/lit/ - Literature

>>18896613
Whoever made this comic has zero understanding of Popper

>>18896613
Who gets to decide what is intolerant?
This is dumb.

>>18896613
>>18896629
imagine taking your arguments from shitty meme pictures

>>18896613
Metaphysics of National Bolshevism by Dugin explicitly mentions Popper's concept of "open society" and constructs a philosophy diametrically opposed to his
https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/metaphysics-national-bolshevism

Just go to Twitter for several hours and see that the intolerants are literally everyone who disagrees with you

Tolerance is just weakness disguised as virtue.
Source: Collected Thoughts, by Anonymous
Further reading: Bowling Alone (there’s a part where Putnam talks about how communities necessarily have to be exclusionary to some degree, you can’t accept every thugs that tries to join or else it breaks down).

>>18896661
Is Strauss worth reading? A jew saying such nonjewish things suggests he's an original thinker.

>>18896678
Not him, but yes. Leo Strauss and Alasdair MacIntyre are the two greatest thinkers of our time. No one has done more to revive classical thought than them.

>>18896685
Which book do you suggest I start with?

>>18896647
your way of life is shit libcuck

>>18896678
He's one of the few jews I read (the other Wittgenstein and some other guy I forgot). Yes, he's worth it.

>>18896613
sounds like communism

>>18896613

>>18896613
WW2 would have never happened if you livs werent so mean to Hitler plain and simple

>>18896647
Can we have one with the based taleban kicking out the fags?

>>18896613
schmitt is the go-to for this

>>18896687
That's difficult to say. I will give you a list, and you can decide for yourself.
Natural Right and History (most suggest starting here)
Persecution and the Art of Writing
On Tyranny (this work is dense and difficult, but his comments in the introduction on the collectivization of thought are related to this issue. I will post a quote from this later.)
Thoughts on Machiavelli (possibly his most difficult work, but if you read it all the way to the end and pay very careful attention to certain passages which may at first glance appear to be digressions, you will see its importance)
What is Political Philosophy? And Other Essays (I will post a quote from this later)
Ten Essays on Political Philosophy
The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism
Toward Natural Right and History

>>18896661
>>18896678
>>18896685
>>18896687
>>18896692
>>18896725
From "What is Political Philosophy?"

Nor can we say that democracy has found a solution to the problem of education. In the first place, what is today called education, very frequently does not mean education proper, i.e., the formation of character, but rather instruction and training. Secondly, to the extent to which the formation of character is indeed intended, there exists a very dangerous tendency to identify the good man with the good sport, the cooperative fellow, the 'regular guy,' i.e., the overemphasis on a certain part of social virtue and a corresponding neglect of those virtues which mature, if they do not flourish, in privacy, not to say n solitude: by educating people to cooperate with each other in a friendly spirit, one does not yet educate non-conformists, people who are prepared to stand alone, to fight alone, 'rugged individualists.' Democracy has not yet found a defense against the creeping conformism and the ever-increasing invasion of privacy which it fosters. Beings who look down on us from a star might find that the difference between democracy and communism is not quite as great as it appears when one considers exclusively the doubtless very important question of civil and political liberties, although only people of exceptional levity or irresponsibility say that the difference between communism and democracy is negligible in the last analysis. Now to the extent to which democracy is aware of these dangers, to the same extent it sees itself compelled to think of elevating its level and its possibilities by a return to the classics' notions of education: a kind of education which can never be thought of as mass-education, but only as higher and highest education of those who are by nature fit for it. It would be an understatement to call it royal education."

>>18896804
From On Tyranny

"The experience of the present generation has taught us to read the great political literature of the past with different eyes and with different expectations. The lesson may not be without value for our political orientation. We are now brought face to face with a tyranny which holds out the threat of becoming, thanks to 'the conquest of nature' and in particular of human nature, what no earlier tyranny ever became: perpetual and universal. Confronted by the appalling alternative that man, or human thought, must be collectivized either by one stroke and without mercy or else by slow and gentle processes, we are forced to wonder how we could escape from this dilemma. We reconsider therefore the elementary and unobtrusive conditions of human freedom.
"The historical form in which this reflection is here presented is perhaps not inappropriate. The manifest and deliberate collectivization or coordination of thought is being prepared in a hidden and frequently quite unconscious way by the spread of the teaching that all human thought is collective independently of any human effort directed to this end, because all human thought is historical. There seems to be no more appropriate way of combating this teaching than the study of history."

>>18896613
>books with secular critiques of liberal tolerance?
Moldbug

https://graymirror.substack.com/p/4-principles-of-any-next-regime
"Popping Popper’s paradoxical poppers
This apparent paradox is isomorphic to Karl Popper’s famous “paradox of tolerance." The Party is tolerant—as tolerant as possible, consistent with its own security. It tolerates every party—except any party that would not tolerate the Party."

https://graymirror.substack.com/p/vae-victis
"This is Popper’s paradox of tolerance. Popper discovers that every real regime must have the apparatus of the Inquisition in its back pocket. If it hesitates to deploy its intellectual rack and thumbscrew, it will be replaced by a regime with no such qualms.
Popper, read logically, advises the Nazis to repress the Communists, the Communists to repress the Nazis, the liberals to repress both and both to repress the liberals. From his “open society” he comes all the way around to Hobbes, Schmitt and Machiavelli. Next he will tell us, in Esperanto, that “the earth is nothing but a vast bloody altar.”"

>>18896804
>>18896813
If this is not clear, the point is that "tolerance" is a red herring. You can think yourself of numerous examples of positions, ideas, laws, and customs that are not at all tolerated. The collectivization of thought that Strauss discusses here is the end goal of this tolerance and intolerance. What seems to some, like the author quoted in the OP, to be a refusal to criticize others, is in fact part of the process by which the old ways of thinking and being are gradually erased and replaced by new ones. That is, whatever is not criticized is part of their intention, and whatever is criticized runs against their intention. The end goal is the "universal and homogeneous state" which Strauss discusses in various places, including Natural Right and History, the Strauss-Kojeve Correspondence, and the beginning of the transcript of his 1967 course on Kant https://wslamp70.s3.amazonaws.com/leostrauss/s3fs-public/Kant%201967_0.pdf.. If you step away from the overt rhetoric of our time, and instead look to the principles underlying these ideas, principles that are to be found in the great works of modern political philosophy, you will see very clearly what is going on and where we are headed.
Strauss's other lecture transcripts can be found here: https://leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/audio-transcripts/courses-audio-transcripts/