/lit/ - Literature

>>7114151
Well, you said it so it must be right.

Sloterdijk.

>>7114167
literally who? nice try

ayn rand

>>7114151
Otto Weininger

>>7114151
Michael Oakeshott
Edmund Burke

Define right-wing.

>>7114174
>>7114176
>>7114181
>philosophers

>>7114151
Roger Scruton

>>7114151
Yet wet live in a capitalist, right wing western world. It's philosophy just for people who are too weak to act?

>>7114183
lol nice

>>7114183
Oh, sorry, here:
Otto Weininger
Michael Oakeshott
Edmund Burke

>>7114186
define 'right wing'
define 'western'
define 'acting'

>>7114186
Or maybe capitalism is for people who act instead of thinking ;^}

>>7114193
>philosophers

>>7114198
>name a right-wing philosopher, except those ones

>>7114205
>hurdurr im an anti-intellectual
eat shit, kid

>>7114173
>literally who? nice try

thanks for contributing to the thread. peter sloterdijk is a heidigger scholar who got in hot water for some comments about eugenics and the welfare state.

What is "shitposting"?

Shitposting is "knowingly contributing low quality, off-topic, or ill intentioned posts."

Alright guys, here is OP speaking. I made this thread only to shitpost. I am bored in university now and I thought it would be fun to shitpost. I thought it was pretty funny, didn't ya?

Regards,

OP

>>7114151
Plato
Aristotle
Pretty much everyone until the Renaissance.

But do you want modern ones, right?

Eric Voegelin
Alasdair McIntyre
Robert P. George
Mário Ferreira dos Santos
Philippa Foot

>>7114151
buddha

>>7114233
>precapitalist philosophers were all 'right-wing'
The right-left dichotomy is the product of modern society born and defined as we know today during the French Revolution. Imposing this highly contextual set of values upon societies where none such existed is retarded.

>>7114213
>heidigger scholar
Heinigger?

>>7114182
Define philosopher.

>>7114151
Ayn Rand?

>>7114310
Define "define"

>>7114151
Ho, Alain Finkielkraut. He is right wing by french standards

Julius Evola
Rene Guenon
Burke
Carlyle for political philosophy
Hobbes

i remember reading that

left wing = pure reason

right wing = empiricism / history

if you think about it it makes sense.

philosophy as a discourse is not compatible with the right wing outlook

the people being posted itt are just political philosophers, historians, not people who developed a philosophical system

>>7114330
No, it doesn't.

Evola you fucking retards.

>>7114330

>>7114336
i remember now. hegel said it

cue ball

Not meme ones, that's for sure. Evola isn't a philosopher, so don't count him amongst the memesters.

Also, most of philosophy deals with topics that aren't strictly related to politics, so most of the philosophical work is bound to be apolitical ( in some sense ). If you were to examine personal attitudes of certain philosophers, both contemporary and those before us, you could, perhaps, by applying the right-left wing dichotomy to people that lived in an age where such distinctions wasn't even present, classify them as either left or right wing, quite erroneously.

I have a feeling that this is bait just to start another 'Hur dur go back to /pol/' kind of discussion. Please speak about books here. Politics can stay there. Thank you.

it's quite interesting to notice how /pol/ and /lit/ hold certain dogmatisms which result in each of the board reacting very violently to one another
>>7114366
I like him. Ever notice he resembles Crowley very much?

The "left-right" divide was birthed during the French Revolution.

But all great philosophers are right-wing.

From Confucius to Aristotle to Kant and Hegel, all of these have held extremely vigorous views, that would be deemed "right-wing" even by older standards.


There's a certain Darwinian winnowing out that takes place when it comes to leftist thought. I'm certain, that no one will be reading the screeds of the Frankfurt School or Derrida in the next century.

Snarkiness and relativism does not pass the test of time.

Plato
Aristotle
Augustine
Aquinas
Hobbes
Nietzsche
Heidegger

Gee, that was easy. Those are some of the biggest names in philosophy!

>>7114151
Yeah it doesn't take a whole lot of brainpower to reprimand people for questioning the goodness of the status quo tbh.

>>7114151
Nietzsche

>inb4 he's not

Nice try. Also Schopenhauer.

>>7114207
I have a hard time expressing how weird this whole exchange is

In your mind is this funny?

Heidegger

Biggest dick on da block yo

From the top of my head: Plato, Nietzsche, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Hobbes, Heidegger.

Though each of them is right-wing according to very different criteria.german philosopher. I'm not even touching those that were right-wing only on the economic side (such as, surprisingly -or not-, late Foucault who is leftish on everything else).

>>7114616
How is Plato right wing at all?

Herbert Spencer
Lysander Spooner

>>7114623
Radical inegalitarian. But as i said it depends on the criteria. Economically he is clearly left-wing since in the Republic, his ideal city has all the wealth shared in common. Somewhat anachronistically he is a sort of national-socialist taking the socialist part seriously.

>>7114616
Plato - by absolutely no logical criteria
Nietszche - if you misinterpret him he can be anything
Hegel - only right wing by way of comparison with Marx, otherwise liberal
Schopenhauer - not political enough to really have an answer here
Hobbes - yes
Heidegger - I have no fucking clue what he was saying so maybe

Foucault right wing on economics - no

>>7114524
>Hobbes
>Nietzsche
>Heidegger

Sure, I'd also add Schmitt (if he counts), but others are influential in right-wing ideas and conservativism as a whole, but they pre-date the idea of left-wing, right-wing.

>>7114644
>Foucault right wing on economics - no
Have you read Birth of Biopolitics

BTW, I'm not the one you're responding to, and he might meant some other of his later works, but even in Birth of Biopolitics you can see how incredibly enticed he is by the idea of neo-liberalism. Yes he critiques it, but still sees some merit in it.

>>7114644
You have no idea what you are saying. Hobbes is maybe the least right-wing of them all. After all authoritarian left-wing systems are quite compatible with his ideas.

Plato is quite right-wing. Read the Republic.

Nietzsche is probably the most quintessentially right-wing philosopher there is. So much that he rejects the few concessions most right-wingers make to commonness, such as traditions and religion.

>>7114644
>Nietszche - if you misinterpret him he can be anything

How can you misinterpret his European nationalism (He repeatedly wanted Europe to be 'one'), his love of hierarchy, his racism and antisemitism, his belief in natural inequality as a moral good and his traditional opinions on women?

becus smart ppl are left wing and communis like me because I'm smart. Right-Wing people (aka /pol/, fascists, my parents) are stupid. God have you even been to college?

>>7114679
>his racism and antisemitism
Wasn't that added by his sister?

>>7114663
One would argue that neo-liberalism can be considered left-wing. Traditional right-winger, at least in mainland Europe are usually opposed to capitalism which they consider a modern disease. You have to consider that in Foucault's time the Gaullist catholic right had been responsible for the nationalization of a great number of industries and a couple decades of Soviet-style central planning.

>>7114683
No because it appears in all of the works he published whilst alive. She and her husband only edited the postuhmous Will To Power.

Leo Strauss

>>7114690
This makes sense.
I mean, for me the supposedly left-wing revolution of 1968 seems incredibly neo-liberal.

>>7114663
I haven't read it but the guy was a lifelong socialist, even if he sees some good things about neoliberalism that's hardly enough justification to call him right-wing

>>7114672
do you really think anyone weighing in on Plato's politics hasn't read the Republic. do you really think that "right-wing" and "left-wing" have any meaning outside of cultural context, within which Hobbes was certainly a proponent of the status quo and Nietzsche's views are too idiosyncratic to fit into any mold as simple as the one you're using?

>>7114679
He wasn't really an antisemite (his sister was and forged writings attributed to him). He did consider Jews scheming but saw that as a sign of vitality. His European "nationalism" was counterbalanced by his hatred of German nationalism. Also nationalism was still a left-wing idea at the time. His idea of Europe wasn't really nationalism as there was no idea of creating something common, just to create a larger playground for heroic individuals. His opinion on women wasn't traditional at all even if he was certainly not a feminist. He had no love for social hierarchies except natural ones.

Plato posits ideas that would be considered today to be both left and right wing. His belief in the power of aristocracy, censorship, eugenics, his reaction against changing values and education. But he also suggests empowering women and stripping certain sectors of society of private property. Probs more what we would consider right wing though.

>>7114703
>I haven't read it but the guy was a lifelong socialist

Nope. He did use Marxist tools early on but that's about it. He was close to socialist movements, even maoists, but didn't care for the economic core of their ideologies. They were just vessels to advertise his societal ideas.

>>7114712
Have you read the antichrist? It laments in the beginning how the great Romans were defeated by Christianity.

Nietzsche would have seen the progression of WW1 and WW2 a fitting end to German spirit. The reason hitler is disgusting is he committed suicide, he was a coward

>>7114733
This is a pretty bizarre and extreme accusation - you're saying Foucault pretended to be a socialist because he thought socialists would be more amenable to his (non-economic) sociopolitical ideas? Is there any support for this idea, literally anywhere?

Stirner and Hegel

>>7114733
just because he became more skeptical of marxism doesn't mean be started to praise capitalistic systems

>>7114751
Hegel is liberal, and Stirner is some kind of anarchist...

>>7114712
>His opinion on women wasn't traditional
see:
>If you admit to a woman that she is in the right, she cannot refrain from setting her heel triumphantly on the neck of the defeated – she has to enjoy the victory to the full; while between men in such a case being in the right usually produces a feeling of embarrassment. (AOM 291)

>Everything about Woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has one solution: it’s called pregnancy.

>For the woman, the man is a means: the end is always the child.

>The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

>Let man fear woman when she loves. Then she bears every sacrifice and every other thing she accounts valueless.

>Let man fear woman when she hates: for man is at the bottom of his soul only wicked, but woman is base.

>Whom does woman hate most? – Thus spoke the iron to the magnet: ‘I hate you most, because you attract me but are not strong enough to draw me towards you.’

>The man’s happiness is: I will. The woman’s happiness is: He will
Z I Of Old and Young Women

>>7114763
No wonder he had to go buy him self a prostitute...
He was MRA beta cuck, before that was even a thing.

>>7114748
He didn't pretend. He just didn't care much about the economic side.

>>7114763
It's hardly a traditional view by 19th century German standards.It's closer to what middle-easterners or ancient Greeks thought.

political philosophers aren't philosophers.

>>7114207
What?

>>7114151
>There are literally no right-wing philosophers.

>>7114790
What are they then?

It depends how you define 'right'.
If you're talking about the economic right, there are obviously loads (ie the liberals).
If you're talking about the conservative right, there are naturally going to be fewer, because conservatism rejects the formulaic and scientific nature of liberalism and socialism. Conservatism, unlike other ideologies, genuinely starts from human nature. In some ways Dostoevsky is the greatest right wing philosopher in this respect.

>>7114777
so you're saying there is not support for this idea anywhere. you're saying Foucault was a secret libertarian who hung out with socialists because you said so

>>7114151
CANT SNITCH THE HITCH

Thomas Reid

>>7114151
CHRISTOPHER ERIC HITCHENS...not a philosopher but close enough for a pleb like me.

>>7114931
Hitch was shitlib to the core. You have to be retarded to think he was right-wing.

>Name one right wing philosopher
>Pic Related has three.
Good ruse.

>>7114798
gaping assholes

>>7114356
Oh yeah? Citation fucking needed

>>7114270
>moving the goalposts

>>7114151
>Name one right-wing philosopher
I'll name three:

Adorno

Horkheimer

Habermas

>>7114953
Iraq?

Hi

Kevin Munoz.

>>7114151
Off the top of my head:

Julius Evola
Rene Guenon
Friedrich Nietzsche

hahaha op is such a retard

>>7114379

how is hegal right wing?

Nozick

>>7114151

Carl Schmitt
Joseph de Maistre
Juan Donoso Cortes
Leo Strauss
Nietzsche
Heideggar
Frege
Alasdair MacIntyre
G.E.M Anscombe
Oswald Spengler
Rene Guenon ( Evola was'nt really a Philosopher but Guenon ought to count)

And while it makes no sense to talk about them in such a context, most pre-Enlightenment Philosophers are closer to being "right wing" than "left wing".

>>7114317
Define "Define "define""

>>7114755
Anarchism in its truest form has no political identity, but left-wing in its original form.
Liberals are right-wing.
>>7114755

>>7114672

You have no idea what conservatism is you fucking idiot.

Plato was not in a way conservative either according to the the Ancient Athenian standards of political conservativism (aka. that of Aristophanes and Thucydides). The very fact that Plato advocates abolition of private property, equal rights with women, and the rejection of democracy in favor of enlightened oligarchy, excludes him directly from any sort of standard political position that existed in antiquity. Hence why his ideas were so influential, unlike the typical standard way in which the social and the political remain seperate ( a staple in conservative thought since Aristotle) Plato was teh first to merge the two, thereby seeking to form a total society based on ideas and not on means. (self interest).

This disqualifies him, from any conservative political thought that has ever existed.

>>7114379

>Snarkiness and relativism does not pass the test of time.

This is an underrated statement.
Sophism is such a peripheral part in the study of philosophy in antiquity.

>>7115977

The only significant philosophers among the list are Strauss, Heidegger and Schmitt .

Though Schmitt can hardly be called a philosopher for the Right, since many of his writings are red lights on how dangerous totalitarianism and fascist ideologies are.

Also Nietzsche, was not right-wing, though he was a reactionary in some political issues, such as his opposition to socialism .

>>7116126
>they dont count because i say so
how is MacIntyre not significant?

>>7116110

Just because it didn't survive today doesn't mean it was insignificant because you perceive it as such with your contemporary black and white morality.

In fact without the Sophists philosophy wouldn't exist, since they most certainly precede the Ionian pre-Socratic's.

>>7114183
>>7114193
>>7114198
>>7114205
>>7114207
ayy lmao'd

>>7116133

>how is MacIntyre not significant?


Literal nobody philosophically, reworked christinised humanist Virtue ethic Aristotelianism that has been forced down our throats for over 1000 years, nothing original.

>>7116126

You actually think that Frege, Anscombe and MacIntyre aren't significant ?

Schmitt's views in his early work are near identical to de Maistre's, who basically invented the Right. If you read "Political Theology" he has a whole chapter dedicated to praising the Catholic Counter Revolutionaries and showing that leftist anarchist views and centrist liberal views are incoherent. In those works you mentioned Schmitt is writing against revolutionary excess from a reactionary viewpoint. You have to remember that Fascism wasn't reactionary, but revolutionary, and has more to do with the French Revolution than traditional Crown and Altar politics. Totalitarianism is just the natural end result of egalitarian social policies. Treating everyone equally means that everyone homogenizes to a greater degree- the point of democratic and egalitarian leftist views have always been to infringe upon the power of exceptional individuals and classes for the safety and dominance of the lowest common denominator members of society, by subsuming or destroying those who don't fit in.

Nietzsche was explicitly right wing since he was anti-egalitarian through and through.

>>7116145

So you don't actually know what you are talking about then ? He is pretty widely read by our contemporaries- and the Aristotelian Virtue ethics went out of style in the 17th century so your claim that it has been shoved down our throats for 1000 years is just plain wrong. Of course MacIntyre develops his theories quite past Aristotle's since Aristotle has universal "humanity" in mind- where MacIntyre is more pluralistic- but you would have actually read him and be knowledgeable of the literature to know this.

>I don't like it
does not mean
> It's not significant

Continentals aren't philosphers

The only satire and philosophy worth reading is one that's not reactionary.

>>7114151
Any philosopher that says the past is the ideal form of governance.

tbh the anglosphere's left-right dichotomy is fucking stupid
it doesn't even touch on social rights and laws and leaves no room for nationalism and all of its children
left-right should be framed as equality-aristocracy imo

Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Locke, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Bacon, Leibniz, Spinoza, Smith, Bentham.

>>7117034
>philosophers dead more than a millenium before the French Revolution were right-wing and/or left-wing
>Nietzsche right-wing because ?


Do you also think Naram-Sin was a nationalist ?

>>7117052
Right wing politics doesn't just mean nationalism.

>>7117083
No, but it post-dates "the national."

>>7114330
>left wing = pure reason
>right wing = empiricism / history
>if you think about it it makes sense.
Please stop.

>>7114330
why would you think that reason and empiricism/historical analysis are mutually exclusive instead of intrinsically linked

>>7117678
I think the meaningful verb is the equals sign, not the slash mate.

>>7117690
I think you misread

>>7117700
OR ain't XOR dickface

>>7114319
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>7117725
it means and in this situation

>>7114330
the first half was stupid the good job on the last two lines

>>7114330
That is one of the stupidest fucking things I have read in here.

What is marxism, postmarxism, poststructuralism, posthumanism? Philosophy that is insanely preoccupied with history.

>>7115802
Hahahahah. Wait. What?

>>7117759
marxist historiography isn't philosophical.

>>7117759
i mean history in the sense of tradition, the past. marx's dialectics is the teleological driving of history by pure reason (which is what he took from hegel).

screenshot for context of this post >>7114330

>>7114151
/thread

>>7117766
>marx's dialectics is the teleological driving of history by pure reason (which is what he took from hegel).
Fucking diamat shit. Marx's dialectics are the lived, the historical and empirical, dialectics of class stuggle. They are not telos nor of pure reason. Read Marx before you open your oral cunt.

>asking /lit/ to do politics

Let me help you out. The thought process of every single person here will go as follows:
1. I’m a very intelligent man and I believe X.
2. This other guy believes Y.
3. Therefore this other guy is a complete moron and should kill himself.

>>7114213
How can you get in trouble talking about eugenics when it can and is all scientifically proven?

We all know you can breed better humans if you select for it, we just choose to act as if thats not the case. Surely at least in the realms of philosophy you wont get shat on for talking about it.

>>7114330
Left wing: equality, progress and supporting the have-nots.
Right wing: competition, tradition and supporting the establishment.

And its such a wide generalization, that no party on the planet is fully left or right wing. You are let ont he issue of immigration, but right on the issue of monopoly and so on.

>>7117805
3. is wrong, as I plan to kill you.

>>7114373
What would Evola be classed as?

>>7117821
A psycho cunt tbh.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand
I
I
I
I
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
C
K
L
A
A
AA
A
A
A
N
D

>>7117811
Left wing is in support of the establishment nowadays because the establishment is almost completely progressive and your stance on feminism, sex ed, religion, sodomy and similar has become the main line of division with economic problems being secondary.

>>7117906
As the center moves left, the left also moves left.
Nowadays the extreme liberals want things like castrating all men, criminalizing religion and so on.

There is always ideas both left and right of the center, regardless of where the center sits.

>>7117863

His early work up up until his conversion is hardly right-wing, Accelerationism can also be Marxist.

left = equality
right = aristocracy
the establishment has nothing to do with it

>>7117921

left-wing anarchism is not egalitarian, see Proudhon.

>>7117906
>because the establishment is almost completely progressive
How can the status quo be progressive?

Julius Evola

>>7117928

How is he "left wing" then ? I'm curious. I could be considered "reactionary" but I don't see throne and altar politics coming back given our current liberal totalitarian states. I think that a non-egalitarian anarchism/major decentralization and break down of the state for small patriarchal units would be best for the world right now.

>>7114151

Chesterton, Jünger

You wont find many "right" wing thinkers in the sense you could find "left" wing (ie frankfurt school)

That's a good thing for them imo tbh

>>7117921

>Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, Benjamin & co not aristocrats.

Or what the fuck, just look at 90% of philosophers. All aristocrats

That's such a late 20th century anglocentric opinion OP.

>>7117725
I don't think you can input the XOR sign.

Nietzsche, Plato, Heidegger, Evola.
Literally all the smart ones.

>>7114151
I thought they were all right-winged. My philosophy professor was a die hard republican bible thumper. Probably a bad philosopher too but whatevs.

Politics can be approached from philosophy, but philosophy should never be approached from politics.

>>7114330
Your post is bad, and you should feel bad.

>>7114330

I get what you are trying to say with "pure reason" but next time use other words

>>7114330
Wait Hegel and Marx are right wing now?

what the fuck are you on about nerd?

>>7115337
How?

>>7114373

Evola is a philosopher M8

All the "crazy shit" about Atlantis and being descended from the Aesir or whatever is "spiritual history" which is not a hard concept to grasp if you know anything about fascism.

And its one of the major reasons why fascism is totally authoritarian where socialism/communism cannot be considered as such.

Alain de Benoist
Aleksander Dugin
Aleksander Panarin

>>7114594
>tfw hobbes state of nature accurately predicts what happens when one chimpanzee tries to hoard material wealth for itself. aka some other chimps get together and bash its head in.

Although hobbes is getting so far right that "right wingers" who still like things like capitalism would shy away.

>>7119434

>I'm curious. I could be considered "reactionary" but I don't see throne and altar politics coming back given our current liberal totalitarian states. I think that a non-egalitarian anarchism/major decentralization and break down of the state for small patriarchal units would be best for the world right now.

Well then you are more of an anarchist than you think, the "traditionalist" right has been the crutch of the state since it's inception.

>>7115916

He predicted all of history culminating in a single version of human organization, and that a persons worth is ultimately dictated by how much they help out this cause.

Quine and Robert Nozick. Fuck you.

>>7114151

There are right-wing philosophers, normally they are first economic/politician students and second philosophers.

Also they aren't known because they are political incorrect so they never get fame

>>7114151
Ayn Rand

Nietzsche
>Jews will disagree

>>7119631
it's not about being an aristocrat, rather advocating for a system that is based around and promotes aristocracy

Sort of an odd question. Things like Two Treatises on Government, The Social Contract, or even the Critique of Practical Reason, are basically foundations of right-wing philosophy as it is known in particularly American Republicanism.

Left/Right wing politics is a term used for politicians though. Not political or moral philosophers. Your ideas might be right wing, but that should just be a fallout of the idea you've argued for. Not the point of it.

>>7120124
http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/HUMAN_ALL_TOO_HUMAN_BOOK_ONE_.aspx?S=475

>>7120155
This honestly, attempting to classify philosophers using terminology and descriptions that have only existed since the French Revolution is fucking ridiculous and is unfairly balanced in favor of all philosophers who wrote anything but praise for the system currently in place as a liberal, as they're advocating change, even though many of those same philosophers would be written off as batshit insane ebil white republicans if they expressed the ideas expressed in their works in the modern day Anglosphere/Europe.

It's roughly analogous to asking the IQ of a person born before the advent of IQ tests or asking what kind of car somebody who'd never seen a car in their entire fucking life drove.

>>7117761
>Hahahahah. Wait. What?
Frankfurt aren't exactly autonomists or communisers are they?

>>7120698
but still far from real right wing philosophers like Arnold Gehlen, who opposed them at the time.

>>7122042
Supporting capitalism, my lad, is right wing. And that is precisely what Frankfurt did.

>>7122045
i can think of much more efficient ways of supporting capitalism. and if you mean they dilluted original marxism and helped shaping it into something less dangerous, then it still had to happen within left wing discourse.

>>7114184
I second this post. OP is dead.

>>7114151
Peter Sloterdijk
Paul Krugman
[any modern Christian theologian you can name]

>>7114319
>Finkelkraut
>philosopher
mfw

Also Heidegger ?

>>7122069
By your reasoning Donald Trump is left wing, as once liberalism sought to overthrow feudal relations.

Call me when you've actually read marx.

>>7114524
>Nietzsche
meh, depends on the periods of his life you're talking about
MUH FRUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITSSSSSSSSS

>Heidegger
More on his idea of technology (muh technology is evil). But I since in his ontology and more in his later works you can feel a link with eastern philosophy it's more left-winged
Witch I think is why he joined the NSDAP : he's more like a national-socialist but without the eugenic side etc.
>inb4 Black Notebooks
>shithappensman.jpeg

>>7122149
philosopher-entertainer = intellectual

the intellectuals have been what the philosophers are for several decades, if not centuries.

>>7122165
Finkielkraut c'est un vieux con, il couvre ses idées politiques nauséabondes sous une philosophie de comptoir. A gerber ce mongol...

>>7122153
>Donald Trump is left wing
you're not wrong

>>7122165
also chirac.jpeg

>>7122153
dunno what you mean. havent read any of Trump's philosophic works yet.

>>7122184
>>7122173
Read some Marx eh cunts?

>>7115337
>implying the point of his complain is how you have moved the goalpost to suit your needs

>>7119421
How is a massive change in legislation from conservative to progressive view status quo? Change from sex to gender, marriage from man and woman to two persons, abortion being almost a sacred idol of liberalism and so on status quo? There hasn't been a right wing, or conservative or whatever in power in the west since Regan in America and an occasional minister in Europe.

>>7122045
Capitalism is very left wing as most capitalist companies like Facebook, most media, banks and so on support progressive ideals, consumption of identity such as lgbt, nerd, feminist, doctor who fan and all similar instances are tied to capitalism. Capitalism and free market are also even originally left wing ideas, as they were the ideals of the French revolution. Right wing was and is about authority, tradition, moral values and religion.

>>7122445
Yeah rio tinto supports that programme.

Fuck you're a dumb cunt.

>>7122158
>with eastern philosophy it's more left-winged

Yep. Asia sure is left-wing and not a traditionalist reality that doesn't give a shit about economic as a priority. Actual humanists hate asian philosophy, see Hegel and Zizek.

>>7122433
> Reagan was a conservative
Top cuck, conservacucks.

>>7114151
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk

Benito Mussolini.
Goebbels also studied philosophy, if I am not mistaken.

>implying jews would allow right-wing philosophers to get published

>>7124478
I was mistaken,
and may still be when I believe he studied History and German Literature.

>>7123091
>Actual humanists hate asian philosophy


this board is garbage.

>>7122172

Les juifs ne sont que pertinents en tant que philosophes lorsqu'il s'agit de la philosophie analytique, notamment en ce qui attrait à la logique.

Pour les autres, Treblinka.

>>7114755
The problem is that Hegel political thought actually diverged into both Right wing and Left wing.

>all of these socialists

They realize they're cringeworthy and weak, right? They don't understand the basics of organic social classes and that no amount of government intervention can produce genuine fairness.

Wake up faggots, there's no such thing as equality, and your shortcomings shouldn't be rewarded through the tax money of people that are smart enough to play the game of economics and politics. No matter how you view it, there will always be some truth in might makes right.

Instead of whining for what you choose to bring you wealth, expand your skills and wake up. There's space for art, philosophy, and other spiritual/emotional contributions, but the reality of needing to market it and produce exists.

>>7125522
The term "liberal" is loaded too. Just because you were anti-royal and pro free markets doesn't mean you're either right or left by today's standards

>>7119734

I have no problem with states in general, I'm fine with authoritarian states as well so as long as they aren't also totalitarian and democratic/nationalist/egalitarian, etc. States that maintain proper degrees of social stratification and are decentralized enough that there is a high degree of localism are good to me. To be of the traditional right is essentially being against autonomous states/nations, and putting things back into the hands of individual rulers and the church. It started as a reaction against the totalitarian, state based, revolutionary brutality in France- in favor of personal patriarchalism.