Why is it that almost no philosophers or philosophy teachers end up in the right wing?
It seems like all the modern ones are communists.
Is there some secret in philosophy that refutes everything right-wing?
>post modernism and critical theory is all philosophy
it's called empathy
there's some anon on here who constantly cites The Opium of Intellectuals whenever somebody asks this, wait for him to answer it
>>430609
>le big bad racist hicks don't have basic human emotions maymay
Fuck off back to reddit
>>430597
I'm on the right.
>>430597
Because the more right wing you get, the less you want to interact with the establishment, or even the anti-establishment.
>>430597
Generally a few things:
Philosophy, being the search for what is good or right, naturally leads you to tend towards pondering ideas. This tends to cut down on the number of Burkean style right-wingers in philosophy. That is, "things are the way they are, and it would be dangerous to fuck with that" doesn't synergize well with "what is beauty?"
They have enough experience with the Genealogy of ideas to realize that Movement Conservatism is a cluster of fuck.
There's a decent number of right wing liberals, and a suprising number of far-right sympathizers. Heidegger being emblematic of what that looks like, though. You don't really notice it because if you READ Heidegger, he sounds like hippy, lefty commie stuff. Same thing with Gentile.
So that basically covers all the major bases.
>>430646
How can Heidegger sound like a commie yet support Hitler?
>>430658
Because if you read Heidegger, it's all about 'authenticity of being' and complaining about 'hypertechnology' and basically hits a lot of the emotional touchstones of hipsterism.
Similarly, Gentile basically was the first Post-Modernist, and held that just about everything (including possibly science), was culturally rooted, and there was no transhistorical or transnational 'concepts'.
>>430668
>implying hipsters aren't a right-wing phenomenon
All the idealization of "vintage", they're as nostalgic as the Rhodesia/'50s America fanboys on this site
>>430597
>post-structuralism is all of philosophy
>>430712
Eh...I'm not gonna disagree with that. Because it sort of underlines my point that right-wing/left-wing dichotomies are mostly based on emotive rather then substantial content, and the only tendency is for philosophers to pursue heterodoxical and non-pragmatic belief systems.
>>430712
This doesn't really make them politically right-wing, which I take to mean anti-egalitarian.
>>430597
In the absence of savagery, the human seeks savagery.
>>430609
No, it is called "Almost all philosophy has fuck all connection to reality".
>>430597
Philosophy tends towards naturalistic, communitarian theories.
The right's communitarianism, such as nationalism, traditional conservatism, etc. are so far out of vogue they're basically extinct.
That means most people who get into philosophy that aren't anarchists or libertarians end up being pulled to the far left because there's no mainstream statist right anymore.
>>430609
Thank you.
>>430597
>Is there some secret in philosophy that refutes everything right-wing?
If it was secret why would anyone tell you in an online forum?
>>430609
Right, empathy...
>>432849
But your picture has nothing to do with empathy desu.
Zeitgeist.
Prove me wrong.
>>430597
The best philosophers I know are all a-political.
The Right has flaws and the Left is a cancerous disease.
Modern philosophy is dead.
>modern philosophy
Its an oxymoron.
Those idiots don't even know that being irrational is the root of all reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buyWpwrHpO0
We lost this guy.
He pretty much explained why philosophy is awful and died off a while ago.
>>432876
You may call that empathy, but it seems to be actually about tolerance and apathy.
>>430609
What about it?
>>432902
Empathy does not mean that you should stand by and do nothing if something is wrong. It means that you can understand where they're coming from, and address the situation properly. Just because my son stole yugioh cards doesn't mean I'd let him do it because I know how he feels about it. Instead, I'd try to address it with tact, not just punish him
>>430597
It's because the uncertainty of pomo doesn't go well with the traditional right, but it's emerging.
>>432951
>Praxis for action separated from theoretical reflexivity
Ha hah!
>>430609
hello reddit
Philosophy is often pushing towards the radical and the new, thought is "progressive", it doesn't make it correct but it frequently aligns with the leftist idea of constant "progress" and structural movement.
The right wing is usually side of caution, tradition, and convention, which isn't a priority of philosophers trying to get their name on the next big idea.
>>430597
>mfw
But in reality, the left - right distincion is just a meme.
>>430597
rationalist/intellectuals are on the left, because they believe in reason which is structured imagination and which is translated in fantasied structures IRL.
those rationalist have faith in conventions and attempt to design methods to change people who do not adopt spontaneously their conventions. today, those conventions are legal and logical/scientific.
the non-rationalist are on the right, because they understand that empiricism is more relevant to life that the deliriums of the imagination. from this stems a natural hierarchy, with the rationalist being below, since most people are have faith in induction only to fulfill their hedonism.
then the pure empiricism leading to higher hedonism, there is thus a new stage above, mundane nonrationalist-hedonism [the rationalist calls this being a beast or a pleasure junkie] and corresponds to having faith in deities or transcendence; empiricism leads still to further truth which is the departure of hedonism, mundane/common or not. this is the highest men, and of course, the discipline to leave hedonism is far too difficult for most people, so there are only a few in this realm.
>>432849
Where in Aristotle's works did he actually say that? The quote reeks of something from modern politics and I'm having a little trouble actually finding a source.
>>430597
Ever since WWII, exploring right-wing thought outside of the current spectrum of acceptable discourse has come with a non-optional and extremely rapid ostracization to the ragged fringe and as a result of this the intellectual tradition has withered. Not many people are willing to become pariahs for so little.
>>433146
I don't understand why you need to turn every single topic into a debate between rationalism and empiricism, especially when you don't understand either position and there's no obvious connection between the matter at hand and those two epistemological positions. Are you aware that the rationalist-empiricist controversy is an overblown consequence of historiography and not an actual dividing line between two forms of civilization?
>>432771
>most great thinkers who spend their lives pondering how humanity could be better disagree with me
>they're detached from reality!
Keep grasping.
Frankly, it is empathy. Most people who seriously consider how to best bring happiness to others are not predisposed to supporting the subjugation of others.
>>430609
Even if that wasn't retarded, which it is, why would philosophers be more empathetic than anyone else?
>>433101
This.
IT's even funnier when they apply this to people in the past where that dichotomy was completely different or might not have existed.
>>433205
>muh happiness
>>433210
>>433221
Human beings don't want to be happy.
>>433210
>faking transparency
Disgusting.
Also, you don't have to take a utilitarian outlook. But it's easiest to make an appeal on that basis.
One could try to construct a fake society for any particular goal, I suppose. Our society is driven by the pursuit of technology, and this goal takes pride of place over others.
The question is: why choose one goal over another? Happiness is an easy goal to appeal to. But I'm open to others.
>>433223
Speak for yourself nigga.
>>433223
No, human beings don't find happiness in what they desire. This is a different thing.
Human beings still love happiness, they just don't know where to find it.
>>433228
>Happiness is an easy goal to appeal to.
Are you squidding me? People have been quibbling over what happiness is and how to achieve it for as long as philosophy has been a thing.
>>433232
Of course I'm included in that.
>>433235
Happiness doesn't exist as anything more than periods of emotional satiation; it doesn't really matter what the particular emotion is.
>>433243
I said appeal to, not achieve.
I don't think what I said is controversial.
>>433101
Why is the Dark Enlightenment so correct?
>>433435
From any legitimately leftist perspective, any perspective that centres proletarian self-emancipation, the academic humanities are right wing. Especially the pomos and identity politicians.
Let's say a seed lands in a village. Over time the seed sprouts and grows into a wonderful tree. Then one day the tree sprouts fruit, which all fall to the ground over night. All the villagers gather round the tree as they realise what happened.
Now, Left wingers would say that it would be better if the village all shared the fruit together. Right wingers would say first come first served and if it needs to happen, we should fight for the fruit.
Left wing is just about being good unto each other.
Right wing is the complete absense of social order (even though they falsely advertise themsevles as the opposite) and pure selfishness based on short term greed.
So yeah when people think about these things, it's pretty clear that left wing ideas are more intelligent.
the biggest red pill you should take is that the idea of left and right being opposites. Nope. Right is junk.
>>430597
Being left-wing is a good career choice in modern academia. You also have to remember that philosophers aren't above basic human mental habits, such as absorbing the beliefs of those around you. Short of a radical shift in modern society, any emergent left-wing bias will perpetuate itself.
>>433719
Copypasta or not, this is an excellent illustration of why libertarianism is such a joke.
>>430597
>>it seems
>>433719
>>433877
>that pic
It's like someone took an intro to economics course and decided they were an economic expert
>>432895
>morality and laws are arbitrarily created by man
Applies to fucking everything including language and even the bible.
also. muh appeal to authority, founding fathers were Christians so therefore god is true.
Describes the modern problems well but they are well known by now.
>>433877
kek
economics is a pseudo science anyway
>>430597
>grouping philosophy into left and right politics
Confirmed for not having read a single philosophy book EVER
>>434163
It definitely had enough of development to be called a scientific approach to economic relations in society nowadays. Most people who claim 'hurr, economy is a pseudo-science hurr' aren't often really giving any further arguments than that, while things like the integration of game theory into modern economic thinking has been super succesful in the last couple of years.
Now if you want to talk about EARLY economic theories, yeah that's mostly pseudoscience ( my personal favorite is th physiocratic movement, massively influential but basically some guys who had sucked Locke's cock too much)
>>434233
>while things like the integration of game theory into modern economic thinking has been super succesful in the last couple of years.
it could be called successful only if you prove that people are not trained to think in terms of economics and games beforehand. otherwise, all you are saying is that if people choose to behave as game theory has been formalized, then people behave according to the current formalization of game theory.
Sociobiology and cosmology has most of what you need to be right wing. Social darwinism and all that. You don't need to descend into the deep mystic realm of abstract philosophy for a justification like you do if you're a leftwinger.
/lit/ pls go
>>430609
this is kinda true. generally people with a lot of empathy go towards a career like teaching where there is a lot of nurturing.
>>430597
I'm not even sure that's entirely true.
>>430712
It's reaction against the victory of consumerism, though. If you were in a country that had a fascist takeover, and you heard someone whining about how much they missed democracy, would you call that a right-wing phenomenon?
Not defending hipster nostalgia either tho, it was recuperated into consumerism before it was born
Why are righties always saying that the left won when its the exact opposite? because when the right wins only the Elite wins.
>>436806
Because for conservatives, anything less than regression is a loss.
>>430597
Because the only modern philosophers you hear about are either boogeymen or "visionaries", easily marketed or blogged about.
There are plenty of modern celebrated right-wing philosophers and other intellectuals, but they tend not to make splashes outside of their academic circles.
It's not that intellectuals are left-wing because leftism is correct and they are so smart to realize.
Leftism on practice means rule by intellectuals. They are left-wing because that increases their political and cultural power.
>"Probably the intellectual has more difficulty than the common man in freeing himself from this ideology which, like the State which derives from it, is his especial handiwork. The Soviet government rules in the name of a doctrine elaborated by an intellectual whose life was spent in libraries and interpreted for the past century by countless other intellectuals. Under a Communist régime the intellectuals, sophists rather than philosophers, rule the roost. The examining magistrates who unmask deviations, the writers coerced into socialist realism, the engineers and managers who are supposed to execute the plans and to interpret the ambiguous orders of the central authority—all must be dialecticians. The Secretary-General of the Party, master and arbiter over the lives of millions of men. is also an intellectual: at the end of a triumphal career he offers to the faithful a theory of capitalism and socialism—as though a book represented the highest accomplishment. The emperors of old were often poets or thinkers; for the first time the emperor actually reigns qua dialectician, interpreter of the doctrine and of history."
Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals
Leftists took control over universities during the 1960s by force. Pic related.
>>430618
Have you been on reddit any time within the past year?
Most of them are racist hicks
>>436859
That's the only correct answer.
There used to be a fairly even division between right-wing and left-wing intellectuals before they were literally kicked out of academia by activists and their allied street gangs. Michael Oakeshott, for example, was kicked out of LSE in the 1960s, amongst many others.
>right wingers tolerate leftist ideas
>left wingers don't tolerate rightist ideas
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
"Just be nice" is a really easy philosophy to live by. So people are prone to choosing it if they can.
There's no hard choices, heavy conflict or harshness, until the consequences come along when there is nobody else to do the harsh things for you.
>>433435
>Dark Enlightenment
Aside from a regrettable name, it isn't. All arguments without certain outcomes are pretty much a case of my preferences > your preferences.
>>436917
>right wingers tolerate leftist ideas
>left wingers don't tolerate rightist ideas
Is this sarcasm or do /pol/tards actually believe this?
>>436917
>right wingers tolerate leftist ideas
>>436852
Why have I never heard of Raymond Aron before? Is it because I'm American? This guy seems absolutely based, from what I'm reading about him.
>>436920
But that's right.
The difference between right-wing intellectuals and left-wing intellectuals is that leftists see ideas as cudgels they can use to defeat their enemies. They are not moved by a genuine interest to understand the world, but by an interest in "praxis", in how they can manipulate outcomes so they can always come up on top.
Right-wing intellectuals have no chance. They are extremely naive. I remember reading Mortimer Adler, a conservative intellectual from the last century, and one thing that I remarked was how he was always talking about how even though you don't agree with your interlocutor, you should always come up to him with an open mind and on his own terms.
I began imagining Mortimer Alder holding a discussion with Antonio Gramsci or Ernesto
Laclau. Poor chap, he was good-hearted, but he would have no chance, they would eat him alive. Rightists really see politics as a discussion of ideas, while leftists see it as a battle they must win to kill their enemies, enslave their children and rape their women. That's why they always win, regardless of wheter they are right or wrong.
>>436922
>Is it because I'm American
Pretty much. But I think that the great name of French liberalism (which unlike American liberalism, stands in the right-wing of French political spectrum) is Bertrand de Jouvenel.
Everyone should read "On Power". Once you do you never see politics in the same way again.
>>436932
>ADLER: Heaven forbid! I regard that right wing as the most reactionary and subversive force of good government you could have in this country. That right wing would want to restore us to the kind of primitive, unjust, laissez-faire capitalism — the kind of robber-baron capitalism of each man for himself, devil take the hindmost — which does not conform to the idea of political liberty in the good life, in the good society.
Just because someone is Ethnocentric and supports capitalism doesn't make them right wing.
>>436940
Well, I'm right-wing but I'm also opposed to laissez-faire capitalism and most forms of libertarianism. That doesn't make one leftist either.
>>436949
>while leftists see it as a battle they must win to kill their enemies, enslave their children and rape their women. That's why they always win, regardless of wheter they are right or wrong.
>>430597
You faggots realize that if socrates and Plato and all those guys lived today would vote for none because Hillary is a lying shill, Bernie is just a faggot, and Trump is a jew. They'd just off themselves, because they'd realize that life in a degenerate society like ours is not what life should be.
>>436955
>"Safe spaces" didn't come from the right.
Yes they did. It's just the right likes to make everywhere a safe space against leftist dissent via suppression and censorship. Are you seriously implying such reactionary things didn't happen to leftist movements? How young are you? Like 16?
>>434150
>but they are well known by now
No they're not.
The claim that the Bible is arbitrary rests upon the validity, it offers answers and absolutes hence it can not be by definition arbitrary.
To say so is committing a self categorical fallacy.
Schaeffer's how should we then live expounds on this subject way more and does it the justice I can not.
>>436955
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Nazi_Germany
>implying hitler wasnt trying to make nazi germany one giant safe space
>>436955
>the kkk wasnt a safe space
>>436963
>>436965
Figured it was gonna go there.
I was referring to the USA, where leftist opinions were tolerated when they were underdogs, and right wing opinions aren't now that they're the underdogs.
But yes, in Nazi Germany certain ideas were suppressed as are they now.
Either way left wing/right wing is a stupid dichotomy in something as complex as politics.
>>436955
>>436963
It's all a matter of strenght.
Rightists were never strong enough to completely suppress leftists. They tried, but they always failed. McCarthy came closer in the United States, but even with massive popular support and even though he was 100% right about communist infiltration in the U.S. Government, he failed.
But leftists manage to suppress rightism much more easily. Just see how quickly racism turned from something that everyone exhibited to being basically "worst than Hitler". And the same is happening to every other right-wing position, such as social conservatism and opposition to communism. Why does that happen? Why does the left always manage to suppress rightism but rightists never manage to suppress the left?
I'd say the problem is that many rightists actually believe in universal values and try to find a compromise with the left, while leftists who do the same are impossible to find. While McCarthy and the John Birch Society where rooting out commies left and right, William Buckley purged them from his respectable conservative movement. While Pinochet was dismantling communist guerrilla armies, liberals where complaining about human rights abuses.
The same never happens on the other side. When leftists purged racism, no one complained about free speech, when left-wing regimes such as the Soviet Union murder millions of rightists such as during Dekulakization, the left never complains (they only complain when they begin to murder other leftists, such as during the Great Purge and the Moscow Trials).
That's the difference. See, for example >>436965
Nazi Germany had right-wing opposition, what left-wing opposition the Soviet Union had just complained that they should have killed more kulaks and less Old Bolsheviks.
>>436992
>right wingers tolerate leftist ideas
>left wingers don't tolerate rightist ideas
> Rightists really see politics as a discussion of ideas
>while leftists see it as a battle they must win to kill their enemies, enslave their children and rape their women. That's why they always win, regardless of wheter they are right or wrong.
>"Safe spaces" didn't come from the right.
You are literally a retarded ideologue, and now you're retreating to left/right false dichotomy, when it was you that asserted your retard statements based on that dichotomy. Also, the KKK was in America retard.
Backpedaling to
>2015
>still using right/left dichotomy
doesn't make you less of a retard. It means you were a retard all along for using it.
>>437005
That's not even close to true. The level of suppression that modern day leftists have on you is nothing compared to historical examples. The degree is not greater, it's only that the pendulum has swung to the other side. And now you're going into full ideologue mode making blatantly false accusations, thinking you're in /pol/ and everyone is going to echochamber you.
>>437025
But losing muh job because of sjws is literally worse than being lynched.
>>437025
>The level of suppression that modern day leftists have on you is nothing compared to historical examples.
Please cite an example of any kind of left-wing thought being so thoroughly outlawed and legitimized as racism in the Western world.
>>437035
gommunism in nazi germany
>>437039
Fair point, but still, as I said, there was right-wing opposition to such measures in a way that there is no left-wing opposition to censorship of right-wing ideas nowadays.
Remember that "First they came" poem? It was written by Martin Niemöller, a conservative Lutheran who opposed Hitler.
>>437015
>>while leftists see it as a battle they must win to kill their enemies, enslave their children and rape their women. That's why they always win, regardless of wheter they are right or wrong.
Never said that. I'm not the only person here.
But if we want to talk about the KKK, they were never a safe space. They're a terrorist group.
Their purpose was never political discussion.
Either way I didn't plan this discussion out with and think of all the variables. I was just kind of doing this on the fly. I'll stop now.
>>437025
Leftism is actively encouraged by the academic class and every deviant in the western world who doesn't want to get lynched. You're full of shit.
>>437056
I literally don't understand what this comment has to do with my post, and it's your faukt
>>437047
You do realize the vast majority of KKK activity was secret meetings where they could all talk about how much they hate niggers right?
>>437047
>Either way I didn't plan this discussion out with and think of all the variables. I was just kind of doing this on the fly. I'll stop now.
As expected of an echobox poster
>>437078
So, your post has nothing to do with either post then. You just responded because you felt like you needed to say your unsupported opinion, and responding to a post that was targeted towards a specific post and poster.
>>437084
Welcome to 4chan
>>430597
>all the modern ones are communists
That hasn't really been true since the 70s. Incredibly few philosophers are communists today.
Because they only exist in universities and such, and it is a well known fact that universities are full of leftists due to the disconnection from 'real' life that people in university experience
>>430609
This, honestly.
All right-wing politics stem from an inability to recognize others as equally deserving of rights.
Universities are heavily left biased today, and they will actively shun people who don't share the same opinions as them.
The 'college liberal' stereotype is very real and it's kind of a joke in political circles how social science is meant to address biases and inequalities in society, yet they completely ignore their own incredible left bias.
Today's university are a leftist circlejerk because it's the flavour of the month.
OP is confusing critical theory with philosophy.
>>437404
Left wing politics stems from the false assumption that everyone is equal in every way, basically they believe everything is 100% nurture in the nature vs nurture debate.
Everyone thinks that people should have equal opportunities.
>>437404
>All right-wing politics stem from an inability to recognize others as equally deserving of rights.
he thinks in terms of rights like the good liberal that he is.
>>430609
empathy is such a shit emotion. kind of wish humans didn't posses it desu.
>>437882
It's one of the things that separates us from other animals.
>>430597
What is the core of the left-wing bias? Philosophy as a profession exists entirely within the public sector, so obviously those who are employed by universities to teach philosophy are always going to find reasons why the ideas of the people who would cut their funding are bad and evil and wrong. At its core it is basic self-interest that exerts a pressure on the direction of the field like a gravitational field.
As for why the field is so completely dominated by left wing thought - come on, you don't actually believe that teaching positions are handed out just based on how well someone understands the subject, do you? If a potential philosophy teacher expresses even one vaguely right-leaning sentiment between the time they begin as an undergraduate and the time they get tenure then they're automatically blacklisted. Universities are controlled by the left, and this is even more true of the humanities. And when they say they value diversity, what they definitely don't mean is diversity of opinion.
americans display very well their clichés here
>>437882
Kind of wish it were legally to run people like you over with a truck. We'd all be happier imo
>>436863
literally reddit
>>430597
There's tons of right-wing philosophers, they just don't like calling themselves philosophers.
>>437983
We'd have to run you over too, then.
Your credibility as a professional thinker goes down the shitter once you let people know you're right-wing. There could be right-wing philosophers who just don't say so.
>>437959
>exists entirely within the public sector
Well that's just not true.
>>438078
There's actually this weird current in anarchism, where people are against human rights, free speech etc, because it would trump their dumb interpretation of identity politics.
>Is there some secret in philosophy that refutes everything right-wing?
It's called novelty seeking. A feature that partly defines what we might call liberalism/leftism.
Ans it might even be genetic.
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-genes-liberal.html
https://www.wikigenes.org/e/gene/e/1815.html
If you are the type of person who uncritically yet passionately believes in whatever status quo you were born into then by nature you are conservative. If you were born into a Monarchy then you are a monarchist. If the conservative was born in a democracy then they constantly name drop the word freedom. Raised in a capitalist society they ardently believe the free market will fix everything. To be conservative is to be born into a ethnic group of people and assume as a central identity belief that of course your people and way of life is best and never be troubled by the contradiction that everyone else thinks the same about theirs.
This sort of thinking is poison to serious philosophers. To be a philosopher of note you have to think differently from everyone else. The amount of plebeian insight that can be gained from conventional thinking has been mined dry millennia ago. There are no barriers to philosophy, so if something new and meaningful were easy to come up with everyone would have found it by now. The only way to you can be a philosopher others read now is to beat out the weight of billions of other thinkers pondering questions relevant to their life every minute of every day by a. being a genius and/or b. being a very creative thinker
imo true cutting edge intellectualism in general is associated heavily with this novelty tolerance and creative thinking - which also means you are almost always a leftist in conventional politics. Conservatives intellectually are destined to be followers, not leaders, adventurers, or experimenters. This is why it is so hard to find a conservative in the upper echelons of intellectuals.
Because the currently leftists control western academia and if you want to a career as an academic you either toe the idealogical line or you get kicked out of the academic circlejerk and your chances of being employed by the teaching community shrink to pretty much zero.
>actully thinking philosopher is about left vs right politics
This is fucking retarded. Even the self-proclaimed Marxist philosophers are not 'leftist' Ziveck criticizes the liberals just as much if not more MORE than the conservatives. For instance his video on political correctness.
>>437882
edgy
Empathy is probably one of the main reasons life is as good as it is now
>>437983
back to reddit
>>437983
Thank you for proving right every horrible thing said about leftists in this thread.
>>430597
>Why is it that almost no philosophers or philosophy teachers end up in the right wing?
Plenty are, the majority are just left. But the reason they are leftists are not because "leftism" is true. It's because by voting left, they keep their job as a professor.
It's called self-interest mang.
>>438082
oh come on, how else do you make money from philosophy? Even the teachers teaching at private universities get most of their money from students who get government loans. I guess a philosopher will get a book published every once in a while, but generally I think it would be fair to say that the profession exists *almost* entirely within the public sector.
>>438212
no, reason is responsible for life being as good as it is. They didn't call it the Enlightenment because everyone stopped using logic and started asking each other how they feel about everything. In fact, the greatest advancement in human thought was the development of the ability to respond, when someone says 'I feel ... ', with 'Based on the evidence that doesn't make any fucking sense'.
>>430609
which is exactly why philosophy departments are a joke these days. Empathy is the opposite of reason.
>>433719
let's say half of the population of that village is dumb and weak. All the sharing of the fruit does is weaken the society from outside and internal threats as the dumb and weak can flourish and breed. Whereas, when the fruit is earned by the best, the society becomes stronger as the weak either become strong or die.
>>433243
literally the most pathetic person ive seen in awhile
>i couldnt imagine the dissapointmemt your parents have for you
>>436932
>leftists see it as a battle they must win to kill their enemies, enslave their children and rape their women
Isn't that a positive thing for conservatives
>>436833
Name five
>>430597
Becuase philosophy is the search of knowladge and you tend to see the face of the "other". Of every other, that empathy as >>430609 said. That why, when you start thinking you see, that the only posible answer in this world, is love and been there for the other.
The right uses, what Horckheimer named, the instrumental reason, the use of reason to solve problems, but not to seek transendence, that can only be achived by philospohy.
>>433719
>Left wing is just about being good unto each other.
>Right wing is the complete absense of social order (even though they falsely advertise themsevles as the opposite) and pure selfishness based on short term greed.
This is a retarded and false dichotomy seemingly sprung from the mind of some teenaged stoner. Then again. the left vs right dichotomy is ultimately meaningless because attempting to divide dozens of political, philosophical, and economic theories into two sides is an exercise in stupidity.
/lit/ please leave, you're far worse than your pet boogeyman /pol/
>>438094
Identity politics is just a reinvention of tribalism. This is where our anarchistic tendencies have lead us, the simple bludgeon of power in numbers condensed behind a tribe/identity.
It's tried and true, but can't compete with ideas like nationalism where when it works it creates a behemoth. We're still seeing if a "global order" which would trump all can even keep itself together.
>>438099
But "liberal" style thinking couldn't be any less original. It follows the track laid by the Enlightenment counting each tie along the way, then proclaiming it as a great insight.
I guess each tie on the track is "new" in this sense, but the pattern is old. Conservatism is outright rebellious in comparison, how rare is it that we just stop the train? Decide to enjoy the view where we're at?
And true novelty is unheard of, all we do is keep going down the Enlightenment line or try and go back. Nobody wants off the track. Our only advances are a measure of extremity, how far we take old ideas.
>>430597
Every law is a way of saying "I give up my right to do X so that others may not do X to me"
Liberals have a big list of freedoms they don't care about based on what they see of the world, and they expect the government to entertain their ideas. They read theory and realize the world does not fit, but don't realize, as thinkers that implementation and side effects matter. I don't know why the theory states that the government must handle more, though.
what's the difference between left and right?
>>432890
anticapitalism = left wing
KEK
>>443468
180 degrees waheyyy
>>443993
>right-wing "anticapitalism"
simply epic
>>438099
>liberalism/leftism
>>437033
>But losing muh job because of sjws is literally worse than being lynched.
I guess all those capitalists are regretting at will employment and right to work legislation.
>>437067
The KKK were pretty open about who they were and what they were doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t-7SVbLjBw
>>430597
Fields in which you do not have to actually produce anything useful tend to be dominated by leftists.
>>437404
Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome, faggot
utilitarianism lends itself to limp-wristed twats.
>>437067
Wrong, just google KKK elected officials
They pretty much ran Indiana for awhile. I don't know when the last open KKK/former KKK member served the government at a high level, first person that comes to mind is David Duke
>>433719
no, left wingers would say the fruit belongs to the people outside of the village.
>>444406
Parades are not meetings. Faggots have both safe spaces and parades too.
>>446563
Robert "White Niggers" Byrd
And lets not forget Woodrow "Squishin' that sedition" Wilson
>>446570
Wilson completely skipped my mind, good catch
>>433205
>people who seriously consider how to best bring happiness to others are not predisposed to supporting the subjugation of others.
But statists are the ones who do both. Well, the new style statist anyway. The old style died after it was discredited in WWII.
When was the last time you stepped into a university op
>>433877
If it's the creation science of economics, why do so many intellectuals believe it?
>>436875
if leftists could do that they would've done it in business already
>>436949
>Well, I'm right-wing but I'm also opposed to laissez-faire capitalism and most forms of libertarianism.
Are you a royalist?
>>430597
It's called socially protected ideas.
In academia it's now in style to be a progressive, therefore non-progressive (or not those who are not enough progressive) are a) ostracized and b) disinterested in being a part of that environment.
>>438099
>If you were born into a Monarchy then you are a monarchist. If the conservative was born in a democracy then they constantly name drop the word freedom. Raised in a capitalist society they ardently believe the free market will fix everything.
And if you were born into a communist country?
>Conservatives intellectually are destined to be followers, not leaders, adventurers, or experimenters.
Then why is it so easy to find a conservative CEO?
