Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:04 am He can't define 'leftism' either.

Is the poor thing one of our American brethren?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:05 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:04 am He can't define 'leftism' either.

Is the poor thing one of our American brethren?

I think so. You can tell by the (mis)spelling unless it's one of the poor sods who've learnt English from an American. I'm pretty sure he's not one of those though.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:05 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:04 am He can't define 'leftism' either.

Is the poor thing one of our American brethren?

Leftism is simply the opposite. It denies the perennial philosophy and is instead materialistic, it denies the justice of castes and desires to see homogenization, and does not believe in a past or present perfection but believes there will be a utopia in the future.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:31 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:05 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:04 am He can't define 'leftism' either.

Is the poor thing one of our American brethren?

Leftism is simply the opposite. It denies the perennial philosophy and is instead materialistic, it denies the justice of castes and desires to see homogenization, and does not believe in a past or present perfection but believes there will be a utopia in the future.

Yeah I get it, It's directly the opposite of something you can't define, except you can't define that either.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:32 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:31 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:05 pm Is the poor thing one of our American brethren?

Leftism is simply the opposite. It denies the perennial philosophy and is instead materialistic, it denies the justice of castes and desires to see homogenization, and does not believe in a past or present perfection but believes there will be a utopia in the future.

Yeah I get it, It's directly the opposite of something you can't define, except you can't define that either.

Already been repeating myself for 3 pages so not sure what "can't define" is about? I've used the definitions of rightism given by Guenon and Evola, two very central figures in rightist philosophy. Not sure what more you could want?

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:44 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:32 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:31 am
Leftism is simply the opposite. It denies the perennial philosophy and is instead materialistic, it denies the justice of castes and desires to see homogenization, and does not believe in a past or present perfection but believes there will be a utopia in the future.

Yeah I get it, It's directly the opposite of something you can't define, except you can't define that either.

Already been repeating myself for 3 pages so not sure what "can't define" is about? I've used the definitions of rightism given by Guenon and Evola, two very central figures in rightist philosophy. Not sure what more you could want?

I asked YOU; not Guenon and Evola.
Since it is clear that you do not have a coherent idea, quoting others does not help your case.
Unless you can put ideas together yourself, you are just aping others. Monkey see, monkey do.
The perennial philosophy is not the converse of materialism. The perennial philosophy does not mandate caste "justice". Right wing politics does not rely on caste.
You have a mish-mash of ideas with which you are trying to create a false dichotomy, and all you are doing is failing to see the complexity.
For example materialism is happy in both sides of the political spectrum; not that the spectrum is a simple linear difference between right and left. And this is your failing. It's like you fell into a vat of Ideal Forms when you were a baby and never really grew out of it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:10 am

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:44 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:32 pm
Yeah I get it, It's directly the opposite of something you can't define, except you can't define that either.

Already been repeating myself for 3 pages so not sure what "can't define" is about? I've used the definitions of rightism given by Guenon and Evola, two very central figures in rightist philosophy. Not sure what more you could want?

YOU
Since it is clear that you do not have
your
Unless you can put
you are just
You have a mish-mash of
all you are doing is
this is your failing.
It's like you fell into a vat of

What does it mean when someone uses the phrase, "projection"?

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:07 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:10 am

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:44 am
Already been repeating myself for 3 pages so not sure what "can't define" is about? I've used the definitions of rightism given by Guenon and Evola, two very central figures in rightist philosophy. Not sure what more you could want?

YOU
Since it is clear that you do not have
your
Unless you can put
you are just
You have a mish-mash of
all you are doing is
this is your failing.
It's like you fell into a vat of

What does it mean when someone uses the phrase, "projection"?

Obviously you can't even take yourself seriously - why should I?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:33 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:07 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:10 am YOU
Since it is clear that you do not have
your
Unless you can put
you are just
You have a mish-mash of
all you are doing is
this is your failing.
It's like you fell into a vat of

What does it mean when someone uses the phrase, "projection"?

Obviously you can't even take yourself seriously - why should I?

Why would I want to share a conversation with someone who writes "YOU...", "You are just a...", "This is your failing...", "It's like you fell into a vat of..."?

Furthermore, when one reads much and maintains a clear recall of where something was seen, it is the decent thing to give credit to the source, it also aids those who might like to follow up on a lead.

What would be interesting to hear is some insight on how the Romantics fit in since they have a place in both the history of rightism and also leftism. They are a good example of how both the right and the left are reacting to many of the same problems, but from opposite ends of the social hierarchy.