Rolling Political Philosophy Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (641 of them)

wow this thread sucks

R.I.P. Haram-bae, the good posts goy (s.clover), Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:01 (eight years ago) link

make it better

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:03 (eight years ago) link

tbf he did post a link to a vice article about a year ago so what more do u want

Mordy, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:06 (eight years ago) link

i'm a little flabbergasted that lenin is still considered a leader in socialist thought and holds so much sway. marx, while certainly not infallible, was a brilliant economic and political thinker probably on par with adam smith, but this insistence on painting the soviet union, which can't even really be classified as a "noble failure", with rose-colored glasses, or else attributing all of the failures of the era to convenient scapegoat (and, to be clear, one of history's greatest monsters) stalin, baffles me.

^^^this

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:11 (eight years ago) link

i don't really believe in 'socialists' anymore tbh. we're all just quibbling over the details of the mixed economy and discourse would be way less annoying if everyone just admitted it instead of posturing

also this

there is no capitalism or socialism, there are only degrees of mediation between the state and capital

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:12 (eight years ago) link

there is no capitalism or socialism, there are only degrees of mediation between the state and capital

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:12 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this isn't political philosophy. this is a wet raspberry.

R.I.P. Haram-bae, the good posts goy (s.clover), Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:17 (eight years ago) link

what day to day experience tho? who knows how to judge this shit objectively - it's not like their homes are being bombed out, or they're starving bc food hasn't been sent to the city in weeks, or they've run out of toilet paper. their serotonin levels more-or-less self-correct and like i said from a historically (or global) perspective they're all doing pretty okay. it's not like if they were doing 10% better they'd necessary feel differently. this kind of thing i don't think actually arises from a real phenomenology. and even if it did, it's not like it's particularly rational to cut off your nose to spite yr ugly face.

― Mordy, Friday, June 24, 2016 12:48 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^ and this right up there with some rector shit (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mitt-romney-welfare-obama-robert-rector)

R.I.P. Haram-bae, the good posts goy (s.clover), Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:20 (eight years ago) link

yeah i don't think the two are related - mostly bc rector is using a maybe similar argument to push for welfare cuts, whereas i was asking whether economic depravity is a compelling argument for why ppl vote for right-wing outcomes - aka the exact opposite of how he's using the argument. like maybe getting into the weeds of actual quality of life is a bad diversion but if the answer to "why are you voting against your economic interests" is "because my economic interests are not being represented" you're def dealing w/ some kind of paradox.

Mordy, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:26 (eight years ago) link

and left-wing apologists like jill stein who want to claim that these reactionary political responses are really about economic alienation don't have a clear answer for why the most deprived voters are not voting for these outcomes. it's just a very shallow interpretation of a political phenomenon that suggests that they only see the world on a very determinist economic axis and don't really understand other elements to politics like tribalism, fascism/authoritarianism, nationalism/nativism, etc.

Mordy, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:28 (eight years ago) link

yeah, this thread sucks

R.I.P. Haram-bae, the good posts goy (s.clover), Wednesday, 29 June 2016 01:33 (eight years ago) link

god u suck what a fucking whiner

Mordy, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 01:34 (eight years ago) link

in my experience a lot of the movers and shakers at the concrete end of political activism, from migrant solidarity to housing campaigns to antiracist movements, are still the kind of ppl who'll read marx and other historical materialist stuff and to a certain extent 'theory' (tho not poor ol' hardt & negri any more) and in some way model their political practices on that background

my experience POSSIBLY a little skewed

god u suck what a fucking whiner

― Mordy, Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:34 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

at least i don't hate poor people

R.I.P. Haram-bae, the good posts goy (s.clover), Wednesday, 29 June 2016 13:58 (eight years ago) link

Who knows what you do besides shitpost

Mordy, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 14:01 (eight years ago) link

at least i don't hate poor people

― R.I.P. Haram-bae, the good posts goy (s.clover)

is ok, they're not real poor people, they're KULAKS

hypnic jerk (rushomancy), Wednesday, 29 June 2016 15:52 (eight years ago) link

amazing propaganda posters here:
https://thecharnelhouse.org/2016/07/01/anti-bolshevik-propaganda-posters-metal-as-fvkk/

Mordy, Friday, 1 July 2016 16:15 (eight years ago) link

oh wau

Οὖτις, Friday, 1 July 2016 16:23 (eight years ago) link

one of my favorite blogs

Mordy, Friday, 1 July 2016 16:26 (eight years ago) link

two months pass...

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/08/teaching-trump-to-college-students/498158/

Trump’s effect on writing a syllabus has been to make this political controversy even more poignant. This is because for the last 50 years, most political-science professors have relied on what has become a standard framework. It comes from Louis Hartz, a Harvard professor, whose famous thesis states that both the left and the right in the United States are dominated by what he dubbed the “liberal tradition” (“liberal” in the older sense of the word and not as the opposite of “conservative”). The liberal tradition is an ideology that affirms individual rights, due process of law, and a separation of powers in government. Hartz believed this tradition was so ingrained in American culture that there had never really been a need for a distinct liberal party or movement but simply what he called “the American Way of Life.” On this view, ideological conflict in the United States has primarily been an intramural quarrel among conservative liberals, centrist liberals, and liberal liberals.

The dominance of the Hartzian paradigm is evident in the way the top textbooks in American politics (used to teach literally thousands of undergraduates every year) uniformly omit any extended analysis of fascism, communism, or any other non-liberal ideology. This omission was certainly standard practice among political scientists who taught introduction to American politics courses at Berkeley. What it allowed professors to do was paint the full ideological spectrum in the U.S. using the same brush. Everyone in America was more or less on the same side. No harsh lines needed to be drawn. Of course, whether intended or not, this assumption implied a kind of liberal triumphalism. Other ideologies could be ignored because all American roads led to one final destination—liberalism.

j., Thursday, 1 September 2016 04:03 (seven years ago) link

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-lion-in-winter/

 Memories of these times give the impression of a brilliant professor who possessed a healthy dose of self-deprecating humor. During a lecture in the university’s largest auditorium, a student interrupted to ask if Habermas “could express himself a little less complicatedly, for it was so difficult to understand him. One half of the audience applauded. He promised to do his best in order to be intelligible, Habermas replied, whereupon the other half of the audience started booing. To those who were now booing, Habermas continued, he could promise that his good intentions were bound to fail.”

j., Wednesday, 14 September 2016 15:25 (seven years ago) link

two months pass...

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/chapter47.html

But after this doctrine, that the Church now militant is the kingdom of God spoken of in the Old and New Testament, was received in the world, the ambition and canvassing for the offices that belong thereunto, and especially for that great office of being Christ's lieutenant, and the pomp of them that obtained therein the principal public charges, became by degrees so evident that they lost the inward reverence due to the pastoral function: insomuch as the wisest men of them that had any power in the civil state needed nothing but the authority of their princes to deny them any further obedience. For, from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy, or kingdom of darkness, may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies; that is, to the old wives' fables in England concerning ghosts and spirits, and the feats they play in the night. And if a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: for so did the papacy start up on a sudden out of the ruins of that heathen power.

The language also which they use, both in the churches and in their public acts, being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?

The fairies in what nation soever they converse have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.

The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies are spirits and ghosts. Fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine, in monasteries, churches, and churchyards.

The ecclesiastics have their cathedral churches, which, in what town soever they be erected, by virtue of holy water, and certain charms called exorcisms, have the power to make those towns, cities, that is to say, seats of empire. The fairies also have their enchanted castles, and certain gigantic ghosts, that domineer over the regions round about them.

The fairies are not to be seized on, and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.

The ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason, by certain charms compounded of metaphysics, and miracles, and traditions, and abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else but to execute what they command them. The fairies likewise are said to take young children out of their cradles, and to change them into natural fools, which common people do therefore call elves, and are apt to mischief.

In what shop or operatory the fairies make their enchantment, the old wives have not determined. But the operatories of the clergy are well enough known to be the universities, that received their discipline from authority pontifical.

When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.

The fairies marry not; but there be amongst them incubi that have copulation with flesh and blood. The priests also marry not.

The ecclesiastics take the cream of the land, by donations of ignorant men that stand in awe of them, and by tithes: so also it is in the fable of fairies, that they enter into the dairies, and feast upon the cream, which they skim from the milk.

What kind of money is current in the kingdom of fairies is not recorded in the story. But the ecclesiastics in their receipts accept of the same money that we do; though when they are to make any payment, it is in canonizations, indulgences, and masses.

To this and such like resemblances between the papacy and the kingdom of fairies may be added this, that as the fairies have no existence but in the fancies of ignorant people, rising from the traditions of old wives or old poets: so the spiritual power of the Pope (without the bounds of his own civil dominion) consisteth only in the fear that seduced people stand in of their excommunications, upon hearing of false miracles, false traditions, and false interpretations of the Scripture.

It was not therefore a very difficult matter for Henry the Eighth by his exorcism; nor for Queen Elizabeth by hers, to cast them out. But who knows that this spirit of Rome, now gone out, and walking by missions through the dry places of China, Japan, and the Indies, that yield him little fruit, may not return; or rather, an assembly of spirits worse than he enter and inhabit this clean-swept house, and make the end thereof worse than the beginning? For it is not the Roman clergy only that pretends the kingdom of God to be of this world, and thereby to have a power therein, distinct from that of the civil state. And this is all I had a design to say, concerning the doctrine of the POLITICS. Which, when I have reviewed, I shall willingly expose it to the censure of my country.

awesome

j., Friday, 25 November 2016 01:50 (seven years ago) link

he rly liked that kingdom of fairies thing! i'm a big fan of this graf from several chapters earlier

As there have been doctors, that hold there be three souls in a man; so there be also that think there may be more souls (that is, more sovereigns) than one, in a Commonwealth; and set up a supremacy against the sovereignty; canons against laws; and a ghostly authority against the civil; working on men's minds, with words and distinctions, that of themselves signify nothing, but betray (by their obscurity) that there walketh (as some think invisibly) another kingdom, as it were a kingdom of fairies, in the dark.

difficult listening hour, Friday, 25 November 2016 06:21 (seven years ago) link

strange echo at the beginning there of an unborn freud

difficult listening hour, Friday, 25 November 2016 06:28 (seven years ago) link

Was wondering if he had read Kirk's "The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns, and Fairies", but I think they missed each other,chronologically.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Friday, 25 November 2016 10:17 (seven years ago) link

one month passes...

sheldon wolin on hobbes:

The state of nature symbolized not only an extreme disorder in human relations, causing men to consent to the creation of an irresistible power; it was also a condition distraught by an anarchy of meanings. In nature each man could freely use his reason to seek his own ends: each was the final judge of what constituted rationality. The problem posed involved more than the moral issues arising from man's vanity or his desire for pre-eminence. It was a genuinely philosophical one involving the status of knowledge....

[Man] alone of all the animals possessed speech and was capable of science, yet he alone could turn speech into deception, ideas into sedition, learning into mystification.... These ironical overtones rule out interpreting the state of nature as belonging to the remote past... Instead, it represented an imaginative reconstruction of a recurrent human possibility ... built on the causes and consequences of political breakdown. Its meaning remained eternally contemporary and urgent....

In this sense, the concept did not belong solely to the past or even to the present. Its status was that of an ever-present possibility inherent in any organized political society, a ubiquitous threat which, like some macabre companion, accompanied society in every stage of its journey. It was present each night, as men sealed themselves in their homes and succeeded only in locking in fear.... The content of the state of nature could be filled in by consulting "the manner of life which men that have formerly lived under a peaceful government, use to generate into, in a civil war."

difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 11 January 2017 20:25 (seven years ago) link

what do people really mean when they say 'i'm wary of rights talk'?

j., Thursday, 12 January 2017 03:51 (seven years ago) link

xp the first book of leviathan, with the epistemological stuff in it, is pretty amazing

j., Thursday, 12 January 2017 03:53 (seven years ago) link

two weeks pass...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/opinion/the-intellectual-life-of-violence.html

interview w/ richard bernstein on fanon, arendt, and benjamin

j., Thursday, 26 January 2017 16:57 (seven years ago) link

two weeks pass...

cc Mordy: Scott Alexander on moldbug

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/

flopson, Thursday, 9 February 2017 18:20 (seven years ago) link

yeah i've read that a few times before. it's a good rejoinder. did u see bannon listed moldbug as one of his favorite writers?

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2017 18:21 (seven years ago) link

ya that's where i saw this linked

flopson, Thursday, 9 February 2017 19:06 (seven years ago) link

what do people really mean when they say 'i'm wary of rights talk'?

― j., Thursday, January 12, 2017 4:51 AM (one month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I say that I'm wary of rights talk! What do I mean? well, start here: if I'm to accept such talk, I want to understand the genesis of rights. How to make sense of rights talk without there being a giver of that right? Consider the claim that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." From what comes that right? One can offer theistic answers, of course, but a) what force would this have for non-theists b) how to resolve differences between theisms? If one goes Kantian and says that the deeming of rights is a consequence of rationality, then one can evade rights by choosing irrationality (if irrationality can't be chosen, then the Kantian move explains nothing: why do we have rights: because we do).

I realize that this is all quite naive but it's why I'm wary of rights talk.

droit au butt (Euler), Monday, 20 February 2017 11:10 (seven years ago) link

surely it's a matter of mutual recognition rather than anything transcendent. your self-conception is as one among a community/world of a baseline of equal status. it is clearly negotiable in the long term at least and not absolutist

ogmor, Monday, 20 February 2017 11:22 (seven years ago) link

xp yet how often are there people who are wary of rights talk who are also willing to say 'also i don't think anyone has any rights' (or equivalently expressed)? i mean we ain't talkin nietzscheans here

j., Monday, 20 February 2017 15:11 (seven years ago) link

yeah I don't know, I read your post in my usual philosophical vacuum, I have no idea who says "I'm wary of rights talk" outside of the ivory tower

droit au butt (Euler), Monday, 20 February 2017 15:15 (seven years ago) link

yeah they're the only ones afaik

j., Monday, 20 February 2017 15:15 (seven years ago) link

for the same kinds of reasons that people have, i dunno, problems with chapter IV of utilitarianism or meditation 3 - it repeats some dumb objection they picked up somewhere so that they know how to make the next move in the schtick

j., Monday, 20 February 2017 15:16 (seven years ago) link

One can offer theistic answers, of course

i find these satisfactory and actually feel like if there is no god then there are certainly no natural rights. normative rights or pragmatic rights maybe (something like 'these rights are necessary to posit in order to have a society that is somewhat nice to live' seems like a practical argument to me) but certainly no natural rights since the only natural right in the absence of god is the right to kill or be killed.

Mordy, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:26 (seven years ago) link

You don't need a god to have a concept of "natural rights". Human beings are animals with, generally speaking, shared instincts, attitudes, attributes, etc. We can create natural rights out of our shared nature as a species, and for the most part, that involves being both cooperative and individualistic, valuing life and relationships, that sort-of thing. There are statistical outliers like psychopaths out there, but that's why they're called "psychopaths".

larry appleton, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:30 (seven years ago) link

You don't need a god to know what love, beauty, and connectedness feel like, and to understand that most other people feel those things, too, and to accept that as a natural right to respect.

larry appleton, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:32 (seven years ago) link

It's not for the sake of god, but for the sake of the person. So the only way to have a true natural right is without a god.

larry appleton, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:32 (seven years ago) link

how is the material possibility of killing or being killed a right?

ogmor, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:35 (seven years ago) link

haven't you ever seen james bond

j., Monday, 20 February 2017 15:38 (seven years ago) link

a natural right to sell alcohol for consumption on or off the premises

ogmor, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:45 (seven years ago) link

it's not really a right - it's bellum omnium contra omnes

Mordy, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:46 (seven years ago) link

the natural state of life is one of chaos + war + brutality. you can invent a social contract to make life more pleasant but i don't see how it becomes natural just bc it's nice. larry, you seem to be arguing that it's natural to honor each other's rights to love beauty and connectedness. i'm surprised to hear you of all ppl assert this. you must be much more optimistic about the nature of humanity than you let you.

Mordy, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:48 (seven years ago) link

than you let on*

Mordy, Monday, 20 February 2017 15:48 (seven years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.