/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17644903]

The great debate. Left wing philosophers vs Right wing philosophers. Who wins?

[Anonymous No.17644914]

>>17644903
>no Guenon
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17644935]

>>17644903
Reducing those philosophers in that way is incredibly arbitrary and reductionistic.

[Anonymous No.17644944]

>>17644903
Was Whitehead a leftist? Also can we trade someone to get Heidegger on our side?

[Anonymous No.17644952]

Left? Right? Their paths bend toward the same destination...

[Anonymous No.17644965]

>>17644952
Who is he? Google reverse image search has been nuked ever since the ai detected black people as gorillas.

[Anonymous No.17644966]

>>17644903
None of those niggers are philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17644967]

>>17644965
Not him but Alexandre Kojève

[Anonymous No.17644971]

[Anonymous No.17644972]

>>17644967
thanks anon

[Anonymous No.17644977]

>>17644903
Hegel

[Anonymous No.17644988]

>>17644903
fixed it for you, not need to thank me.

[Anonymous No.17644999]

>>17644903
What is it about 2021 where literally everything that exists needs to be demarcated as left or right?

[Anonymous No.17645001]

>>17644903
>henry james
>whitehead
>foucalt
These were broadly liberal, pluralistic, open-society types.

[Anonymous No.17645002]

>>17644903
There's only two actual philosophers on the right, left wins by default.

[Anonymous No.17645007]

>>17644988
retard

[Anonymous No.17645010]

>>17645001
*william james

[Anonymous No.17645015]

>>17644952
>your only notable idea is literally just regurgitating parts of Capital most normies will never ever reach
lmao

[Anonymous No.17645019]

>>17645001
that's william james you retard

[Anonymous No.17645026]

>>17645019
>>17645010

[Anonymous No.17645035]

>>17644988
based and schizopilled

[Anonymous No.17645043]

>>17644988
Wtf

[Anonymous No.17645057]

>>17645007
oh, sorry, forgot one, thank you for reminding me.

[Anonymous No.17645069]

>>17644903
What a terrible selection of right wing thinkers. These lists are ostensibly made by self-identified rightists, yet betray an embarrassing lack of familiarity with their own tradition. Where, for instance, is Oakeshotte? He is much more important than shitty Scruton. Evola and Hitler don’t really belong. Also, is Wittgenstein really a left-wing philosopher?

[Anonymous No.17645072]

>>17645015
He synthesized the left-right dialectic. He was influenced by Marx but also Heidegger and Spengler. He was a key influence on the French postmodernists but also on his friends Strauss and Schmitt. He even exchanged letters with Evola

[Anonymous No.17645147]

>>17645072
Marx already correctly identified the capitalist as a revolutionary class in Capital, there is nothing new to discover.

[Anonymous No.17645224]

>>17645147
Kojeve doesn’t claim to be discovering anything new, he’s updating Marx and Hegel after the world wars.

[Anonymous No.17645402]

these people wouldn't disagree with eachother, they'd all just nod their heads in silent agreement and leave casually

[Anonymous No.17645594]

I'm so stumped as to how to deal with the terms "right wing" and "left wing".
There's been so many different definitions that people use that no matter how some authority figure says "THIS is the real definition", it's never strictly followed by other people so it's completely useless.
Are right-wingers traditionalists, conservatives, hierarchists, racists, libertarians, anarchists, corporatists, anti-socialists, republicans, or monarchists? What about left-wingers?
I guess I just have to figure out which of the hundred different things it could mean every time people use the term from the context? Why can't people just say what they mean instead of using an umbrella term that can be interpreted in so many ways?
It's so stupid, I wish people would stop using the terms.

[Anonymous No.17645606]

>>17644903
Hitler was leftwing.

[Anonymous No.17645626]

>>17645594
If you want niggers, Jews and trannies in your society, you're left wing. If you don't want them, you're right wing. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.17645646]

>>17645626
Retard

[Anonymous No.17645653]

>>17645594
>traditionalists, conservatives, hierarchists, racists, libertarians, anarchists, corporatists, anti-socialists, republicans, or monarchists
these are all the same things in essence just different costumes

[Anonymous No.17645661]

>>17645646
Dilate

[Anonymous No.17645793]

>>17644965
Use yandex

[Anonymous No.17645881]

>>17644903
Strauss, Spengler, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein are the only ones worth reading from that entire picture so it's 3:1 for right wingers.

[Anonymous No.17645893]

>>17645653
>republicans
>monarchists
>the same
How?

[Anonymous No.17645913]

>>17645881
I know that Witt was autistic, which is based, but how do you know he was right wing? He was a homosexual (though at the end of his life he regretted those activities). He also associated with the Vienna Circle (which included the one and only cuck, Bertrand Russell, EWWWW).

[Anonymous No.17645921]

>>17645913
I'm using OP's picture where Strauss, Spengler and Heidegger are right wing and Wittgenstein left wing. So 3:1.

[Anonymous No.17645922]

>>17644965
>Google reverse image search has been nuked ever since the ai detected black people as gorillas.
fucking hell that's funny, they really will be the death of us

[Anonymous No.17645929]

>>17645921
gotcha
>>17645922
let's hope more chatbots will be made in the future as they will inevitably be radicalized.

[Anonymous No.17645948]

>>17644903
>hitler
>right wing

[Anonymous No.17646082]

>>17645948
terrible bait

[Anonymous No.17646927]

>>17644903
None.
Because debating is cringe

[Anonymous No.17646942]

>>17644935
yes :^(

[Anonymous No.17646980]

>>17646942

[Anonymous No.17646992]

>>17644903
Was Spengler right wing?

[Anonymous No.17647020]

>>17645653
Try actually reading them, you fucking pleb.

[Anonymous No.17647035]

Why is hitler a philosopher lol

[Anonymous No.17647118]

>>17647035
oh boy, to understand that you need to educate yourself about neo-Hyperborean thought

[Anonymous No.17647158]

>>17644935
The final reduction is good vs evil

[Anonymous No.17647198]

>>17647158
yes, everyone vs the Jews (with the exception of those who renounce their Judaism)

[Anonymous No.17647199]

>left wing
>right wing
No such thing. Stop being a niggercattle.

[Anonymous No.17648660]

>>17645072
Adorno was influenced by Spengler, and he found value in Schmitt iirc. Don't really need to flock to Kojève for that.

[Anonymous No.17648678]

>>17644903
Evola and de Maistre aren't philosophers whereas everyone on the left side is a philosopher so the left wins I guess.

[Anonymous No.17648696]

>>17647035
Mein Kampf counts as philosophy IMO. Not good philosophy but it's definitely influential - much like Rand's stuff.

[Anonymous No.17649853]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17649878]

>>17644903
>Hitler
>philosopher
Lmao

[Anonymous No.17649884]

>>17649878
Hitler is to the right what Marx is to the left

[Anonymous No.17649893]

>>17644903
>Hitler
>Philosopher
>right wing

>Heideger
>Evola
>right wing

fascism has more in common with socialism than with right wing

[Anonymous No.17649941]

>>17649893
No it doesn't

[Anonymous No.17649945]

>>17645594

that's kind of the biggest problem with all attempts at categorizing beliefs. no one agrees on what goes where and everyone's ideas exclude some subset included in someone else's definition.

[Anonymous No.17649970]

>>17645653
Based fascist identifier

[Anonymous No.17650056]

>>17645072
source on Kojève-Evola correspondence?

[Anonymous No.17650064]

>>17644903
At this point in the definitions all liberal humanists are 'right wing' so you'll have to include Jung and Locke and all the rest on the right.

[Anonymous No.17650080]

>>17645913
Wittgenstein disliked the Wiener-Kreis and Russell. And being gay is leftist? Plenty of fagcists around desu

[Anonymous No.17650222]

>>17650080

based gay fascism

[Anonymous No.17650235]

>reactionary
>philosopher
Contradiction in terms.

[Anonymous No.17651422]

>>17650080
holy based

[Anonymous No.17651746]

>>17647158
No, it is friend and enemy.

[Anonymous No.17651757]

>>17649893
Yeah Evola was a socialist...
ignorant.

[Anonymous No.17651833]

>>17645594
Right is overpower the weak, left is disempower the strong.

[Anonymous No.17652329]

>>17648660
I read Kojeve because he maps the dialectic of left and right thought.
>>17650056
Oops my mistake, I was thinking of the unpublished Junger-Evola letters.

[Anonymous No.17652987]

>>17645606
lol

[Anonymous No.17652998]

>>17645606
you are stupid

[Anonymous No.17653004]

>>17644903
the left bodies the right so hard it's not even funny

[Anonymous No.17653186]

>>17651746
Ok Calicles.

[Anonymous No.17653707]

>>17644988
epic

[Anonymous No.17653906]

Left wing and right wing ideologies are all a product of Judaism. “Right wing philosophies” are nothing more than people wanting to preserve their land and blood while “left wing” are all anti “right wing” policies so I believe that even the labels are misleading. Traditionalists vs Kikes would be a better label. I hate the term right wing it doesn’t mean anything it’s just meant to discourage people, just like the term “Nazi.” Half of the “left wing” people are jews so you go fucking figure.

[Anonymous No.17653950]

>>17652987
>>17652998
>rebel against government
>not left wing
Lmao

[Anonymous No.17653962]

>>17653906
>“Right wing philosophies” are nothing more than people wanting to preserve their land and blood
The fuck are you talking about. 1950s America is not traditional in any sense of the world. Delusional incel.

[Anonymous No.17654032]

>>17644952
Yup totalitarianism. Are you quoting that Marxist though?

[Anonymous No.17654132]

>>17644952
Worked just fine for me

[Anonymous No.17654143]

>>17653906
>preserve their land and blood
American land is not yours.
Your "blood" is mutt-tier
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.17654173]

>>17644903
did hitler really write enough to be considered a philospoher? i cant recognise any on the left as political leaders

[Anonymous No.17654175]

>>17653962
well, its not the least traditional thing senpai. not agreeing with him, but people tend to be polemic about it. family focus and a focus on community. Who cares if you nitpick about it being nuclear or whatever, the intentionality is still at some level authentic.

[Anonymous No.17654402]

>>17649884
This is a bad take. Hitler was not a philosopher, he may have theorized and wrote, but Joseph Goebbels is much more likely to be a nazi philosopher

[Anonymous No.17654541]

>>17647198
take your meds

[Anonymous No.17654558]

Yeah agreed, reducing everything down into right versus left is an extremely reductionist idea. In fact, if you don't know any better then you would say that the idea is essentially making sure you stay in a cage, your mind is only thinking of left and right, binary options.

[Anonymous No.17654562]

>>17644903
i wish i could kill adorno so bad bros

[Anonymous No.17654568]

>>17645653
>traditionalists and libertarians are the same thing
>monarchists and libertarians are the same thing
retard

[Anonymous No.17654572]

>>17645893
Well when I read those words they make my brain feel the same :/

[Anonymous No.17654575]

>>17654572
ah, understandable.

[Anonymous No.17654582]

>>17654562
Why? He's literally a crypto-fascist, chuds like you would like him if you actually read him

[Anonymous No.17654584]

>>17644903
> left
GOAT 19-20th century philosophers
> right
Dictators, schizos and a bunch of literal whos

[Anonymous No.17654613]

>>17654568
The rightist elite will promote libertarianism when there is no perceived threat and everything is going well for them. When there is a perceived thread and/or perceived decline is when all the rhetoric of "tradition," "degeneracy," and "moral decay" will come out and they will turn fascist within the snap of a finger. Libertarians of the rightist variety are just crypto-fascists.

[Anonymous No.17654621]

>>17654584
This with the exception of Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.17654622]

>>17654613
This. I stopped being a libertarian when I realized 99% of them were just conservatives/fascists that liked to smoke weed and say nigger without consequences.

[Anonymous No.17654675]

>>17654613
>>17654622
...so anyone who believed or believes in absolutely freedom of act as long as it doesnt despoil a contract is a fascist? I think that is critically subversive of you. not your conclusion that they might be supported by moneyed interests, which very well could be the case, but that the ideology is crypto-fascist when on the basic epistemological level it is very different.
>>17654622
I dont think you were ever a libertarian if people doing decidedly disrelated things to libertarianism made you not one. that makes you someone obsessed with appearances.

Im not even a libertarian, but a Hegelian (believe that persons freedoms and wants are indirectly controlled by capitol in a capitalist society), almost the opposite, but damn man, that's a shitty reason ad homonym reason why.

[Anonymous No.17654697]

>>17654032
He’s a reactionary Marxist

[Anonymous No.17654708]

>>17654675
>...so anyone who believed or believes in absolutely freedom of act as long as it doesnt despoil a contract is a fascist?
i stated that these ideologies are more like different cloaks for the same thing. one will dress in the different cloak when the other doesn't benefit them any longer. and what does it mean to believe in "freedom" within a bourgeois state? who is really benefitting from this so called "freedom" aka bourgeois rights?

[Anonymous No.17654754]

>>17654541
no

[Anonymous No.17654763]

>>17654708
>and what does it mean to believe in "freedom" within a bourgeois state? who is really benefitting from this so called "freedom" aka bourgeois rights?
ok, but that is a conversation of praxis rather than belief in what is just.
>i stated that these ideologies are more like different cloaks for the same thing. one will dress in the different cloak when the other doesn't benefit them any longer.
againt, that is an argument from praxis rather than theory. it requires an a prioi skepticism of interest from a specific world veiw which can be said of any ideology to boot. its begging the question and makes it a question of historicity and narrative creation rather than one from a theoretical conceit, and at that point you can question anything from a purely particular historic conception and interpret it any which way you want. (of course a historical materialist would come to libertarianism from a historical materialist lense to be more specific)
Just like an anti-semite would say marxist socialism or the ussr was a priori a construct of the jewish international kabal and would disregard these ideologies off hand.

You see my point? any one of these could be correct historical interpretations if you take the conceit a priori and it just turns into a nothing word fight of who puppets who and whoes ideology is a sythetic construction.

Like I said, I do think capital does control what we believe "free" is, however, to be ideologically honest, I sould put this aside when evaluating the truth statement of another ideology.

[Anonymous No.17654897]

>>17645653
this

[Anonymous No.17655749]

>>17654613
Enough schizoposting