Why are the vast majority of contemporary philosophers hardcore leftists?

why are the vast majority of contemporary philosophers hardcore leftists?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

They're the ones motivated to write philosophy. also probably easier to get published if that's more popular/something the publisher's like.

oh jesus i'm physically cringing

They've already written their justifications in many, many books. Try reading them?

ok name them
i'm a liberal but socialists and communists really trigger me honestly

Socialism and communism are the antithesis of true liberalism

"philosophers"

icycalm is not a hardcore leftist.

because conservatism is an inherently ignorant ideal.

>Existential comics
>contemporary philosopher

Sit down OP and I'll tell you.

I just got a publishing contract with a communist publishing country which might be worth around 10k or so.

Essentially, I don't give a shit about anything besides not wanting to blow my own brains out. I even like some right wing theory. But I want to be published so I play the "oh yes leftism cool" game.

I'm not a right winger, or I'd go to those faggots, but they're a bunch of dumbshits mostly. So here I am, pandering to communist dumb shits.

They're usually more interested in theory and delusional about being able to apply it to politics at large.

>Why are people who spent their entire life in a isolated ivy tower which exists solely because of state subsidies leftists
Gee, I can't imagine.

Because they aren't dumb.

please elaborate

They have high IQ.

>be moral
>own your own work
>ignorant

another example of why this board needs better mods

tfw to stoopid to be socialist

>SPOONFEED ME

they aren’t. they’re classically liberal careerist swine engaged in the work of problem invention to perpetuate their disciplines and hence the possibility of their careers

ok thanks for the spoonfeed

>not understanding that fascism was a disease of civilization

>reading contemporary philosophers
>going on twitter

>conservative
>being moral

choose one.

>armyguy.jpg
That's general Sherman you fucking philistine

I HEARD Y'ALL FUCK NIGGAS KEEP TALKING SHIT LIKE I WOULDN'T FIND OUT

What did they mean by this? Can someone walk me through step-by-step?
I literally have no idea what the twitter in the OP image is trying to express. Are they being sarcastic?

Because faculties are often more interested in getting """"""cutting edge""""""" philosophers. My old university recently hired a new associate professor, everything that she has ever published or written in the last 10 years (She's 35) is a feminist or ableist critique to continental philosophy.

I think they're saying that fascism could have dominated Europe but it only lost for random strategic/military reasons and not because European people were highly opposed to it.

Oh senpai, that's just a lie your Philosophy professors are telling you, the reason they're doing that is because the new associate professor gets paid half of tenured professors and has double the workload.

It doesn't matter if you had an uncomfortable skin reaction. The post is stated awkwardly and is a little bit vague, but there is a truth to it- most definitions of freedom in modern capitalism depend on a particular kind of property relation.

Ha that's probably true but there was a student protest at the school to hire more professors studying contemporary approaches to the humanities.

They're not.

>existential comics

Because there are no ideas of value on the Right.

Why is the existential comics guy such a faggot

Learn the game user, half of them aren't even Leftists but they position themselves to be out of convenience
The average Leftist is so stupid you can be spouting outright Fascism but once you do it in their code they celebrate you

But that's absolutely wrong, the Axis powers never stood a chance against the Allies. From the very outset they were massively outnumbered and outgunned. Them losing was no coincidence, it was a war of attrition and they didn't have the numbers.
Even ignoring WW2 and looking at fascism and that time period as a whole, fascism was very specific as an ideology of palingenetic ultranationalism and held sway only in specific circumstances where the social, economical and political order was coming apart at the edges. Fascism didn't lose due to 'random' reasons, it was never powerful enough to win at any point. To say otherwise is to be completely ignorant pf history.

>contemporary philosophers
>a literal fucking comic strip
Suicide should not just be an option, but a preference for you

really? that seems ridiculous

this twitter is just the first thing that came to my mind you autist. and reddit's badphilosophy sub which is a socialist circlejerk

That just means you're a gaping pussy. You will be the first to be shot in the gulag.

He thinks this is the conservative ideology.... sad.

i remember when freedom meant something else and then the capitalists renamed it. those damn capitalists

You reference twitter, you follow a philosophy comic strip on twitter, you reference a sub and you have the audacity to call me an autist? No for real OP go shoot yourself. Better yet, neck yourself so you can suffer.

Read On the Jewish Question by Marx. It's short, and it outlines the basic Marxist critique of leftism, he argues that the rights of man conflate freedom with property rights and as a consequence achieve anything but freedom.

why do people even go on r/badphilosophy

it's on one more level of self-parody than they think they're on

go back there

>nihilist faggot
>despites greatness and the men who made the world
>hardcore leftist bent on undermining moral values
you can't make this shit up

yes that's a good description of Rudolf Carnap

Meta discussion always attracts washouts.

I know that but saved it as army guy anyway because he's the default army guy if I need an army guy picture.

boom, do you feel philosophized? (i'm a professional)

Not exactly. The term "freedom" has always been vague as such, referring at the same time to either a state of mind or an opening of possibilities, which is valued in itself. In order to act in accordance with freedom, a concrete qualification is needed. This concrete qualification later becomes defined as "freedom", which is still valued in itself. Then later someone on twitter points out that the concrete definition is in conflict with the abstract meaning

One half of the antithesis, the other half being Fascism.

This is accidentally a good question despite OP being a faggot. I think it's because philosophy is inherently a creative enterprise. On a fundamental level, conservatives would rather things remain the same as they were in the past. It's a counter-creative drive. Usually conservative art and creative enterprises seek to glorify the past and its traditions. Most of it is a rehash of what's come before. It can still be good art or whatever, but it will be familiar.

On the other hand, anyone who is driven to create new philosophy (which is what the practice of philosophy is supposed to entail) is probably dissatisfied with the philosophy we already have. This is a more liberal tendency. It's a desire for change. Moreover, philosophy as a discipline has always taught its students to question their preexisting beliefs. Questioning dogma and tradition is another problem for conservatives. It makes them feel uncomfortable and stressed. Questioning the nature of belief itself, or the possibility of finding an objective truth (if we even know what truth is) is beyond uncomfortable to them - it's often incomprehensible.

That's not to say that conservatives never get interested in philosophy - plenty of them do - but they often will either be interested in it more as historians or in reconciling current philosophy with those pre-existing beliefs that they just can't give up.

yeah I understand philosophy, science and art being creative therefore liberal. But to me it seems that most contemporary bleeding edge postmodern thinkers are far left socialists because they really hate liberalism and capitalism. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my impression. And to me those political positions seem very naive and totalitarian in their final stages. Like, do they really believe that all we need is socialism, removal of borders, universal basic income and all people in the world will unite and live in peace and prosperity? I don't buy it.

>held sway only in specific circumstances
wow that totally doesn't apply to any other ideological system retard

Reading all the time generally exposes one to left-philosophy. Some people who read this literature decide they agree with its conclusions, meaning they're somewhat more left wing than the average person on average

>But to me it seems that most contemporary bleeding edge postmodern thinkers are far left socialists because I'm projecting my stereotyped views onto a large group of people. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my impression. And to me those political positions seem like bad things that I've been told about by the radio. Like, do they really believe in this simplified and reductive absurdity that I invented without understanding their actual point of view? I don't buy it.
inb4
>but that's what you did!
I offered some reasons to believe my point of view and provided significant caveats. You just seem to want to beat up a strawman.

>Thomas Paine
>Babeuf
>Proudhon
>Mazzini
>Marx
>Engels
>Bakunin
>Nechayev
>Blanqui
>Lafargue
>De Leon
>Kropotkin
>Tolstoy
>Kautsky
>Bernstein
>Lenin
>Luxemburg
>Bukharin
>Trotsky
>Bordiga
>Adorno
>CLR James
>Fanon
>Sartre
>De Beauvoir
>Camus
>Debord
>Deleuze
>Althusser
>Bookchin
>Chomsky
>Parenti
>Zizek
>Graeber
>Mark Fisher

Fascism lost against other european powers what's his point ?

Because the philosophers want a collective economy in which money is given to public services. And most philosophers see themselves as vital to the public good and thus will get more money. They are like the pigs in Animal Farm who will give themselves more money because only they are smart enough to lead.

Some of these are really dubious

Also a lot are pretty huge brainlets

>Marcuse on that
>no Bordiga or Bookchin anywhere
awful list

>And to me those political positions seem like bad things that I've been told about by the radio.
actually it's because my parents have lived through communism. it's simply something that doesn't work and has never worked. Only middle class college Americans think it's a good thing

they aren’t cons have a smaller media presence and libertarians hide in plain sight. go to UT-Austin, NC Chapel-Hill, UF, ASU, USC there’s tons of conservative, libertarian and crypto-reactionary professors of political science, economics, law, philosophy you’re just noticing the same one’s you hate over and over. Where do you think all these neat privatization, tax cut ideas came from? Your leader’s head? They’re from reactionary and conservative intelligentsia user. They’re all well represented, crypto-fascists have been allowed to sit inside Defense, Finance, Intel, Tech for the entire post-War period. They just don’t teach you this on your cute alpha soup board because its against regime policy to let both sides of the dialectic look at each other at the same time (or to look at each other together is more succinct).

I mean Mark Fisher is pretty pop but he's still worth reading, especially his pretty ruthless critique of liberalism and identity politics in Leaving the Vampire's Castle

Whom on that list do you dislike?

I've thought about this a lot user. While part of me wants to think that smarter people are inherently more left wing (and some shaky evidence supports this), then in every period of history the literati of every country would have been progressive. Clearly that isn't true.

My guess is that it's values.

Right wing families seem generally less tolerant of their children's decision to enter academia or study social sciences. Conservatives seem less likely to view a professorship as "real work", preferring their kids to go into business or politics or the military. Progressive families, less likely to have these particular biases, instead encourage their kids to become the next generation of philosophers or political theorists.

>values
you mean survival strategy

>right to you body
>no right to the work that body produced or to what the work that body produced was exchanged for
someone explain this to me

Not really. Professors and media types make decent money. It's just not as macho as being an auto parts dealer or an oilman

every answer you're going to get boils down to "REEEEE my imaginary right to property"

>if the government takes the capital your work ended up creating and you're rich, that's fine
>if the aristocracy takes the capital your work ended up producing and you're poor, that's serfdom
commies need to explain this shit

But property is created through labor. It doesn't just exist per se. You can't separate property from the labor used to create and refine it

>two marx's and two lenin's and no bakunin, proudhon or stirner
>no goldman , Chomsky or bookchin
The sneaky bureaucrat strikes again

All of the "fascist" dictatorships were defeated by Europeans...

Property is created through law

Maybe resources are distributed through arbitrary legal edicts, but the labor those resources require to be turned into something useful isn’t. You can't diminish that without turning people into slaves.

Natural law

I don't understand this. The author of EC doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

"Capitalists" = "the property owning class"

I think he means to use the word globalist, in the Alex Jones sense; the capitalist oligarchs who wreck economies and are immune to prosecution because it would prove government's hand does not belong in the market. But a few days earlier he's railing about fascism having "lost." Fascism did not lose. It's a feature of democracy.

Pajamaboy comic artist needs to go back and read the classics. Democracy has never been easy, especially when propagandists are at work.

Liberals argue that if somebody uses their money to purchase some property (regardless of how this money was acquired), they deserve full access to whatever value is produced with this property, no matter who uses it.

>resources require to be turned into something useful

According to whom? If that was the case, how could societies exist without private property?

Forgot to attach
Bookchin's_discontent.png

Property isn't even an actual thing, """resources" "" are not property. the concept of property is purely symbolic.

>marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

You have no excuse for your pseudo-liberal egotist drivel

>right to expropriate the work of others because they must "agree" to turn everything they make over to you if they don't want to starve, since you control all of the industrial capital which you acquired through the same process of exploitation

How is a collective ownership of territory more valid than private ownership and cultivation? How do you collectivize property without stealing the labor of the people who developed it? Property usually isn't useful in itself, it needs to be developed and administered.

>fascism lost
More's the fucking pity.

You know academia sucks when our dumbass president says more insightful and true things than the academics.

I believe in a universal right to food and shelter. I'm talking about the complete collectivization of all property, not the concept of taxation. And the thing is that communism doesn't distinguish between property owners who cultivated their own land, and rent-seekers. You're fucked regardless of whether or not your exploited other workers.

Uhm... Spain remained under fascist rule till the death of Franco in the mid 70ties. It was forbidden to gather and talk more than two people. Rebels were rounded up, marched into the mountains and shot. Red wine changed name to Tainted (tinto) wine cause red meant socialist. Etc etc etc.

Only thing that's allowed.

I suggest you read proudhon, what is property?
>And the thing is that communism doesn't distinguish between property owners who cultivated their own land, and rent-seekers.
that is what happens under bureaucratic control it has nothing to do with communism, the exact same thing applies to private property in US law.
Also pretty please read bookchin

>Franco
>fascist

Franco was a garden variety conservative, he only adopted the trappings of fascism to give his regime popular legitimacy. There were dozens of caudillos just like Franco in Latin America, and we don't describe them as "fascist."

>I believe in a universal right to food and shelter.

but what if no one wants to grow food or build homes

>what is property?
Just because you can deconstruct the concept of property to be nothing more than the power to control territory by force (which I would argue is part of the inherent human psychology, and relates to tribalism), doesn't mean that the cultural legal systems that developed to legitimize ownership aren't valid.

>that is what happens under bureaucratic control it has nothing to do with communism
Communism is synonymous with bureaucratic control. You can only distribute wealth if a central authority is in control said wealth. Voluntary communism is a laughable concept.

i believe it is because that hardcore leftist are the only ones who buy contemporary philosophy. those of a right wing nature tend to just go for the classics instead of anything new. and those who would produce said content are less inclined to because they have bills to pay.

and to achieve communism a bureaucratic state must be established as long as necessary. until either the state eventually regress to a point where it must be re implemented when society reforms into what it was that led to a supposed need for communism in the first place. or its aims are never achieved at it just exists as means into itself.

those legal systems are only valid if there is force to back them up. it is the force that makes those legal systems valid.

You can incentivize people to do that by using the wealth generated through taxation. But to me these are competing rights. The right to not be a slave supersedes the rights to food and shelter. The latter rights only apply to countries that can afford it, unfortunately.

>Like, do they really believe that all we need is socialism, removal of borders, universal basic income and all people in the world will unite and live in peace and prosperity?

This will never happen. Too many assholes will insist on fucking it up in the name of personal gain. Just like you will never be happy cause assholes around you will always fuck up your peace. But that dont mean you shouldnt strive for it.