/lit/ - Literature

>autistic and reddit in the same post
>expecting to be taken seriously about Locke

>>11272436
not an argument

>>11272436
What the fuck does that mean?

>>11272436
he wasn't autistic at all, he was quite socially aware. What he was was a filthy dishonest smug leftist, and he made all his arguments in bad faith.

>>11272436
He is quite incoherent on idealism, he even quite confused to tell apart object and idea in his own book.
I mean, every philosopher has some autistic standpoint. I rather say he is not autistic enough.

>>11272473
>Lock
>leftist

nigger what are you smoking

>>11272436
Yes. English philosophers in general are usually autistic, if we couldn't afford to have so many of them they wouldn't have produced anything of note.

>Skepticism isn't my problem you fucking pseuds, that means empiricism is real and the universe is observable, senses aren't subject to failure because there's 5 of them!

>>11272586
read his first essay on Filmer and tell me that is not a Leftist being a fucking leftist. I can see the smirk through the pages

>>11272628
Oh, you.

>>11272586
>opposed absolute monarchy in favor of "natural rights"
>supported the Glorious Revolution
>ingratiated with whigs
>ideological foundation for every major liberal revolutionary movement of the next 150 years
nigger was as left as left got in those days

>>11272436
With that attitude it's time to put the philosophy down.

>>11272679
in those days

>>11272473
>muh leftishtshsh

>>11272687
Yes you stupid fuck, what else would anybody be talking about? His actions were entirely directed at pushing society to the left and his ideas did even more so than he could ever hope.

>>11272712
t. leftist

Is it just me or did John Locke act in Disney's the Little Mermaid?

locke was the SJW of his time

>>11272436
Yes, read Leibniz nigger

>calling one of the biggest defenders of private property a "leftist"
Oh wait I forgot, the new right is all about collectivism and big government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government

>The First Treatise is focused on the refutation of Sir Robert Filmer, in particular his Patriarcha, which argued that civil society was founded on a divinely sanctioned patriarchalism. Locke proceeds through Filmer's arguments, contesting his proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as senseless, until concluding that no government can be justified by an appeal to the divine right of kings.

>The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. Locke begins by describing the state of nature, a picture much more stable than Thomas Hobbes' state of "war of every man against every man," and argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God.

just lol. locke was just a useful tool for the civil war. his whole phillosophy is fucking retarded, a 10 year old could write that. but he was useful fo justificationary rationalisms in the civil war, and so he suddenly finds a huge microphone in front of him, and everyone knows him now.

>>11272814
>muh incoherent marxist gibberish is the final word on the left-right dichotomy
just eat a dick

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/locke-versus-filmer-or-why-you-are-all-communists/

>>11272835
Name 1 (one) leftist thinker who is to the left of social-democracy and that vigorously defends private property.

>>11272826
Based. We need to bring kings back to the throne so we can save western civilization from the leftists and the women

>>11272859
the Right is defined by hierarchy first and foremost. Locke attacked hierarchy and defended the individual.

It takes a serious amount of historical illiteracy to not understand that classic liberals were the leftists of their day

>>11272863
this but unironically. it wont happen though, we will just have brazilification and collapse

>>11272870
physical embodiment of brainlet

>>11272878
everything i said is completely true you faggot

>>11272436
>the father of liberalism has a problem with holistic thinking
You figured that out now? The whole point of liberalism is that it's so relativistic it disproves itself.

>>11272870
>right is about hierarchy
Today I learned that any commie authoritarian shithole is "right wing" becuase there is a rigid hierarchical structure ruling over.

>>11272888
it basically is. Stalin for example made the USSR more rightwing than it was under Lenin. It still wasnt a rightist state because it insisted on marring the natural hierarchies with its autistic centralization

Leftism is defined by equality, which in practice is just chaos and anarchy.

>>11272870
>>11272835
you're so fucking dumb

the LEFT was the left of "their day" retard

>>11272898
you have no clue what you're talking about. In the context of literal monarchies being a republican is Leftism.

The French revolution was not carried out by communists you insipid fuck hole

>>11272904
lol?? u dont think that socialism wasnt around back then? or that the FR didn't draw from a variety of influences, both liberal and socialist or anarchist? (as well as the american revolution. revolutions weren't really partisan or ideological)

>>11272947
and you dont understand that the classic liberals were on the Left? Nationalism was also a leftist thing in 19th century.

you cant seriously be so autistically butthurt about modern libertarians that youre going to just deny basic history

>>11272960
>Nationalism was also a leftist thing in 19th century
haha wtf??

if you dont choose to delineate the l/r division on static grounds, but rather on the oscillating, fluid tendencies of history (via the metric of, uh... "culture"? ideologies' relative position to others that existed at the time, even though *the far right and left have p much always existed as long as politics have*, as i've already pointed out?) they literally lose all meaning and the act becomes your weird revisionist posturing. and i'm libertarian-adjacent dude.

>>11272779
applying modern spooks about left and right to Locke is intellectually reprehensible

>>11272997
good god the way you write is insufferable. The Left-right division is about hierarchy, represented on the Right by divine right monarchy. The movements away from that throughout history were Leftist movements, this is not rocket science

Nationalism in the 19th century was framed as a movement uniting the people against unjust authoritarian regimes, it was pure Leftism.

you should literally kill yourself, everything about you is repulsive

>>11272997
You are so uninformed as to be self-delusional. The idea of the state, formed of the people is a small-l liberal enlightenment concept that was ultimately spread by napoleon to the plebs.

Prior to that submission to the autocratic god given right of the ruler was a non-nationalistic concept, hence why spain had every right in their way of thinking to take the netherlands. Dynasty right, nationalism left. Fuckin meathead

>>11272436
this thread is an abomination, all of you should be gassed

simple rebuttal:

economic rightism is still rightism, lolbert ideology including totally alien conceptions of property existed in Fascist theory of Italy and Corporatism as well as Mein Kampf and many other places where its explicitly delineated. Totally full of shit, lolberts are not leftists, and Locke was opposed to nepotistic-hereditary hierarchies encroaching on the rights of the bourgeoisie who were the natural aristocracy of his time not the hemophilic nobility.

>>11272997
>haha wtf??
he's right you dunce, positivists and liberals were all nationalists

>>11273022
youre clueless dude. not only have you not addressed the following issues that make troubling the basis on which your """position""" rests;
>if you dont choose to delineate the l/r division on static grounds, but rather on the oscillating, fluid tendencies of history (via the metric of, uh... "culture"? ideologies' relative position to others that existed at the time, even though *the far right and left have p much always existed as long as politics have*, as i've already pointed out?) they literally lose all meaning and the act becomes your weird revisionist posturing
but literally every historian or scholar would laugh at ur face if you asserted that locke was left wing. your brain has been poisoned by online & u dont read

>>11273028
did u get so angry that u replied to me twice lol

>>11273043
>if you dont choose to delineate the l/r division on static grounds, but rather on the oscillating, fluid tendencies of history (via the metric of, uh... "culture"? ideologies' relative position to others that existed at the time, even though *the far right and left have p much always existed as long as politics have*, as i've already pointed out?) they literally lose all meaning
holy shit read the post retards, a conception of the left-right dichotomy that takes into account the historical context of the ideology-holder instead of just simply evaluating it on an absolute scale *needs to be justified beforehand*

>>11273049
I did address the 'issue' that your rambling faggoty speech attempted to express, Right is defined by hierarchy, it is not arbitrary. and any scholar even vaguely aware of Locke and the context he lived and wrote in would understand his relation to leftism.

You are so fucking retarded and effeminate I question if there is literally a dick in your ass right now preventing you from forming coherent thoughts.

The term 'left wing' came from the French revolution, and referred literally to fucking republicans who would have used Lockian theories to justify their positions you fucking brainlet

>>11273042
>economic rightism is still rightism
capitalism is inherently errosive to culture, to hierarchy, and self destructive. it is leftist. "state capitalism" (see palace economy) is the most right wing economy.

>>11273056
Naw you just have a highschoolers conception of history, and an undeveloped mind that would seriously consider nationalism a right wing ideology in the 17th-19th century (right up until the end of the franco-prussian war desu).

It was all monarchists against the partition of poland, i swear.

Honestly though, Im embarrassed by your replies. Its literally hitting my anxiety that someone could be so dumb, and someone could read some of your trash. HAHA orlly??>?!?!

>every historian or scholar would laugh at ur face if you asserted that locke was left wing
Yeah definitely not a framer of the basis of the declaration of the rights of man and the american bill of rights. Fucking trash brainlet

>>11273078
>You are so fucking retarded and effeminate I question if there is literally a dick in your ass right now preventing you from forming coherent thoughts.
>>11273084
>Honestly though, Im embarrassed by your replies. Its literally hitting my anxiety that someone could be so dumb, and someone could read some of your trash. HAHA orlly??>?!?!

youre literally seething w/ autistic rage u fucking child lol

>>11273096
it is enraging that some 17 year old could walk in here and take your shit seriously. And you are so clearly smugly believing you are right. Its disgusting desu. Its like if I edited a wikipedia page on physics slightly to change the formulae.

>>11273096
>get completey btfod by two different people because you're an uninformed faggot
>haha ur mad
kys

>>11273096
>youre literally seething w/ autistic rage u fucking child lol

literally trembling with how incorrect he is

>>11273081
Palace economy hasn’t been practiced since the Archaic period in Greece, the Nazis and Fascists were openly capitalist they just restrained the market and directed its fruits towards the security state and war machine. You don’t know what you’re talking about at all, the Vikang pillage economics are an early form of capitalism. You people are spineless eels, can’t even cop to your own beliefs. Hitler privatized the banking industry and a large amount of manufacturing and extractions industry. Mussolini allowed Italian banks and industry to remain autonomous he just melded them to the interests of the security state and his war machine. Which is what the US already does in the defense industry, oil, chemicals etc, if we did this with Tech, Agro and Pharma , made military service mandatory and gave the exec the right to dissolve the legislature we would be a de facto fascist country. This isn’t /pol/ or the Phora you can’t just say stupid insane shit like Capitalism isn’t rw and get away with it. Of course its corrosive because not everything is political, some things are economic that’s why there are two axes on the compass tests you fucking nigger pseud midwit. Locke did not at all support egalitarianism and neither do lolberts, they are vehemently opposed to helping the poor, to giving out handouts to the oppressed and they don’t care about slavery as long as it can be negotiated. The rw is a huge range of beliefs, Palace economy is literally a LARP from twitter (guarantee you’re from twitter and the Phora), which the modern right is overcoding to cover up that the Germans were capitalist pigs who protected capitalism even more viciously than the Weimar republic did, which had more nationalized industries than NSDAP Germany did. Total bullshit get off my board now fag

>>11273113
>capitalist pigs
>posted from my iPhone 7

>>11273078
uh.. no u still havent coherently. your attempt to has a contradiction in the same paragraph
>Right is defined by hierarchy, it is not arbitrary
>and the context he lived

this is what /pol/ does to teenagers

>>11273106
>>11273107
>>11273109
youre still mad as fuck my dude

>>11273127
heh.. epic own of bugmen cucks

>>11273113
we're just arguing over semantics of what is left wing and right wing. but do you not agree that modern nu-left types are an immediate results of capitalism? or should i call it "cultural marxism" like the /pol/ people do?

>>11273127
yup, pseud half-wit, leave faggot

>>11273129
Get the dick out of your mouth and think for one second. If you are actively attacking hierarchy you are a leftist. The fact that more leftist positions exist doesn't change this.

It's the same way that modern libertarians should be considered right wing because they are arguing against leftists, they are moving rightwards, even though more rightwing positions than libertarianism exist. A libertarian who is trying to abolish monarchy is a leftist. The direction of the action matters.

If you want a static picture you have an extreme right and an extreme left, the positions in between can't be objectively measured, there is no 'center' , there is only the contextual push and pull against the extremes.

>>11273015
this

>>11272473
Most intelliegent people are leftists.

>>11273129
what is pro and anti hierarchy is historically contingent you fuckin spastic.

>>11273015
>Locke was somehow above the distinction
No he was not, he was just some faggot, stop deifying people because they lived a few centuries ago

>>11273169
Yeah, but they are also morally colorblind.

>>11273169
yeah im aware. the most educated and high IQ groups are autists like libertarians though so it is a dumb metric

>>11273169
>intelligent
>because they went to college
cringe

>>11273169
If remember correctly it's more or less fifty/fifty in every IQ level, actually

>>11273163
so the delineation *is* based on social context, that context being the strengthening/weakening of heirarchy? ok, why use or take that definition seriously (if its implications are nigh nonsensical— like a nazi in a further-right-than-fascism society being centre-left)? how isnt it your weird revisionist posturing, only utilized with the end result of being able to call certian people left- or right-wing in mind?

>>11273169
If you base your views of intelligence on graphs you are basically just a jew fucktoy, as you fall asleep you'll hear Paul Krugman whispering economic platitudes in your ear as his beard brushes your cheek

>>11273170
see >>11273197

>>11273152
that’s not what we’re talking about at all, im not going to let you wind your way back to the idiot position you advanced

>are idpol fags a result of capitalism?
in the most convoluted way yes, they are the detritus of the defeated left wing being sublated by global capital, capital is apolitical as long as the politics is not explicitly opposed to it, you can have fascist capitalists, socialist leaning capitalists (like Bernie), monarchist capitalists and anarcho-capitalists. Hence, there is a second axes which is right and left leaning economics. Capitalism is almost always right leaning, as in modern leftist capitalists are much further right economically than communists were/are; as in, HRC and Soros are left leaning socially and right leaning economically (neo-liberals), they’re not really far left just like boomer nationalism isn’t really far right, we don’t have a far left or far right because both are by de facto illegal in the West, commies are infiltrated and destroyed by rw deep state (GLADIO, Greywolves); rw is immediately banned or coopted by Jews and Centrists, just look at all WN movements filled with spooks and Jews.

You won’t be able to get away with what you want: Right=palace economy+military hierarchy, reactionary politics and the right are not completely defined by these things, if they were Hitler would have seized all private property and redistributed it to his in-group, which is what kings used to do, there was no racial consciousness when a new regime took power in Greece, their in-group benefited and everyone else waited to get gibmedats, and then he would have dissolved private industry, which is what was the norm in the ancient world, though again independent merchants have always existed, Capital is ancient, the Phoenicians and Carthagians, Romans, Persians, Jews, Indians, Parthians, Syrians all had trading networks independent of the Palace economy and they were hardly anti-hierarchical considering they traded in humans and weaponry mostly. Just over simplifying so you can have a clear distinction to use for organizing warfare, understandable pragmatically, but fucking gay intellectually. All the idiot demarcations that /pol/ makes are pseudointellectual (half baked and half true).

this is why echochambers are so defiling, you need to be willing to engage with the opposition even privately without granting them ground

>>11273197
it is the only position that makes any sense you brainlet. There is a reason Locke is taught in schools and Filmer is not. It's because you can move from Locke to modern Leftism.

Nazism has elements of leftism- the 'will of the people' is a leftist idea. Nazism in teh context of Weimar was very clearly a right-wing movement, it was trying to reestablish hierarchy.

What is 'nonsensical' about having nuanced and non-hysterical views about what the Nazis were?

>>11273184
>>11273185
>>11273198
>>11273188
seething

>>11273212
John Locke is not a Leftist and he would not have supported Socialism at all man, he was a Minarchist Propertarian Jeffersonian Liberal, this is not Leftism its Left of Center and it needn’t leave the Center at all, it can, as you say it has potential, but it doesn’t have to be and you can be a racist minarchist propertarian jeffersonian who supports white militias gunning down escaped black slaves and banning Jews from your polity for bad business practices.

>>11273152
>nu-left types are an immediate results of capitalism?
they aren't, this is a pseudointellectual platitude which is very common amongst Marxist leaning pseudointellectual types

>>11273188
Okay then

>>11273232
it's to the Left of the monarchists Locke was arguing against. Obviously it's not as leftwing as socialism, nobody is even implying that.

>>11273212
>There is a reason Locke is taught in schools and Filmer is not
because filmer was a brainlet

>>11273242
So IQ is a valid measure of intelligence now? Good to know, that justifies the racism of the low-IQ conservatives

>>11273209
good post, how do you define left and right then? or do you reject this dichotomy?

>>11273212
"nazi" was a flawed example if only b/c i knew itd incite this meta-argument about nazism.
substitute that with “person highly in favor of strong hierarchy”, like so:
>if its implications are nigh nonsensical— like a person highly in favor of strong hierarchy in a further-right-than-their-position society being centre-left
for a right winger (you obviously are one), isn't this a very RELATIVIST view of the categorization of political ideology, and one that threatens to obfuscate the meanings of the terminology at hand? that's your goal in this thread anyways; to obscure the extremely strong connection between locke & the modern rght's ideas via semantic parlor tricks.

>>11273209
that is exactly what the Right is, and the fact that hitler didnt do what you suggest means he wasnt the manifestation of pure Rightism, which is a fucking absurd contention in the first place

the idea of the 'aryan people' is anti-righist in its very conception. The most important rightist group is the nobility

>>11273270
the modern right are not very right wing at all is my point. Anything that isnt a monarchy or aristocracy is not very right wing.

I know the modern right use people like Locke, and Locke is definitely to the Right of the modern Left, so there is no incoherence in this.

As to my motives what do you think im some sort of evil spook sent to confuse the brave revolutionaries? get a fucking grip dude, im just outlining a definition of what rightism is

>>11273305
>the modern right are not very right wing at all is my point. Anything that isnt a monarchy or aristocracy is not very right wing.
you're switching between a socially contingent and absolutist view of what determines ideology almost every post. your position is the opposite of well defined.

>>11273323
im really not though. I already said that the two extremes are not arbitrary, and everything within has to be judged by which direction it is moving towards.

This spectrum has no units, you can't say that classial liberalism is 5 units to the Right of socialism, that just doesnt mean anything. You cant identify a center at all

>>11272789
underrated

>>11273279
you lose
>>11273263
it doesn’t make any sense, the same people funded Communism and Fascism, half the nobility provided financial backing for the paneuro movement, bilderberg, eu etc, its just a dead concept. I get disgusted reading NRx twitter and watching people shadowbox with a left wing that doesn’t exist. Technocapital is everything, right and left materialized from 19th-20th C’s and then dissolved into oblivion, we’ll never see a real fascist state or commie dictatorship ever again.

>>11273389
>you lose
great argument you faggot

>>11273401
i won already you’re not worth my time, you don’t know what you’re talking about, Hitler was right wing, the right is compatible with capitalism go talk the frogs on twitter they will tell you this and most fascists now on /pol/ have stopped pretending to be opposed to the market, they want mil-dictatorship (i don’t support), racial homogeneity (which i support), and controlled markets protected with trade restrictions and exploited as a dynamo for endless warfare. Fascism is capitalist just economics is subordinated to the State’s interests, in theory, in practice the Nazis were compelled to do what they did because Capital is stronger than the State, Land has written extensively about this. Have fun LARPing as a mycenaen (who you almost certainly have no direct racial connection to, guarantee you are a northern/cent european)

>>11273417
>just economics is subordinated to the State’s interests, in theory, in practice the Nazis were compelled to do what they did because Capital is stronger than the State
need some headers here. it would make all the difference and render your analysis wrong if the case is that state can subordinate capital. perhaps point to relevant nick land posts. thanks in advance. (not the person you replied to)

>>11273417
i said hitler was right wing you fucking brainlet. i also said he wasnt pure rightism which is divine right monarchy

why do you suck so much

>>11273254
BTFO

>>11273242
You got the links to the actual studies? Curious as to the breakdown of self-descriptors, can't say I can think of many 'right wing' or nationalist types describing themselves as 'very conservative'. Whereas most far left or communist types would certainly describe themselves as very liberal.

>>11272779
>His actions were entirely directed at pushing society to the left and his ideas did even more so than he could ever hope.
and yet 80% of the people quoting those radical progressives like Locke and Smith today are right wingers. Classical liberalism skews hard right today.

>>11273446
taking an extreme position and then calling everything that doesn’t imitate it not-x is low iq political wonk behavior. commies do the same stupid shit, Capital is generally right leaning, the Fascists were basically capitalists, Locke is a right wing capitalist who leaned further left on social issues, but did not support the vast majority of things the Left does: egalitarianism, anti-racism, collectivization of property, a gigantic mammy state

>>11273478
Google "conservatives are dumber than liberals reason"

OP s a lefty

Did you not consider that maybe he didn't write holistically to avoid confusion or simplification of his arguments

>>11273501
except i literally did not say hitler isnt rightist
are you genuinely fucking retarded

>>11273478
>Whereas most far left or communist types would certainly describe themselves as very liberal.
No they wouldn't. "Liberals get the bullet too"

>>11272473
Locke is literally the father of Classical Liberalism. You can't go further than right unless you're Burke.

>>11273525
if you had actually read Locke you would know he was arguing specifically against people more right wing than he was.

>>11273518
The implication of what you said, you beligerent, reactive, inferior nigger, is that he wasn’t a real right winger and that Locke was then by default a leftists since he wasn’t in line with real rw ideals. Its fucking stupid, shallow and half-baked, you’re a pseud. That’s why im not replying extensively anymore. Uninteresting, read more or learn to temper your gay fucking LARP ideology (we’re never going back to monarchy).

>>11273525
what if you're filmer

>>11273530
if you had actually finished High School, you would know that these concepts don't even make sense before the French Revolution.

>>11273533
I did not say he wasnt a real right winger, I said he wasnt purely rightwing, because someone was using Hitler as a measure of what rightism is. That is circular gay logic

Im not a monarchist, im just saying that that is what distilled rightism looks like. Also you have no idea whether monarchy can return.

>>11273538
If you had even a small amount of critical thinking ability, you would understand that things can exist before they're given specific names.

>>11273530
>being a reactionary means you are right wing
You fucking redditor.

>>11273553
that is exactly what it means you dicksucking retard

>>11273559
It isn't though. It doesn't even mean conservativism.
Conservatives were never against changes.
Burke supported the Glorious Revolution and the American Independence, and the Whig Party was made by people who agreed with Locke and Smith.

>>11273583
Think about the word conservatism for a second, just look at the root word there. the Whigs, Locke, the glorious revolution, the American revolution, all of it is leftism

>>11273594
>the Whigs, Locke, the glorious revolution, the American revolution, all of it is leftism
No. Again, reactionary isn't conservativism, even though a huge part of the left think it is.

If Burke isn't a conservative, who is?

>>11273176
not deifying locke, insulting anachronistic brainlets

>anons in this very thread

>>11272436
I like how Berkeley was like "Dude this Locke shit bro gonna lead to atheism" and now here we are.
>no innate ideas
How the fuck are you supposed to ever distinguish one thing from another in the first place if you the idea of difference isn't innate?
To use Locke's favorite "argument": just look at children bro. Perception comes as an undifferentiated field, not a set of independent objects, until the mind actively starts distinguishing between them via the idea of difference, which cannot be given via the senses at all.
This retard never even read Aristotle I bet or else he would have seen his entire shit already crushed by the Passive Intellect/Active Intellect scheme.

>>11272885
He's like that redditor who quotes each of your sentences in isolation and comes up with some counter and acts like he's disproved the whole argument collectively. It is so tiresome to read.

>>11273811
>I like how Berkeley was like "Dude this Locke shit bro gonna lead to atheism" and now here we are.
Locke's idea of Liberty didn't include atheism though. It was literally the only thing he didn't tolerate.

>British "philosophy"

>>11273838
>French "philosophy"

>>11273209
when you say "capitalism" what you mean is markets and weak private property. You'd be better off saying that any political system can incorporate markets in various industries for whatever pragmatic or ideological reasons.
But when you want to talk about Capitalism hard C as anything like a political system and not just economic markets, then you are talking about a solid defense of Private Property wherein the State can't just come take your Private Property for anything except hard treason.
It is ridiculous to say that States that come confiscate your Property because you didn't pay tax or because you said hate speech or worship the wrong religion are Capitalist in any way other than they may have markets.

>>11273015
>spooks
>doesn't understand anything about political philosophy
>thinks 'modern' is synonymous with 'contemporary'

t. Pseud

>>11273610
It was Leftism from the perspective of the Monarchists who said "Look you morons, your heretical philosophy little revolutions are going to lead to atheism and a whole lot of death" and look where we are now.
Practically all non-Monarchist "rightists" or "conservatives" today are just a few missed paychecks away from becoming de facto "leftists".

>>11272447
Yes it is.

>>11273829
Doesn't matter. Berkeley was right. All the atheists these days argue just like Locke did. "Oh here's one edgy counterexample to one proposition I isolated from the rest of your argument, you're wrong."
Locke's argument for God was just "Hey bros like look at nature and stuff, God is obvious bros". But that clearly isn't enough to convince anyone today.
And thanks to Locke, most people today won't even consider an argument for God without "sense evidence". Just looking at nature isn't "evidence" for God, and there's no God fossils anywhere, therefore no God, therefore atheism, therefore degeneracy and social collapse in slow motion.
All because Locke and his weird obsession with the passive intellect.
And you know why Locke glosssed over and had shit to say about Aristotle's ACTIVE INTELLECT? Because he knew that Active Intellect, different IQ levels, means that NO, not all men are fucking equal. Men with super high IQs are LITERALLY divine and have a divine right to rule.
Lockes whole epistemology was motivated by a political objection to divine right to rule.

>>11273920
>thinks 'modern' is synonymous with 'contemporary'
since this is a common error:
>"Modern" denotes an era starting with the "scientific or industrial revolution" while
>"Contemporary" is always relative to the time of the speaker. It means the time in which the speaker lives.

>>11272789

Seven intrinsic rights.

Maybe more.

>>11273358
I can't believe how long you were willing to put up with this retard. You have a lot more patience than I have.

>>11273987
hereditary monarchy very poorly approximates the rule of the intellectually superior though. The best argument for it is that it is stable and efficient, but it's not even that stable.
>>11274049
i cant tell who you're calling a retard

>>11273551
>things can exist before they're given specific names

That's called a concept. And it appears only in retrospective when you drag an event to follow your present day conclusions.

yep, he belongs in the autist zone

these autists finna get purged from the philosophical canon

If you can't see past left and right you're not fit for philosophy. There goes most of the thread.

>>11274180
you could enlighten us as to what deeper concepts more adequately explain the phenomena that we are labeling right and left

>>11272473
>was was

>>11272436
>makes a slightly more worded 'was it autism' post
>130 replies

>>11273956
Literally No True Scotsman fallacy, the post.

>>11274185
Left and right in this thread is just a distraction from the actual discussion of the philosophy of Locke. Also debating whether what he says categorizes into what is known today as left or right is a waste of time and shows how weak discussion can be on /lit/. OP set a low bar anyway, so it was doomed from the start.

>>11273956
>the father of conservativism is not a conservative

Is this thread actually about Locke of no

>>11273015
You stupid nigger, left and right was made to denote the difference between people like Locke (natural rights liberals) and the monarchists they opposed.

>>11273496
That's because we've moved so far left that the ancien regime is no longer a political force, certainly not in places like America that are entirely within the postmodern. So no longer is it the ancien regime vs the liberals or even the ancein regime vs Marxists, all we really have are liberal and Marxists. Although I guess it gets more complicated when you factor in this whole contemporary right wing illiberalism that's beginning to appear, which is completely detached from traditional right wing reliance on the aristocracy.

>>11272473
Imagine claiming that people who died before the French Revolution lie somewhere on the left-right political spectrum

>>11273525
This post was made by an American

1. Since it is the understanding that sets man above all other
animals and enables him to use and dominate them, it is certainly
worth our while to enquire into it. The understanding
is like the eye in this respect: it makes us see and perceive all
other things but doesn’t look in on itself. To stand back from
it and treat it as an object of study requires skill and hard
work Still, whatever difficulties there may be in doing this,
whatever it is that keeps us so much in the dark to ourselves,
it will be worthwhile to let as much light as possible in upon
our minds, and to learn as much as we can about our own
understandings. As well as being enjoyable, this will help us
to think well about other topics.

--
Good introduction.

>>11274371
>American
Yes, I do live somewhere between the Cape Horn and the North Pole. I'm not from US though.

>>11273987
God doesn’t exist

>>11274267
Well, the OP asked if Lock was autistic, and there is autistic discussion related to Locke going on, so I think it mostly satisfies the query.

>>11274113
>i cant tell who you're calling a retard
Yikes. I guess you're the retard then. It's extremely clear.

>>11274245
found another autist. this one can't think relatively.
When Communism takes over and some new revolutionary shit comes along guess what, that will be called left of Communism.

>>11274264
If he wasn't about conserving the monarchy, then he wasn't a conservative at the time.

>>11272436
liberalism is a reddit-tier M E M E

>>11273970
It's an argument insofar as it provides rebuttals to rationalism, but he doesn't stray much into theory. He just provides some frames for looking at the world based on what we seem(ed) to know about it. That's not to say there aren't errors - he was a materialist, after all.

>>11273176
he was a smart guy I think it's ok to have some respect

>>11273811
One of the numerous arguments of Locke is that it can't make sense for an idea to be prior to experience, because then it would be understood without experience. That doesn't work with differentiation - it's something that develops as the result of experiencing variety in experiences, which come to us as viscerally different from one another. The notion of innate ideas has to do with the experience of human consciousness, and what you're suggesting is that animals too contain innate ideas, which might raise issues.
Regardless, I think what we're getting at is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and I would consider that to be a faculty of the mind rather than an idea. It's not prior to experience, it's at absolute best concurrent.

It's true that sense data doesn't mean anything until processed, but what you're arguing is that it's IDEAS that are the basis of the process of understanding despite also being, by nature, the result of that process. I just don't think that can make sense.

>>11273169
not leftists, but social liberals. economic views arent really based on intelligence. hence libertarians and liberals are both smarter than social conservatives on average.