How come far left philosophy is much more prevalent than far right philosophy...

left-wingers are more than comfortable staying in their own bubbles as well. They'll criticize everything, true, but only from a predetermined stance of social humanity from which they are rarely willing to budge.

>don't feel the need to question things in order to deepen their understanding of the world

I don't see how you can possibly think this is a good thing

>why aren't there more intellectuals and academic working at the supermarket with me (there're only all these philosophers)
>IVORY TOOWEER!

He did, via the context of OP's posed question.
What does that even mean?

Your eyes might have seen the words on the page, but you failed to actually read them.

Then explain what you meant by namedropping Foucault.

Calm down my dude. Your post isn't very coherent but you seem upset by what I said.

>I'll dishonestly pretend not to have understood the perfectly clear meaning and finish him off with a "u mad"
Shouldn't you be on /b/?

The conservative is at comfort in his world. That is an ideal state of being. The leftist is fundamentally broken and retreats to the world of ideas to soothe his abnormalities.

No conservative can ever be at comfort with the world, because it will never for long remain what he thinks it should be like.

The conservative does not have a fixed view of what the world should be like. He is not a rationalist.

That post was a jumbled mess of two statements, neither of which seem to relate to what I originally said or the thread at large. It was then followed by a repeat of what I said but with all capital letters and extra letters added for emphasis. All of this in response to a two word post relating to a phenomenon that has been well documented over the last several decades in which professors who lean right feel stifled politically on university campuses because of their extreme minority status, especially in the humanities which this thread specifically focuses it's questioning.

You're right, he isn't a rationalist, but that doesn't stop him from being uncomfortable when things change.
>two short statements
>a jumbled mess
>one merely mentions the supposed ivory tower that you posted about, the other comments on what kind of anti.intellectual trash believes in such shit and why
>doesn't relate to what you said though
Is this a jumbled mess to you too, newfriend? Do the mean greentext arrows confuse you?

I was wondering to myself recently why Leftists happen to be so insecure and anti-intellectual and then it came to me that since the turn of the 20th century there hasn't been a single first-rate or original Leftist/liberal thinker.

Meanwhile Right-wing/reactionary thinkers have dominated nearly every single field of study from the 19th through mid-20th centuries-- philosophy (Schopenhauer, Nietzche, Heidegger), economics (Pareto, Veblen, Schumpeter), religious studies (Eliade, Jung, Schuon), literature (the modernists, Yeats, Joyce, Pound, Eliot, Pessoa, Nabokov), math, et cetera

I think the reason why the left-wing has become so antiquated and derivative is because they've simply ran out of fresh source material.

>Nietzsche
>Schopenhauer
>Right-wing

some people prefer actually doing things instead of telling others how things "should" be and what others "should" do.

Although Nietzsche was influential on both the left and the right, his work on morality and his disgust for egalitarianism places him within the right.

>His disgust for morality places him on the right
Are you for real

>his disgust for egalitarianism
yes

The intellectual and artistic classes were homogenized during WWII because the allies believed it was necessary to defeat fascism intellectually as well as militarily.

Being anti left is not enough to be classified as right wing, especially if you consider that he says many anti right things as well.
He's beyond the political compass.

I wouldn’t have called Veblen a ‘right wing thinker’...

Kant, Mill, Proudhon, Marx, Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Weber,

Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson, Dobbs, Sweezy, Galibraith,

More recently there is Rawls, Cohen, Taylor. Habermas etc

Frankly it’s always been the abundance, not the lack of ideas holding the left back.

I think you haven't read much philosophy if that's what you think. Many of the respected philosophers in the canon weren't explicitly political, and many wrote before your arbitrary left-right spectrum was created by a bunch of butthurt Frenchmen in the 18th c. Even the best Marxist and post-structuralist philosophers aren't even really left-wing (Deleuze, Baudrillard, Foucault, etc.) I don't know this meme is so popular around here, most like psuedo-communists like yourself reading a small bit of philosophy that suits your ideological taste and then being like HURRR ALL GOOD PHILOSOPHERS ARE LEFTWING HURRR DUMB RIGHT WINGERS CAN ONLY WRITE TOUCHY FEELY NO PHILOSPHICATIN. Was Plato left wing? Kant? Jesus christ you sound like a retard. Also: not far left ≠ far right.

And the most hilarious thing about Schmitt is that most of the productive development of his work has been carried out by people on the left.

You are correct, taking the world at face value, uncritically will make you a right winger. It’s only natural then that anybody who is in pursuit of the examined life is on the left.

Kant and Weber are not unambiguously left-wing. Other than Keynes and Galbraith you're scraping for many of these. Rawls is highly overrated and he's only as prominent as he is because he gives a respectable veneer to the popular liberal prejudices of university lecturers. Cohen and Taylor I will give you. Habermas is also occasionally useful.

>And the most hilarious thing about Schmitt is that most of the productive development of his work has been carried out by people on the left.
Schmitt's work doesn't require "development". What you mean is that the most useful bastardisations of Schmitt for the left have been carried out on the left. Whatever.

>And the most hilarious thing about Schmitt is that most of the productive development of his work has been carried out by people on the left
And Foucault's ideas have been best put into practice by neoliberals. It's a strange world.

>anybody who is in pursuit of the examined life is on the left
Not when they pursue truth.

He's an authoritarian.

Nietzsche is whichever the ideology the person reading him chooses to project on to him. There is an almost infinite number possible Nietzsche readings, why do you think his views are always so hotly contested in the academy and how left-wing and right-wing faggots both claim him.

where does he self-contradict this?:
>My philosophy aims at an ordering of rank: not at an individualistic morality. The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd -but not reach out beyond it: the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally different valuation for their own actions, as do the independent, or the "beasts of prey," etc.
or
>I have declared war on the anemic Christian ideal (together with what is closely related to it), not with the aim of destroying it but only of putting an end to its tyranny and clearing the way for new ideals, for more robust ideals- The continuance of the Christian ideal is one of the most desirable things there are--even for the sake of the ideals that want to stand beside it and perhaps above it-they must have opponents, strong opponents, if they are to become strong.- Thus we immoralists require the power of morality: our drive of self-preservation wants our opponents to retain their strength-it only wants to become master over them."

leftists who tried to co-opt him were re more dishonest than right wing interpreters

>The conservative is at comfort in his world.
because he is wilfully oblivious to anything that might discomfort him, doesn't question things because he's afraid the answer might be uncomfortable, and ultimately cares about being comfortable more than he cares about truth.

and then admits it as it it was a positive characteristic when on fact it is patently obvious to anyone paying any attention that he is being intellectually dishonest and insecure.

I think they're more selective than dishonest. Rigjt ignores other parts of his work too.

>because he is wilfully oblivious to anything that might discomfort him, doesn't question things because he's afraid the answer might be uncomfortable, and ultimately cares about being comfortable more than he cares about truth.
>and then admits it as it it was a positive characteristic when on fact it is patently obvious to anyone paying any attention that he is being intellectually dishonest and insecure.

glad you're self aware user

>not the case in Lierature
It is though, sure you can find some right wing writers but you have to look for them. There's actually a real reason why its hard to write 'conservative' literature - one of the basic tenets of storytelling is the exploration of the reason/meaning/justification of a persons actions, if you believe a person life is largely abou personal chpices, what would you write about? There;s a quote from a writer about needing to be born with an inability to judge people for their own mistakes--that sort of humanization is the meat of a lot of narrative

>Schmitt's work doesn't require "development".

>politics by definition not conceivable in the interior
>voluntarism in terms of the friend/enemy distinction betrays an embarrassing lack of historical consciousness and is prima facie ridiculous
>pedestrian conception of the state

Schmitt's work definitely requires development, otherwise it falls apart at a minimum of scrutiny.

There is no truth-with-a-capital-t. All truth is contingent and historically conditioned. The leftist lives a delusion.

>conservatives lack intellectual empathy

>It is though, sure you can find some right wing writers but you have to look for them. There's actually a real reason why its hard to write 'conservative' literature - one of the basic tenets of storytelling is the exploration of the reason/meaning/justification of a persons actions, if you believe a person life is largely abou personal chpices, what would you write about?
holy fuck you're dense my man
this

>I know you are but what am I
this response has all the intellectual weight of a six year old in a school playground

>comfort is an ideal state of being

Bourgeois letzter mensch scum, get the fuck off my board

>he's beyond good and evil
damn..............

>politics by definition not conceivable in the interior
What?

>voluntarism in terms of the friend/enemy distinction betrays an embarrassing lack of historical consciousness and is prima facie ridiculous
What?

>pedestrian conception of the state
Pedestrian how? Let's have actual critique rather than hot air.

I get that you've read a few leftist fantasists who have tortured some kind of "original insight" out of a radical reading of a right-wing theorist they can't help but admire. That doesn't mean their blather makes sense or is a worthwhile development of Schmitt's profound thinking about politics and law.

no I didn't go and make that statement about all left-wingers because that would be stupid. How about not dismissing things you don't fully understand out of hand and stop projecting your own intellectual insecurity and dishonesty.

so was Stalin, would you call him right-wing?

>There is no truth-with-a-capital-t. All truth is contingent and historically conditioned.
conservative relativism, how interesting. I don't think I've seen that before.

cough heidegger

that's not a conservative idea though, even it fits with some interpretations of conservatism.

You fellas seem calm, rational, and make good points.

>dismissing things you don't fully understand
all I'm dismissing is the idea that it's possible to be both comfortable and fully aware of the world.

memes and frogs are more suited to conservative intellectuals

1: Politics is friend/enemy distinction. A people is constituted through this exteriority. This leaves no conceivable politics of the interior without fracturing the people and with this fracture the entire system falls apart.

2: What the words mean. Literally. You do not choose your enemies. Schmitt's conception that the sovereign constitutes the people by deigning who is enemy and who is not is ridiculous. Just as often, your enemies choose you. With that, the Hobbesian sovereignty on which it all rests fails, and the entire system falls apart.

3: Primarily a consequence of 1 and 2, but there is plenty of literature on the subject.

>I get that you've read a few leftist fantasists who have tortured some kind of "original insight" out of a radical reading of a right-wing theorist they can't help but admire. That doesn't mean their blather makes sense or is a worthwhile development of Schmitt's profound thinking about politics and law.

No you don't, and I haven't. I adore Schmitt's critical project, but saying his entire oeuvre is in no need of improvement betrays a blindness to his flaws that is both severely retarded and catastrophically counterproductive.

>Let me throw out some poorly worded "takedowns" of a conservative strawman I concocted
>wahh you guys are just making fun of me I wanna have an rational intellectual debate

You're worse cancer than the /pol/ and memerson fags.

Source?

>all I'm dismissing is the idea that it's possible to be both comfortable and fully aware of the world.
who said conservatives are comfortable? who is to to say you're not comfortable in your own worldview?
woah that's really funny guy cool insight you just had there

Relativism here does not mean "all things are valid" or some such nonsense. Everything is historically contingent and the unplanned, traditional produce of time should be nurtured because it embodies the collected wisdom of generations. This is Burkean or Oakeshottian conservatism 101.

Conservatism, and right wing thought in general, is more dependent on relativism than any brand of leftism. Today's leftism is highly dependent on moral realism and absolutism.

>Politics is friend/enemy distinction.
Politics is defined by the friend/enemy distinction. A linguistic equivalent of what you said would be something like "economics is profitable/unprofitable distinction". Not quite.

>A people is constituted through this exteriority.
Can we speak in English rather than continental mumbo-jumbo eg "exteriority"? I understand what you're getting at but the pseudo-intellectualism is unbearable.

>This leaves no conceivable politics of the interior without fracturing the people and with this fracture the entire system falls apart.
Schmitt is talking about politics in a decisive, existential sense. Of course domestic politics in a crude sense - elections, discussion, policy - can occur in Schmitt's framework. If it intensifies to politics in the existential sense, you get inevitable civil war. The United States in on that path today. This is just semantic nonsense.

>What the words mean. Literally. You do not choose your enemies.
No you don't because enmity is a consequence of incompatible ways of being or identities. An enemy threatens you in an existential way.

>Schmitt's conception that the sovereign constitutes the people by deigning who is enemy and who is not is ridiculous.
Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. In a time of crisis, an actor emerges who identifies the situation and solves it with force because power is logically prior to law and re-emerges when the restrains of law become irrational. It's not a person who actively "constitutes a people by deigning who is enemy" in times of peace. In times of peace, the identity of the sovereign is hidden or contested. The sovereign and the enemy exist as an extreme possibility upon which the rest of our political life is premised. You're reading this all much too literally. Schmitt is not a tedious philosopher of everyday life. Weimar was a trainwreck and he was preparing himself for its grim conclusion. His thinking applies in like circumstances.

>What does that even mean?
that leftists are as willing to refuse to consider some people as subhuman as rightwingers are willing to refuse to consider those same people as human

Unironically yes

>Veblen, Schumpeter
>right wing/reactionary

>While he (Schumpeter) agrees with Karl Marx that capitalism will collapse and be replaced by socialism

>As a leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, Veblen attacked production for profit.

Nietzsche was the most influential philosopher from the 19th century and the most read philosopher in the 20th century. He's not far left. So, what are you basing this on?

OP is likely basing it on existentialist and postmodernist philosophers of the 20th century

Wikipedia - always the finest way to gather a nuanced understanding of an intellectual's political views!

Lets be honest, in conservatives own terms - they just have low IQ's. The fact that a mediocrity like Peterson is their Lord tells you something.

But they all read Nietzsche. Even today, despite what the French wrote about in the 20th century, there is a bigger influence from Nietzsche.

Look at this thread, even dummies on Veeky Forums talk like Fox news pundits. There's no substance to anything. 'You're dumb (insert meme) lol' or something solely party political. Theyre empty headed people.

Because people with far right philosophy have jobs. Meanwhile leftists create self-replicating ideological bubbles like academia because they would be homeless otherwise. No skin in the game, read Taleb.

Gabish?

As far as this thread is concerned, that doesn't seem exclusive to any political orientation.

that doesnt lessen those french marxists prevalence in academia

>LMAO it's just like fox news
>I'm not empty headed at all look at me

Okay, but academia =/= philosophy, OP should have specified.

Philosophy doesn't exist independently of academia today, and you know it.

Not true at all. In fact, the only place it exists is outside academia.

Why wouldn't people abandon this?

if you think that was really made by antifa then you're about as dumb as /pol/ hopes most people are

You're right, but it does sound like something that someone on the trve left would say even if they wouldn't put it on a poster.

They'd say "stop being white" instead. Ethnonationalism is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not done by whitey.

>who said conservatives are comfortable?
>who is to to say you're not comfortable in your own worldview?
I constantly question my worldview and it is in a constant state of development, and this process involves a fluctuating level of comfort, often an increase in discomfort as I realise that something about my worldview contradicts the world as I observe it, and then a return to a relative comfort as I adjust my worldview to fit that observed world, and so on.

there is also a constant undercurrent of discomfort which is broadly existential.

you realize how hypocritical you sound? I like to think of myself as similar hence I don't dismiss entire schools of thought that I haven't read with shitty strawmen

>but it does sound like something that someone on the trve left would say
no it doesn't

>the only place it exists is outside academia
that's not true but you're right in that any proper philosophy department (i.e. in the anglo world) isn't contaminated by it

hmm

They'd probably just say that because they conceive of whites as the dominant group. Eliminating whiteness would eliminate blackness to the desired extent.

I was specifically responding to the poster who said
>right-wingers tend to feel comfortable with being true to reality just thanks to common sense, so they usually don't feel the need to question things in order to deepen their understanding of the world
which I think is indeed a characteristic that is common to most conservatives, and it is a very bad way of constructing a worldview. if you question things in order to deepen your understanding of the world then I've not said anything to criticise you.

>which I think is indeed a characteristic that is common to most conservatives, and it is a very bad way of constructing a worldview. if you question things in order to deepen your understanding of the world then I've not said anything to criticise you.
I'm not a conservative by any means but I've come around to understanding their perspective by questioning my previous left wing assumptions. Stop generalizing most "conservative" thinkers. In a sense the "right" is becoming more and more counter-cultural in a way that wouldn't have been possible until at least the advent of modernity. If most Conservative thinkers just said "it's muh common sense" that would be retarded I agree. Question all your assumptions and don't blindly put yourself and others in arbitrary categories. I wish most left-wingers I know would actually try on some Burke for size without dismissing it beforehand. Try it out you might even enjoy yourself.
>bad way of constructing a worldview
>implying there is a good one

>They'd probably just say that because they conceive of whites as the dominant group. Eliminating whiteness would eliminate blackness to the desired extent.
That might be their rationalization, but in the meantime they're just blatantly pro-black nationalism, identity etc. And not just for blacks, but Latino's and Asians as well. With all this focus on identity, they have no one to blame for white identitarians but themselves.

this was a helpful answer actually.
also there are lots of leftists who also don't question their worldview and I would be equally critical of that.
I do still object to the original post I replied to.

>bad way of constructing a worldview
>implying there is a good one

there are certainly better or worse ways to construct a worldview.

>there are certainly better or worse ways to construct a worldview.
t. ideologue