/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16617988]

>SOCRATES: Would you say a craftsman works his materials without knowledge?
>LIBERAL: No, that would be absurd.
SOCRATES: So it is understood that a craftsman has the knowledge of crafting?
>LIBERAL: So it seems.
>SOCRATES: What sort of knowledge? For if the craftsman had to start developing a new knowledge out of nothing every time he's engaged in one of his projects, would you say he is in possession of the knowledge of crafting?
>LIBERAL: No, he wouldn't be in possession of any knowledge indeed.
>SOCRATES: So it would be necessary for him to work on the application of an already known knowledge?
>LIBERAL: Yes.
>SOCRATES: And is this knowledge based on previous knowledge? We already said that if he had to learn his knowledge from the beginning is the same as having no knowledge at all.
>LIBERAL: I guess so, Socrates.
SOCRATES: And what about the previous knowledge? Wouldn't it be based on previous knowledge, and so on?
>LIBERAL: Yes.
SOCRATES: Therefore, my dear Liberal, as you see the craftsman has a technique based on the repetition of old knowledge.
>LIBERAL: Well yes, he has developed a technique for his crafting.
>SOCRATES: Would you say he repeats the wrong knowledge? Or was he trained on the wrong technique?
>LIBERAL: That doesn't seem the case. He would repeat what has guaranteed him success in the past I guess.
>SOCRATES: So you're saying his technique gathers knowledge that has been proven successful and disregards useless knowledge?
>LIBERAL: That's what I'm saying.
>SOCRATES: Is his technique what guarantees him a high rate of success?
>LIBERAL: Yes.

[Anonymous No.16617992]

>SOCRATES: But there's a problem with this reasoning we have been employing. Because if the craftsman suddenly needs to prove a new material or faces unexpected inconveniences, how would he solve this given situation with his technique?
>LIBERAL: It seems very obvious Socrates. For he would only need to implement new knowledge to his technique in order to overcome the problem, in the case his old knowledge was regarded as useless.
>SOCRATES: Splendid. But would he innovate from the very beginning?
>LIBERAL: What do you mean by that?
>SOCRATES: Let me explain myself better. If our craftsman is in the midst of an unknown difficulty, would he disregard every known knowledge for the sake of innovation?
>LIBERAL: That would be very stupid of him, Socrates. I presume he would develop his innovation in addition to his previous knowledge.
>SOCRATES: Exactly, since as we were saying his old knowledge has been proven right in similar circumstances, and only being in possession of new replaceable knowledge is like having no knowledge at all. And what would be more trustable, his old technique or his new improvised knowledge?
>LIBERAL: His old knowledge, of course.
>SOCRATES: Do you think this is the case for every discipline or field of knowledge?
>LIBERAL: How so?
>SOCRATES: The craftsman has his technique, the sailor has his technique, the boxer the surgeon has his technique, the politician has his technique...
>LIBERAL: Yes...
>SOCRATES: Then, as you see my dear Liberal, your position is a great absurd. For why would the statesman discard old traditions if they have been proven right trough history, for the sake of progress? That would be like asking the craftsman to give up his successful technique which has been tamed by experience and replace it with a kind of inferior, less trustable, never proven brand new knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16618029]

>liberal
American spotted. Liberalism is at this point an old tradition which has been "proven right" by its success.

[Anonymous No.16618047]

>>16618029
it's a tradition that arises from breaking up with the real tradition and proceeds destroying every past custom, starting with monarchs and ending with fathers. It's A counter-tradition.

[Anonymous No.16618078]

>>16617992

LIBERAL: Of course you are right dear Socrates, however we only apply this to the goyim. Our traditions remain sacred and our in group preference built upon thousands of years of kikery remains in place.

[Anonymous No.16618111]

>>16617988
Very well written, but viewing conservativism as mindlessly repeating tradition and liberalism as mindlessly opposing tradition is a bit oversimplified. It doesn't really matter anyway because both are terribly shallow, self contradictory, and in general pathetic excuses for ideologies. American conservatism is basically just a con to get traditionally minded people to vote in favor of policies that support capital while doing nothing to address societal and cultural deterioration. American Liberalism is also a con to give empathetically or minded people the illusion of "progress" while doing nothing to address the economic causes of societal inequality and oppression. They bark at each other viciously over a few unimportant issues like abortion, statues, lgbt nonsense, but when it comes to real issues they are completely in agreement.

[Anonymous No.16618112]

>>16618047
Liberalism isn't the same as progressivism

[Anonymous No.16618140]

>>16618112
liberalism is the original progressivism.

[Anonymous No.16618149]

Liberal politicians use the same techniques as older governments, they didn’t just throw away all knowledge of statecraft and governing the moment the french revolution happened you retard

What kind of faggot puppets a dead philosopher to push his shallow modern political agenda btw. Peak smug

[Anonymous No.16618181]

>>16618047
Capitalism destroys any tradition, any culture, that compromises it's profitability. Why do you think your women are encouraged to devote their most fertile years to a 'career' serving some corporation. Or how your elderly are warehoused alone in nursing homes. Or how every other ad you see on tv encourages lgbt nonsense or single motherhood or any other way to break up the nuclear family. The nuclear family itself is a result of capitalism breaking up the original extended family unit. Why? Because anything that prevents maximum profit for these people will be wore down and destroyed. An endless soulless stretch of strip malls and fast food places full of atomized individuals entirely devoted to their careers is a capitalist society's end goal. "Conservatives" and their idolizing of 'entrepreneurs' and corporations only makes things worse.

[Anonymous No.16618206]

>>16618181
You could be correct, but you limit yourself to capitalism and not the technological system as a whole. Capitalist alternatives are also beholden to technology.

[Anonymous No.16618287]

>>16618149
it's a case for conservatism in the abstract, it has nothing to do with the casuistic bullshit you're praising as a rule.

[Anonymous No.16618647]

>>16618181
You misunderstand capitalism though. It's optional to build a career, the reason why people want a career is not to have a nice life, it's to have absurd amounts of unnecessary luxuriesæ and status because people are shitty by nature. The great thing about capitalism is that it's as fair and effective as we can get it. People will destroy culture and tradition anyway. ANY system would destroy culture and tradition unless you destroy growth and control people. It's by no means perfect, but perfection is a gay concept for gay people who believe they can create utopia. Fuck off with that bullshit.

It's easy to live an easy and comfortable life if you just move further out in the country and live a self sustainable lifestyle and avoid all the gadgets and clothes and food that is priced in parallel to high paying jobs.

Because while people who chose to chase a career have done so, they've made all the other shit, knowledge, simple tools and whatever simple needs you have INSANELY CHEAP and almost free. So it's FUCKING easy to live a simple life today compared to earlier when capitalism hadn't built an easy world to live in.

People are trapped because they are stupid, they build debt before they leave the nest and do other retarded shit that makes them believe they need to be somewhere where rent is 70% of a decent jobs income.

[Anonymous No.16620206]

>>16617988
Malignantly useless

[Anonymous No.16620496]

>>16617988

But OP, what does he go on to say about the "craft" of politics? Is it teachable? Is it like medicine? Or is it something else?

[Anonymous No.16621175]

>>16618029
t. hasn't read Deneen and doesn't know the nature of Liberalism

[Anonymous No.16621196]

>>16617988
good job replicating the style.

[Anonymous No.16621379]

>>16617988
>LIBERAL: But Socrates I fear we have been led astray, for though the politician does have his technique, it is unlike that of the craftsman in the following sense: the trade of the craftsman is the creation of that which is already known to be good, whereas the trade of the politician is to discern that which is good from that which is not. And in this regard, must he not be guided primarily by the immediate needs of the people and disposition of the gods?

[Anonymous No.16621407]

>>16621379
SOCRATES: ">the immediate needs of the people and disposition of the gods" Facts do not care for your feelings. To believe otherwise is absurd.

[Anonymous No.16621531]

If you debated Socrates, what would your dialogue be called?

[Anonymous No.16621574]

/pol/-bait needs to be a permaban