Veeky Forums-Pill me on Roger Scruton

Veeky Forums-Pill me on Roger Scruton

He's little more than a guardian tier journalist only he writes for the right instead of the Left. He's not a real philosopher but simply parrots basic talking points he picks from elsewhere and staples together into a clumsy mosaic he calls a commentary and his criticisms of the New Left do nothing but reiterate the basic premise of the modernist thoughts they were reacting against or straight up rehashes their own arguments against society/capitalism against them not in a self conscious deconstruction but in a silly illiteracy of own work.

If you want an actually good conservative thinker read Sloterdijk

He's the guy in charge of the Kant book in Oxford's Very Short Introduction series, one of the shortest books that cover the three Critiques, as well as the one on Beauty.

>the basic premise of the modernist thoughts they were reacting against
Habermas is right in calling the French neoconservatives.

>do nothing but reiterate the basic premise of the modernist thoughts they were reacting against or straight up rehashes their own arguments against society/capitalism against them
I haven't read him, but that was the impression I got from a 'debate' with Eagleton about culture. He seemed to end up saying very similar things about cultural decline while offering no meaningful criticism of or alternative to Eagleton's Marxist approach. 'Culture's gone to hell but it's totally not capitalism's fault, honest', basically.

read pic related only if you want meme material. Scruton usually can't help himself when he criticizes the left, and he can get pretty unfair and hysterical. however, if you're interested in classical conservatism, philosophy, or art, he has a lot interesting things to say.

ignore . he's a woman and probably a terrorist too.

I haven't read this book but I'm forced to assume it's just as bad as his book on beauty. His knowledge of art history is laughable (if present), and he completely ignores the theory, intention and milieu of pre-modern art and lumps them together as such and judging them by his own values, while also completely ignoring the modernists views and theory to blame modern art on some communist boogeyman.
Literally some dumb outraged cunt who gets a pass because he looks like the most british fuck ever so people confuse his poshness with culture. Just imagine him talking with a thick southern accent and you'll see how dumb the man actually sounds.

Walked back on many of the ideas served in his published writing over the years.
Was caught receiving a hefty paycheck from tobacco companies for writing articles on the intellectual merits of smoking.

Not worth much of your time desu

I don't know much of Scruton, I never read him, but I've watched one or two things presented by him and it just seems like he is from some parallel universe for the ammount of nonsense he says while pulling a completely straight face. Maybe I'm misinterpreting him, but I can't understand someone in this day and age thinking there are rigid universal values and meanings to things, to art, to beauty, to politics and it was only a matter of how we can just stay on them and ban whatever deviates from it. This is not even a leftist position, how can you think that after Hegel, Nietzsche, or someone like McLuhan, after learning one or two things on linguistics or psychology or eastern thought, whatever. How can one not understand that the words are not the things, that values are relative to those who have them, that aesthetic experience is always subjective. I also love Rembrandt and Bach, but it's a huge leap from there to think this is all that we should strive for, or that all else is illegitimate, or that there is a ruler that we can use to measure all that.

Veeky Forums, aka /leftypol/, hates him.
You will find no answers here.

The greatest living philosopher and without a doubt the best Conservative voice today. Disregard the hard-leftist trans anarcho communists on Veeky Forums and read his work "The meaning of Conservatism"