

I'm pretty sure it just makes for exclusion either on terms for one's self ( for exclusion or against an exclusion ) or for the terms themselves as they stand to contain or maintain.

>>363802
>Who is that again?

>Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre was a Savoyard philosopher, writer, lawyer, and diplomat. He defended hierarchical societies and a monarchical State in the period immediately following the French Revolution.

> I'm pretty sure it just makes for exclusion either on terms for one's self ( for exclusion or against an exclusion ) or for the terms themselves as they stand to contain or maintain.

I don't understand what you just wrote. Parlez-vous français?

>>363770
He did influence Comte quite a bit, so kind of. It is hard to put de Maistre in a box like that. He was an often crude genius.

I think the real 'culprit' here is Condorcet, and Condorcet inspired De Maistre to a degree (even if he clearly disliked some of his ideas). De Maistre did introduce a distinctly deterministic and authoritarian bent into the corpus, though.

>>363770
yes, you can't have anything nice because people are assholes, not that hard to understand that "stable" sociology must be authoritarian by nature.

>>363770
> If so, does it mean that sociology (at least in its positivist and functionalist version) is by its essence authoritarian and anti-liberal?

It's a field of study about a certain subject, how can it be "authoritarian" or "anti-liberal"? Do you mean it that the findings clash with traditional liberal views on human nature?

>>363961
Yes, obviously, as well as its presuppositions.
Liberalism is not only a normative doctrine, you know. It's also a descriptive theory of human society.

>>363770
>If so, does it mean that sociology (at least in its positivist and functionalist version) is by its essence authoritarian and anti-liberal?
No, the fact that he founded it doesn't make it reactionary, sociological positivism is just inherently reactionary.

>>363770
Sociology isn't necessarily authoritarian, but considering the stupidity of many people and especially academics, it usually leads to just that.

For instance, Arthur Copperwaite knew that if sociological and economic data was surveyed in Hong Kong, the damned collectivists and constructivists wouldn't resist "managing" and "regulating" society. So he shut down some official statistic gathering and partially made it illegal for private companies. He credited this measure as the number one reason for Hong Kong becoming an economic powerhouse because without these studies there could be no bureaucratic action and de facto liberty.

>>364279
>For instance, Arthur Copperwaite knew that if sociological and economic data was surveyed in Hong Kong, the damned collectivists and constructivists wouldn't resist "managing" and "regulating" society. So he shut down some official statistic gathering and partially made it illegal for private companies. He credited this measure as the number one reason for Hong Kong becoming an economic powerhouse because without these studies there could be no bureaucratic action and de facto liberty.
Sounds pretty interesting. Do you have a source on that? As in academic paper or something.