/lit/ - Literature

no but he can

>>13545165
>no xi jinping or deng

>>11879789
of course, that's a big if. it may not work, since who knows how things will play out between the west and china.

but in terms of how sophistry dies we're already most of the way there. there's no upper limit on grievance politics in academia today, and the red and blue teams in the US might as well inhabit different planets. what happens is that each side perceives the other as being sophistry, while at the same time said sophistry becomes indistinguishable from party fidelity. in china they're actually going to do what radical left academics can only dream about. if it works it will come here. if it doesn't, buckle down for more of the same tribal shit-flinging among an ever-greater diaspora of post-postmodern anarchs.

that's my hot take.

>>11806626
>>11806666
>>11806767
also was this comment really so mysterious? all i meant was that i wish - stupidly - for a second edition of the PoS updated to cover the two centuries since the napoleonic wars. ofc i know that this isn't possible or that the cold war happened in a much later period after marx and hegel. but hegel covers feudalism, the revolutionary period, religions from all over the world, i would have liked to have gotten his take on the cold war as well, since it would have been interesting. especially since all three powers in the world today which followed it operate on one form of state-capitalist OS or another.

china is going to be a fascinating story to watch tho. i can't deny that i find reading chinese state propaganda seductive. i do. i know reality and fiction have no connection and that things are probably far worse in china than the state department will let on, that one should not fall in love with socialism purely because one is in a state of confusion, and so on. no end of writers in france and germany were seduced by communist russia as well. this is not lost on me. even now you have to ask yourself if xi jinping thought, or socialism with chinese characteristics is not simply another way of saying Imperialism chinese-style, with all attendant faults. marx + confucius is a powerful ideological one-two and wholly beyond good and evil in that sense: marxism (maoism) to make the revolution happen, and new confucianism to keep it there.

https://www.thechinastory.org/cot/jiang-shigong-on-philosophy-and-history-interpreting-the-xi-jinping-era-through-xis-report-to-the-nineteenth-national-congress-of-the-ccp/

so i'm not saying this to make a case for china, just that i find it interesting and because it touches upon the kinds of philosophical questions i'm interested in also. i am a kind of a boring globalist/centrist type at heart and i do kind of hope for a star trek-lite version of the future where we all get along and explore space and so on, become a post-scarcity or kardashev-2 style civilization. it's one of those things that amazes me about star trek at all: there you are, in the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, and there on the enterprise you have the true planetary coalition - there's a russian guy and a chinese guy right there, ffs. pretty amazing that anybody would have a vision like that. and it's a contagious one.

there's nothing more played today than just shitting on the west. if the capacities of capitalism to bend space and time show us anything, it is that it is a terrible idea ever to bet against the west, inasmuch as this means taking heidegger's view that cybernetic technology is the continuation of western metaphysics. that appears to be doing quite well. so a cosmopolitical as well as cosmotechnical view of things is more my style. where we start looking into the possibilities for a more intelligent kind of human being in a more interesting moral landscape.