Roger Scruton

[uwot]

I have read your re-quoted post the first time but frankly couldn't find much in it...

If you don't find the idea of 'Endarkenment' appalling, and someone who wishes it to be imposed on others, despicable, then there really isn't much to find.

Objectivity appears to have lost consciousness under a pile of opinion.

Opinion, by its nature, is not objective. In my opinion, people having opinions different to mine, of itself, is no bad thing. To Roger Scruton, opinions that are not his own are socially deleterious. If he had his way, the range of opinion that is tolerable would be restricted; which is totalitarian lunacy.

As always, one's views may be better sourced by confronting it's cause directly rather than having them borrowed from intermediaries.

If you feel you need to be better informed to contribute meaningfully, by all means read all you will, but you don't have to eat the whole apple to know it's rotten.

[Dubious]

If you don't find the idea of 'Endarkenment' appalling, and someone who wishes it to be imposed on others, despicable, then there really isn't much to find.

The quote as given...

"Endarkenment" is Scruton's way of describing the process of socialization through which certain behaviours and choices are closed off and forbidden to the subject, which he considers to be necessary in order to curb socially damaging impulses and behaviours.

...is hardly specific enough to denote it as “brainwashing”. One can generalize and simply say there is nothing new in this. Isn't that what societies functionally do anyways, to adjust to it's way of thinking? In any event, it doesn't qualify him as an idiot or a monster.

Objectivity appears to have lost consciousness under a pile of opinion.

Opinion, by its nature, is not objective.

Yes! That was the meaning of the metaphor. Opinions in the minds of many are nothing more than mental rubbish.

In my opinion, people having opinions different to mine, of itself, is no bad thing.

Philosophy depends on it since nothing is ever certain in philosophy. That in principal is the center of its power.

As always, one's views may be better sourced by confronting it's cause directly rather than having them borrowed from intermediaries.

If you feel you need to be better informed to contribute meaningfully, by all means read all you will, but you don't have to eat the whole apple to know it's rotten.

I have bitten into that apple reading some of his writings and a few critiques as well...real ones not like the ones here of no help at all in coming to terms with Scruton. Calling someone a “blithering idiot” is the easiest way to immediately dismiss that person as a negative, a nonentity. It happens on Philosophy forums constantly. Often you don't even know why! Whether in agreement with him or not or whatever I may think of some of his views, a blithering idiot he certainly is not. Outstanding examples of such are best contained on Philosophy forums. The following article in no way colludes with your determination in spite of myself not agreeing with everything he states...which is only natural and makes you think harder.

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.o ... ation.html

Here is a more balanced critique not unlike some others I read. None have been so intensely derogatory based on so little information as demonstrated on this site. Not that I care what anyone thinks but I do find it puzzling.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/17/books ... -mush.html

[Hobbes' Choice]

I for one don´t hate Roger Scruton. I will check his books in the university library. Perhaps he is comparable to B. Russell ? If he has something interesting to say in good style and good grammar then he deserves attention and will be just perfect for someone like me.

Rich or poor, conservative or socialist, any decent person can contribute philosophically.

You obviously what to live like a slave. Or maybe you were not listening.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The very existence of his kind, his class, and his ideology is a treat to all humanity.
It is the thread of tradition, of vested interests, of hierarchy and domination of one class by the other held together by the bounds of tradition, privilege and wealth.
His is the ideology of the thought police, and the forces of conservatism that would hold us all in our place, under the yoke of Queen and Country.
Damn his face, damn his eyes and damn the horse he rode in on. The only thing worth building in his context is the grave over his limp dead body.

"Peaceful dwelling?" - Tell that to the Fox the his crew have just bred to let out for the hunt.

This nicely illustrates leftist hate and it's tendency to be violent.

I'm not fooled by his passive/aggressive words. Those who live like a fox die like a fox. In the video he is just about to jump on a horse and demonstrate to that fox what he means by peaceful dwelling; the higher orders get o control and manipulate people like yourself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I must admit I didn't get the comparison to Russell either and assumed duszek had got a name confused. Russell would be appalled at Scruton's beatification of ignorance in general and at his promotion of religious belief in particular.

Russell was diametrically opposed to Scroum.

[tbieter]

A review of a book I just read:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -new-left/

[duszek]

Plato came from an aristocratic and wealthy family too and is this a reason not to read him ?

Of course not. The best reason not to read Plato is because when it came to philosophy he didn't know his arse from his elbow. However because he came from a wealthy aristocratic family it was automatically assumed otherwise. Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose.

It was the first big laugh of today, thank you.
What fire you have in you, Leo, incredible.

I do read Plato every now and then, I even tried to read Hitler one time but the style was so bad that I was unable to go on.

How about Marx ? Has anyone read him (but without cheating) and enjoyed the reading ?

[duszek]

I must admit I didn't get the comparison to Russell either and assumed duszek had got a name confused. Russell would be appalled at Scruton's beatification of ignorance in general and at his promotion of religious belief in particular.

Russell was also a wealthy man and enjoyed good education, that´s why I thought of him.
He did not sleep in a dust bin like ... Diogenes ?

[duszek]

This nicely illustrates leftist hate and it's tendency to be violent.

Where is the rebuttal from Hobbes Choice?

Valid sllogism:
All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.

False syllogism:
Hobbes choice uses uses swivel-eyed violent rants for dramatic purposes, HC is a dirty lefty, therefore dirty lefties are violent.

This is a thread about how much you like a particular philosopher, posted on a philosophy forum. But right now it is hard to see how you have learned anything by your reading of philosophy. Is it perhaps at least a little bit true that you like Scruton just because he writes things you already agree with, rather than because you have put real effort into interrogating his theory?

Perhaps if you gave a little more info on some particular Scruton argument you like rather than just listing which book you read today, there would be a bit more meat on this topic and slightly less of the silly lefty v righty culture wars that gets the world nowhere.

Hear ! Hear !

More meat please !

[duszek]

This is a thread about how much you like a particular philosopher,

A rather loose definition of the term philosopher, in my opinion, although it's also reasonable to suggest that no particular qualifications are needed in order to apply such a label to oneself. I tend to regard Scruton more as an opinion-for-hire member of the paid commentariat and as such the validity of his views can be equated to such self-appointed gurus as radio shock-jocks. You only need to consider his opinion on the barbaric practice of fox-hunting and you'll immediately know everything you need to know about the bloke.

What does he say about fox-hunting (in a nutshell) ?
Let me guess:
1. That foxes enjoy the hunt in their own way.
2. That they would procreate too much otherwise.

[duszek]

If someone calls someone a blithering idiot I am curious to see myself what exactly caused this lively emotional response. It is usually more revealing about the speaker than of his target.

Has anyone got ever excited about someone like Hegel ?
Apart from Arising who could not bear Barbara Brooks imitating him in her way.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I must admit I didn't get the comparison to Russell either and assumed duszek had got a name confused. Russell would be appalled at Scruton's beatification of ignorance in general and at his promotion of religious belief in particular.

Russell was also a wealthy man and enjoyed good education, that´s why I thought of him.
He did not sleep in a dust bin like ... Diogenes ?

Ignorance is bliss. Russell was a man of the left, the "God-son" of J S Mill, (thought both atheists)

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is a thread about how much you like a particular philosopher,

A rather loose definition of the term philosopher, in my opinion, although it's also reasonable to suggest that no particular qualifications are needed in order to apply such a label to oneself. I tend to regard Scruton more as an opinion-for-hire member of the paid commentariat and as such the validity of his views can be equated to such self-appointed gurus as radio shock-jocks. You only need to consider his opinion on the barbaric practice of fox-hunting and you'll immediately know everything you need to know about the bloke.

What does he say about fox-hunting (in a nutshell) ?
Let me guess:
1. That foxes enjoy the hunt in their own way.
2. That they would procreate too much otherwise.

What Rodger Scotum would be embarrassed to admit is that the English gentry actually breed foxes to be hunted.
Gervais and Quentin tend to find it a bit too hard to find a wild fox because poor Gervais and Quentin are a bit too dim for the wild fox, and rely on a startled home bred fox to chase.

[Obvious Leo]

How about Marx ? Has anyone read him (but without cheating) and enjoyed the reading ?

Marx is not to be enjoyed because he couldn't write for shit. He is to be endured because some of his ideas have stood the test of time.

Has anyone got ever excited about someone like Hegel ?

The official apologist to the Prussian court is a historical figure to be understood in the context of his life and times. He made a minor contribution to political philosophy but in matters of metaphysics he should be studiously ignored. I doubt if either he or Marx would be a barrel of laughs at a piss-up, but I reckon Russell might be so he's the bloke I'd invite, especially since he'd almost certainly schlep along some excellent booze. The doorman would be instructed to shoot Roger Scruton on sight should he dare to show either of his faces.

[FlashDangerpants]

What does he say about fox-hunting (in a nutshell) ?
Let me guess:
1. That foxes enjoy the hunt in their own way.
2. That they would procreate too much otherwise.

No kidding, it was much, much weirder than that. He described it as an act of great piety, some form of ritual that plugs one into ancestral sources of wisdom or something absurd like that.

If I absolutely must, I'm pretty sure I still have a print copy somewhere amongst some old uni shit I never threw away. So I could probably sort out a recap. But it really was a the dumbest piece of trash ever, and I'm not enthusiastic about reading it again. It was thrown into a module about animal rights, mostly as a sort of antidote to all the Peter Singer stuff.