/lit/ - Literature

>>16642833
>You are attempting to "submit humanity through philosophical reasoning" in this literal pos

Articulating a perspective or conclusion =/= Philosophical reasoning.

What OP wrote is IMO better described as an exercise in rhetoric rather than reasoning.

Rhetoric > Reasoning.

I too agree with OP that philosophy (though it serves a much needed purpose) is filled with people who are high systemizers and low empathizers (autists). No hate on Autists, it's just that most people are not Autists, and society is IMO best not to be run by

>>16411565

Chomsky does not talk about political philosophy from an Aesthetic-Spiritual paradigm like Evola did.

>>16369930

That leads to the exact same issue that I had before... Studying history can only tell us what happened, not what we ought to value or how we 'should' organize.

In regards to 'what has worked' within philosophical Conservatism, it's not simply looking coldly pragmatically at history. There are value judgement made, and theories of human nature asserted.

Hunter-Gatherer societies 'worked. But I don't want to return to those conditions, and nor do most people.