Philosophy Now Forum

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:11 pm
Build the wall!

Skip wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:21 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:11 pm
Build the wall!

Might as well. The country's wrecked anyway.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:06 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:21 pm The concept that immigration is bad, is utterly bankrupt in the right wing's own terms.
More people, competing for more jobs means the Repugs can pay out less wages to their staff. this improves their competitive edge.

There are two different things that had been called rightism. One is traditionalism, the other is liberalism. They are quite different. The new right is traditionalist and rejects (neo-)liberalism. Liberalism is seen as a threat to traditionalism, the new right would agree that, "corporate competition have forced people into growing poverty. The right being the party of business are basically responsible for this".

And whilst Manuel mows their lawns

Rightists see leftism as an expression of resentment by the inferior, a point no doubt well understood by everyone, having been developed in Nietzsche's Genealogy. Manuel respects tradition, he is hard working, building his wealth and his family. He doesn't see those who are wealthy and powerful as "evil", he aspires to success for himself and his decedents.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:46 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:06 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:21 pm The concept that immigration is bad, is utterly bankrupt in the right wing's own terms.
More people, competing for more jobs means the Repugs can pay out less wages to their staff. this improves their competitive edge.

There are two different things that had been called rightism. One is traditionalism, the other is liberalism. They are quite different. The new right is traditionalist and rejects (neo-)liberalism. Liberalism is seen as a threat to traditionalism, the new right would agree that, "corporate competition have forced people into growing poverty. The right being the party of business are basically responsible for this".

And whilst Manuel mows their lawns

Rightists see leftism as an expression of resentment by the inferior, a point no doubt well understood by everyone, having been developed in Nietzsche's Genealogy. Manuel respects tradition, he is hard working, building his wealth and his family. He doesn't see those who are wealthy and powerful as "evil", he aspires to success for himself and his decedents.

Nietzsche is not relevant.
And neither is the view of Manuel. It's the hypocrisy of the right.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:44 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:46 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:06 pm
There are two different things that had been called rightism. One is traditionalism, the other is liberalism. They are quite different. The new right is traditionalist and rejects (neo-)liberalism. Liberalism is seen as a threat to traditionalism, the new right would agree that, "corporate competition have forced people into growing poverty. The right being the party of business are basically responsible for this".


Rightists see leftism as an expression of resentment by the inferior, a point no doubt well understood by everyone, having been developed in Nietzsche's Genealogy. Manuel respects tradition, he is hard working, building his wealth and his family. He doesn't see those who are wealthy and powerful as "evil", he aspires to success for himself and his decedents.

Nietzsche is not relevant.
And neither is the view of Manuel. It's the hypocrisy of the right.

Because...?

Because...?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:54 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:44 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:46 pm
Nietzsche is not relevant.
And neither is the view of Manuel. It's the hypocrisy of the right.

Because...?

Because...?

Surely that is for you to say.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:19 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:54 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:44 am
Because...?

Because...?

Surely that is for you to say.

Rightist and leftists I'm discovering basically identify the same problems, environment, alienation, inequality, but differ in the larger narratives they place those problems into. As I deepen my reading into rightist philosophy I become more doubtful that entities such as Fox, Brietbart, or the Tory party actually represent rightism.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:51 pm I recall Guenon listed the three central doctrines as sophia perennis, the guru-initiate system and belief in in the kali yuga or past golden age. Evola names three features too, rejection of dialogue that moves towards a higher truth (because the highest truth is always here-now), traditionalism (that is to say sophia perennis) and to say the same again, rejection of religious non-dualism in favor of philosophical idealism.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:22 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:51 pm I recall Guenon listed the three central doctrines as sophia perennis, the guru-initiate system, and belief in the kali yuga or past golden age. Evola names three features too, rejection of dialogue that moves towards a higher truth (because the highest truth is always here-now), traditionalism (that is to say sophia perennis) and to say the same again, rejection of religious non-dualism in favor of philosophical idealism.

If there is such a thing as "rightism", how would you define it?

Seleucus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:31 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:22 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:51 pm I recall Guenon listed the three central doctrines as sophia perennis, the guru-initiate system, and belief in the kali yuga or past golden age. Evola names three features too, rejection of dialogue that moves towards a higher truth (because the highest truth is always here-now), traditionalism (that is to say sophia perennis) and to say the same again, rejection of religious non-dualism in favor of philosophical idealism.

If there is such a thing as "rightism", how would you define it?

As I deepen my reading into rightist philosophy I become more doubtful that entities such as Fox, Brietbart, or the Tory party actually represent rightism.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:40 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:31 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:22 pm
If there is such a thing as "rightism", how would you define it?

As I deepen my reading into rightist philosophy I become more doubtful that entities such as Fox, Brietbart, or the Tory party actually represent rightism.

Do you not understand the question?
If there is such a thing as "rightism", how would you define it?
Simply what the fuck do you mean; "rightism".

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:28 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:40 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:31 am
As I deepen my reading into rightist philosophy I become more doubtful that entities such as Fox, Brietbart, or the Tory party actually represent rightism.

Do you not understand the question?
If there is such a thing as "rightism", how would you define it?
Simply what the fuck do you mean; "rightism".

The core views of rightism are given above from two very central figures, Guenon and his protege Evola. I can understand your confusion, once I started to read rightist philosophy I was also surprised to realized that Donal Trump or the Conservative party are barely if at all representative of rightist ideas.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:55 am1) I'm not confused. But you seem to be.
2) I asked YOU, to define rightism. I did not ask you to post two names of other people.

So I'll ask you again, for the third time. What is "rightism"?
I quite understand if you do not feel capable of saying what you think it is, as I'm pretty sure you do not have a clear idea.