It's just you. Some feminists and homosexuals might quote Nietzsche occasionally, and plebs might run with concepts like perspectivism just to enable their own uneducated impudence, but that doesn't mean shit.

>>7866075
Yeah, but a lot of the feminist shit comes from people like Beauvoir, Marx influences a lot of the leftists for obvious reasons, and even some of the philosophers themselves (like Foucault, for example) are left wing.

Surely there is a tie to politics for the Continentals, and the tie is to the left?

>>7865596
Left/right crap is a subset of philosophy, not the other way around

The mainstream of activism for the past 60 years in academic continental philosophy has been leftism

The political side of pomo was always relativism and attacking "hegemonic" groups or spheres of society

Historically nearly all influential philosophy has been tied with left politics. For example, Locke is considered the father of Libertarianism that many of the right today stand by, but his ideas at the time were of course extremily liberal. You have to remember that at any point in time, an urge to remain the same is considered "conservative", an urge to change or progress is considered "liberal", and an urge to go back to an earlier standard is called "reactionary".

Why would any educated person, who is on the forefront of knowledge, not want change in some way? Every person who has ever attempted to improve government and society has been by definition liberal, this is not some kind of new phenomenon. Since we *are* always changing and progressing *some* liberal has been right or influential enough. Every single modern implementation of our government, from our demand of representation for taxation, to our election process, is a result of liberalism.

So why are you surprised that people on the now forefront of the philosophical dialectic are liberal? What should they be, conservative?

>>7866502
Descartes was sort of conservative. He didn't want any radical change at least.
Kant was anti-democracy to some extent, though Kant's politics are just autistic extensions of his moral philosophy.
Heidegger was a reactionary.

I'm sure there are more of them

>>7866556
Descartes was merely following the tradition of the french skeptics that came before him, which is to conform to the customs of whichever land you happen to be in because natural law isn't deducible.

I don't think being somewhat anti-democracy is particularly conservative of that time, considering he died only a few years after America was formed, and only a couple of years after the French revolution.

Heidegger did register himself with the Nazi party but stopped attending any gatherings and later described it as "the greatest stupidity of his life"

>>7866665
National socialism isn't reactionary.

No form of fascism is reactionary.

>>7866665
I suppose you're right but it doesn't feel correct to call them Liberals or Progressives

>>7866302
You don't seem to understand, that they might quote doesn't actually mean that they understand or have read anything. Quoting in the way that people do it is just to impress and try to reaffirm their views, it's just a shit argumentative device they use.

>>7866685
That's because American political discourse is retarded.

>>7866502
left = egalite
right = hierarchy

both can be interested in reforming or preserving the status quo

>>7865596
It's opposed to the positivist/liberal tradition, so it tends to attract both the far left and right.

>>7865596
No, continental Europe is just far more left than the us or canada so it seems like a bunch of guys arguing semantics since no one references muh guns or the like.

As late as the 1900's France had huge debates over ancient vs modern aesthetics, liberalism or conservatism within Christianity, atheism, and even monarchy versus democracy, all represented by many great philosophers.