|
Plato: Alright so this is my character Bobcrates and here's some art I had commissioned to show off how buff and majestic and smart he is.
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Serf posted:wtf math was invented in many places 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Iceclaw posted:And I think we can agree those places weren't haven of progressive thinking either, being usually during the antiquity. So hey, my point is that a fair chunk of non political science relies on the finding of people whose opinions on a lot of stuff we'd find distateful. i think you have fundamentally misunderstood the sentiment being expressed
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:Wait which of the Greek philosophers played TTRPGs? Was it Plato? I bet Plato was a real smug rear end in a top hat of a DM I believe the Greek generals did actually participate in what is, in essence, tabletop wargaming. I might be talking bollocks though, like Iceclaw.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
I'll admit this is a distinct possibility. Kind of under the weather, which works wonder with my understanding of english.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Hostile V posted:Plato: Alright so this is my character Bobcrates and here's some art I had commissioned to show off how buff and majestic and smart he is.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Aryabhata standing in the corner looking real annoyed at all of this.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
“We should ignore all historical thinkers because they were bigots,” isn’t an idea anyone actually believes, but you sure do see it argued against a lot whenever someone mentions that [insert historical figure] was kind of a bigot. We should absolutely be wary of historical thinkers coming up with ideas based in or even solely to promote historical biases or oppressions, because to do otherwise would to be altering historical reality to live in a comfortable fantasy land where all thoughts are worth considering, with no relation to reality. Malthus is great example of this. He must have know how absurd his ideas were, even if he might have actually believed them, because people immediately pointed out the mathematical flaws. He still wrote, published, and defended them because he hated poor and foreign people. Any historical understanding of him that doesn’t acknowledge this is inaccurate and ahistorical. And the idea that we shouldn’t morally judge people from the past is equally silly and facetious. It would create a similar break with reality to declare that the same actions, with identical consequences, are morally dissimilar just because the time they took place at. Historians and anthropologists remind themselves to focus on the beliefs and thoughts of groups they do not belong to, and to try not use morality in the understanding of other’s decisions because it helps them minimize their own biases in their attempts to figure out why people did or do things. None of this means that we, here on this forum, shouldn’t judge the poo poo out of historical figures with power. It doesn’t even mean that historians or anthropologists can’t make moral judgements about dead people or people they are not from the same society as. Fascists in gaming conclusion: Gary Gygax was a poo poo both because, and regardless of, the fact that he was born in the 30’s. jakodee fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
My main point was basically that in 2019, we are able to develop a political lexicon that is not 100% dead white racists, and indeed can and should include stuff not by white people, because we are t all white people. Obsessing over Enlightenment writers in 2019 rather than acknowledging their historic import but not making them the full corpus or cornerstone of our political library is, uh, silly.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:My main point was basically that in 2019, we are able to develop a political lexicon that is not 100% dead white racists, and indeed can and should include stuff not by white people, because we are t all white people. Obsessing over Enlightenment writers in 2019 rather than acknowledging their historic import but not making them the full corpus or cornerstone of our political library is, uh, silly. And my point is that the people who respond to your idea with “What, are you going to send Adam Smith to the History GULAG now?” are full of poo poo. It’s concern trolling. jakodee fucked around with this message at 01:25 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:My main point was basically that in 2019, we are able to develop a political lexicon that is not 100% dead white racists, and indeed can and should include stuff not by white people, because we are t all white people. Obsessing over Enlightenment writers in 2019 rather than acknowledging their historic import but not making them the full corpus or cornerstone of our political library is, uh, silly. And my point was that the usage of left and right in politics has an actual, well documented, physical origin in where people sat and who they sat with during the French Revolution. If you want to make an argument that left/right is a morally compromised distinction in politics due to everyone involved in the French revolution being hundreds of years old and therefore lovely, and that there's a better axis to use that's not morally compromised, go ahead. Seriously, go ahead, I'd be genuinely interested in that. Most attempts to refine the left/right description of politics simply add another axis, reading about another classification system would be cool. But I think it's incredibly ahistorical to use something that has a clear historical origin while simultaneously negating the people who made it due to the circumstances of their birth (rich, white, French, racist, Catholic or Deist.) It's just as ahistorical as holding up Athens as some kind of Utopian democracy, but in the exact opposite direction. Furthermore, I also think that the ideals of the Enlightenment are good and should be championed even if it's creators and refiners failed to live up to them, just like I'd also argue that the ideals of socialism are good and should be championed even if it's creators and refiners failed to live up to them. Still, at no point did I suggest that the Enlightenment was somehow the cornerstone of my political thought. Basically I think this: Joe Slowboat posted:...in casual conversation or forum contexts, 'just referencing historical thinkers from before modern antiracist critique' is a red flag is really dumb. I refuse to cede ground to people who entirely fail to understand the ideas they're invoking. I'm sure I'm opening myself up to charges of supporting fash but I'm honestly not sure how many fucks I give. I think Nietzsche has some interesting things to say, even if the Nazis hilariously misunderstood or intentionally misappropriated his thought to justify their cruelty. Hell, I think Heidegger has some interesting things to say and he's an actual unrepentant Nazi. I'm really not sure what the alternative to using terms that have historical contexts is, and according to the kind of Whig history some of you seem to be espousing any historical context is tainted and therefore not worth using. Okay, great. Where did you get that idea from though? And what alternative do you propose? If you can show me a political philosophy that champions the ideals I'm dedicated to (humanism, egalitarianism, liberalism very broadly) and was created sui generis I'd definitely be down and ditch my historically contingent and therefore tainted philosophy. I just honestly don't think that such a philosophy exists because I don't think anything is created sui generis. If your point is just "the Enlightenment philosophers were largely hypocritical assholes" I have absolutely no qualms with that. But, like... why are we talking about that? Does anyone involved in this discussion not believe that? I think you need to make a clearer argument if you're proposing we ditch political ideals that trace their origins to the Enlightenment era. But I don't think you're actually making that argument. What argument you are trying to make eludes me. Something like "Some people on the alt-right like Enlightenment thinkers [because they understand absolutely none of their ideas] so referencing them, even to explain how left/right became a political term, is something we shouldn't do?" I'm not sure you're arguing that either, because it sounds completely absurd to me, but it's honestly the closest thing I can see to being your point. I must be missing something you're trying to say. tl;dr - okay, yeah, Enlightenment thinkers were hypocrites and apparently the alt-right loves them. And therefore what?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Whoah there, my point is 'people whose online arguments are solely based on reference to 'The Enlightenment' as a concept and also the most High School Philosophy set of thinkers' tend not to be actually arguing with reference to the historical scope of discussion. I never argued that we can't talk about deontology, just that someone who thinks deontology vs utilitarianism is the cutting edge isn't actually arguing from a position of real engagement with the history there. If someone only references Plato, that's a red flag for, at the very least, an attenuated understanding of Plato. If someone's entire argumentative space is two hundred to two thousand years old, they are signaling an incuriosity about what any later thinkers have said building on those older thinkers (or in opposition to them!). As someone who likes Nietzsche quite a lot, most Nietzsche fans, who think he's the end of philosophy, are not even good Nietzsche readers let alone likely to be arguing in good faith. It's a sad condition, but you seem to be taking that to mean I'm saying 'never reference Nietzsche' which is pretty clearly not my position. E: I referenced Pinker for a reason. He's a popular thinker in the present whose entire argument is 'actually all good things are the Enlightenment' and uses that as a way to dismiss more recent thinkers who do precisely the critique of the Enlightenment as a historical moment that you're saying should be done. I love the universalist ambitions of the Enlightenment! And I also think Pinker is mostly useful to center-right conservatives who want to ignore any critique of the present status quo. At no point have I said 'you shouldn't reference the Enlightenment' just 'if all you reference in argument are Enlightenment mainstays you are not engaging in good faith with the current state of political philosophy and have a nonzero chance of thinking Postmodernist Marxists are out to get Western Civilization.' EE: also 'red flag' doesn't mean 'immediately send them to the guillotine' it means 'clear warning' - the same way waxing eloquent about Nazi tanks is a red flag. Plenty of tank-lovers aren't fascists, plenty of Enlightenment fans have a more nuanced perspective. But those behaviors still ought to engage a critical eye towards what you interlocutor means by it. Joe Slowboat fucked around with this message at 02:21 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Jesus gently caress, dude, you are willfully misreading me if you think I’m saying we can’t use the terms right and left rather than “maybe reference thinkers who are not old dead white people when talking about modern political thought and goals.”
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:And my point was that the usage of left and right in politics has an actual, well documented, physical origin in where people sat and who they sat with during the French Revolution. If you want to make an argument that left/right is a morally compromised distinction in politics due to everyone involved in the French revolution being hundreds of years old and therefore lovely, and that there's a better axis to use that's not morally compromised, go ahead. Seriously, go ahead, I'd be genuinely interested in that. Most attempts to refine the left/right description of politics simply add another axis, reading about another classification system would be cool. Uh. I was the guy claiming that Political Right and Left aren't useful in describing politics *because* they are centuries old and very specific politics descriptors that have since changed meaning so many times they’ve become meaningless political talking points instead of useful categories. Some other poster was talking about how we should maybe stop worshiping enlightenment philosophers. You’ve crossed the streams. They are very historically important groups, but are only important in the modern day in that it’s how your average person conceptualizes politics. jakodee fucked around with this message at 02:57 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Oh, hm, I should clarify: "Just" as in "only" Not as in 'any reference is poison.' I thought it was clear from context, my apologies.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Hostile V posted:Plato: Alright so this is my character Bobcrates and here's some art I had commissioned to show off how buff and majestic and smart he is. We don't know much about those for certain but there's a fairly reasonable theory that Plato was not his actual name and might have been a nickname given to him for being a big and muscly dude.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
As best as I can tell the best sign someone has of being a fascist or fascist-adjacent is "existing" and "posting on the Internet," at this point. The categories may be a little broad. Are Feats fascist? What about at-will powers?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
I mean the actual answer is 'the way to figure out if someone is fascist is more involved than a checklist, which can only give broad warning signs unless they openly spout fash talking points, which fascists intentionally camouflage.' Like, was anyone expecting a one and done test for whether someone's a fascist? Is that why 'hey this rhetorical strategy is used by fash' is getting read as 'therefore anyone who uses it must be a fascist'? Because that's not, I think, anyone's position. If it were that easy we wouldn't need a thread.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I mean the actual answer is 'the way to figure out if someone is fascist is more involved than a checklist, which can only give broad warning signs unless they openly spout fash talking points, which fascists intentionally camouflage.' No, but it's a great position to type angry paragraphs about if you'd rather people weren't having the discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
jakodee posted:Uh. I was the guy claiming that Political Right and Left aren't useful in describing politics *because* they are centuries old and very specific politics descriptors that have since changed meaning so many times they’ve become meaningless political talking points instead of useful categories. Yup, I did. And yeah, that's a fair argument I still disagree with, I think the categories left/right are wildly incomplete but still useful and I think both of them (until, for the right, about a decade ago) still trace neatly back and contain a substantial amount of the original (French revolutionary) politics. Joe Slowboat posted:Whoah there, my point is 'people whose online arguments are solely based on reference to 'The Enlightenment' as a concept and also the most High School Philosophy set of thinkers' tend not to be actually arguing with reference to the historical scope of discussion. Thanks for clarifying. I don't know enough about Pinker's conception of the Enlightenment, but in my understanding of it critiquing itself is pretty important, so I feel like if his position is what you're saying than he completely missed the point. Which a lot of people do. What I do know about Pinker lines up exactly with what you're saying about his stance on the Enlightenment, so I buy it completely. "Actually, things are better than you think" may not inherently be a reactionary position but I've never seen his political thinking used in any other way. Sorry I jumped down your throat. I guess I just saw the phrase red flag... and charged  Nessus posted:As best as I can tell the best sign someone has of being a fascist or fascist-adjacent is "existing" and "posting on the Internet," at this point. The categories may be a little broad. feats are fascist, at-will powers are revolutionary. this is pretty basic stuff nessus
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Yeah, the real irony is that Kant's own 'what is Enlightenment' essay claimed that Enlightenment is a spirit of constant, unflinching critique - and Foucault himself wrote a 'what is Enlightenment' essay taking up that banner, despite being precisely the bugbear of these types. Of course, the same Kant essay argued that totalitarian rulers were more likely to allow yjisncrotique becauss they're not threatened by it, being materially unassailable. Neither of which, the self-criticism or the explicit call for authoritarian monarchs, I suspect, is what Pinker types intend. E: and no hard feelings! It's honestly been an interesting conversation, despite the rough bits, and I appreciate your position.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
See also Derrida, who was deeply in love with the ideals of Western philosophy and truth, rather than some hellspawned demon marxist.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:Yup, I did. And yeah, that's a fair argument I still disagree with, I think the categories left/right are wildly incomplete but still useful and I think both of them (until, for the right, about a decade ago) still trace neatly back and contain a substantial amount of the original (French revolutionary) politics. I think I disagree with you, but I have heard some very convincing arguments to the effect that the core of modern “conservative” politics in the western euro/North American sphere is still Burke and his defense of the aristocracy with the free market and a government that only exists to defend its intented outcome.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:I think Nietzsche has some interesting things to say, even if the Nazis hilariously misunderstood or intentionally misappropriated his thought to justify their cruelty. How can you read Nietzsche and not come to the conclusion the guy's a massive bigoted weirdo? For example, even if you separate the concept of the Uberman from the racist nazi interpretation it still reeks of classism.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:How can you read Nietzsche and not come to the conclusion the guy's a massive bigoted weirdo? For example, even if you separate the concept of the Uberman from the racist nazi interpretation it still reeks of classism. Well, the anarchists influenced by Nietzsche might have some interesting things to say about that.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:How can you read Nietzsche and not come to the conclusion the guy's a massive bigoted weirdo? For example, even if you separate the concept of the Uberman from the racist nazi interpretation it still reeks of classism. I enjoy PG Wodehouse's Jeeves on Nietzsche: "You would not enjoy Nietzsche, Sir. He is fundamentally unsound."
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 10:19
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:How can you read Nietzsche and not come to the conclusion the guy's a massive bigoted weirdo? For example, even if you separate the concept of the Uberman from the racist nazi interpretation it still reeks of classism. I don’t mean this negatively, but it’s actually quite complex. Nietzsche is probably one of the easiest reads but hardest to understand. Most people stop at either nazi-inspiration, abyss stares back, gods dead and/or ‘what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger’, but if you want to understand why nietzsche isn’t a massively bigoted weirdo, or maybe that he could have been, but that it isn’t core to his philosophy, I’d recommend reading Foucault. Nietzsche is one of the main influences of Foucault’s genealogy, as well as his understanding of morality and power. What a lot people get wrong about Nietzsche a lot, is that they attribute to him, how he describes the world. I would argue, that there has been extremely few philosophers, who are as vehemently and strongly opposed to classism as Nietzsche.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:There is a real simple way to distinguish between extreme left and extreme right ideologies today. One of them want to genocide/remove/exile/subjugate/dominate everyone who is not like them, the other doesn’t have this as it’s main focus - in many cases (but not all), the other side wants to emaciate those people using radical tools (some of which may be considered extreme by some). However, saying people are fash adjacent if they believe that extreme right an extreme left are basically the same, may be a bit too much. Instead, it’s more accurate to say that they’re colossally ignorant morons, who should loving read a book instead of yammering on about subject they clearly know nothing about, and who are useful idiots for the fash agenda. Using your definition, I'd say that Stalinism and other authoritarian """socialism""" are extreme right ideologies. Which, sure, we can work with that definition. But if we accept this definition, we also have to acknowledge that it inherently acknowledges Nazism and authoritarian """socialism""" as 'basically the same', since they're on the same side of the spectrum, and, presumably, quite close what with their shared love of putting gay people in labour camps and genociding ethnic minorities. And then, in light of the fact that Nazism and authoritarian """socialism""" are typically held to be polar opposite extremes of ideology, I think it's somewhat... useless to condemn or dismiss people for thinking that the polar extremes are similar. (Especially with how authoritarian """socialism""" tends to grow out of left-wing socialism, rather than manifesting spontaneously among right-wing groups: there's a pretty clear connection between the two, even if we use a definition that places them on opposite sides of a spectrum.)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 10:48
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:I don’t mean this negatively, but it’s actually quite complex. Nietzsche is probably one of the easiest reads but hardest to understand. Most people stop at either nazi-inspiration, abyss stares back, gods dead and/or ‘what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger’, but if you want to understand why nietzsche isn’t a massively bigoted weirdo, or maybe that he could have been, but that it isn’t core to his philosophy, I’d recommend reading Foucault. Nietzsche is one of the main influences of Foucault’s genealogy, as well as his understanding of morality and power. What a lot people get wrong about Nietzsche a lot, is that they attribute to him, how he describes the world. I would argue, that there has been extremely few philosophers, who are as vehemently and strongly opposed to classism as Nietzsche. This is also why Nietzsche was, and remains, an inspiration to anarchist thinkers. A society where no one - no one! - is a master or a slave, but is universally free to pursue the goals of making a better world as individuals (without necessarily prizing the individual over the whole)? That's some seriously appealing stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Using your definition, I'd say that Stalinism and other authoritarian """socialism""" are extreme right ideologies. Which, sure, we can work with that definition. But if we accept this definition, we also have to acknowledge that it inherently acknowledges Nazism and authoritarian """socialism""" as 'basically the same', since they're on the same side of the spectrum, and, presumably, quite close what with their shared love of putting gay people in labour camps and genociding ethnic minorities. I disagree that authoritarian socialism has as it's main focus to genocide/remove/exile/subjugate/dominate everyone who is not like them. That's not the explicit main purpose, unlike right wing authoritarian ideologies. Since we're talking about an authoritarian ideology (by definition) it doesn't allow any other ideologies and extremely strongly tries to exterminate all other ideology, but that's not the end goal. That's a despicable biproduct of the main purpose - which is to eventually enact full communism (with all that entails), by any and all means. Tbh, I don't think we'll reach consensus or agreement if you honestly think that, for example Stalinism (or other authoritarian socialist paradigms), shares main focus of exterminating the Other with the extreme right - which is most definitely the main purpose of extreme right ideologies. Fundamentally, it has to do with how they envision the perfect society.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 11:09
|
|
|
The murders and subjugation are viewed as a horrible yet justified means to an end in Stalinism, Maoism, et al. The murders and subjugation are the means and the end in Nazism. That's not excusing the former, by the way. The short version of the history of Marxist-Leninism is "the ends really, really do not justify the means".
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 11:30
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Using your definition, I'd say that Stalinism and other authoritarian """socialism""" are extreme right ideologies. Which, sure, we can work with that definition. But if we accept this definition, we also have to acknowledge that it inherently acknowledges Nazism and authoritarian """socialism""" as 'basically the same', since they're on the same side of the spectrum, and, presumably, quite close what with their shared love of putting gay people in labour camps and genociding ethnic minorities. Authoritarianism isn't on the politic spectrum. Nazis are authoritarian right, Stalin was authoritarian left. You could talk about an extreme right ideology and authoritarianism is typically gonna be part and parcel. If you say extreme left Stalin isn't what springs to mind - Anarchists are. What I'm saying is just because something happened at one point in history doesn't make it part of the intellectual tradition of a movement. The right wing is ALWAYS the same when taken to its logical extreme, the left is not.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
Southpaugh posted:Authoritarianism isn't on the politic spectrum. Nazis are authoritarian right, Stalin was authoritarian left. You could talk about an extreme right ideology and authoritarianism is typically gonna be part and parcel. If you say extreme left Stalin isn't what springs to mind - Anarchists are. What I'm saying is just because something happened at one point in history doesn't make it part of the intellectual tradition of a movement. The right wing is ALWAYS the same when taken to its logical extreme, the left is not. Sadly, that's kind of debatable: China, Russia, North Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, the Khmer Rouges, and a fair few others spring to mind. Hell, at that point, which communist regime didn't fall into authoritarism, or worse? I'll give you that, unlike the far right, said shift is an unwanted mutation and not the end goal, but the question of why does it happens and how to prevent it is a sticking point. Iceclaw fucked around with this message at 14:11 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Probably because everyone of those nations - with the exception of the Khmer rouge (which was infact backed by America and not all communist in any meaningful way) was under the existential threat of american invasion/getting nuked. Theres a reason the leadership of these nations always ended up on the reactionary side of things. The October revolution happened and there was immediately an invasion of Russia that no one ever talks about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War Just look at that poo poo. We have cleared up the point that an authoritarian strong man is a requirement for the fash though right? Because they want to be ruled by a strong daddy-king.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Southpaugh posted:Probably because everyone of those nations - with the exception of the Khmer rouge (which was infact backed by America and not all communist in any meaningful way) was under the existential threat of american invasion/getting nuked. And we HAD invaded Cambodia earlier, in 1970.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
Just so we are clear, you are not defending dictatorships responsible for many, many massacres, and at least one genocide, and whom couldn't stray farther from the actual socialist ideal if they wanted to?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
I’m sorry, but what on earth would lead to you think that post was defending genocide? You asked specifically why it happens, the post gave a tentative/probably answer. Are you being purposefully disingenuous?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
What is this thread for anymore
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
long-rear end nips Diane posted:What is this thread for anymore People patting themselves on the back for having the right opinion about fascism, and drat anyone without doctrinal Purity.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
thread's getting weird...
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 15:22
|
|