/leftylit/

>rational fact-based thinkers

>fuck off libcuck

That's why

Burke
de Maistre
Bonald
Donoso Cortes
Schopenhauer
Dostoyevsky
Freud (yes, really)
Julien Benda
Strauss
Schmitt
CS Lewis
Oakeshott
MacIntyre
Bloom (Allan, not Harold)

There you go. Two hundred years of right-wing intellectuals, from several religions, countries, and political positions (from reactionary monarchism to neo-conservatism). One reason there are fewer popular right-wing intellectuals is that right-wingers study the great thought of the past and don't feel the need to create an endless wankfest circlejerk about how to build the perfect society. But, by all means, go back to your thinkpieces about how Zizek is a fascist. I can't wait until the braying mob of your fellow left-wingers gets hungry for blood and hangs you for not being revolutionary enough.

> no right-wing intellectuals
You might think their intellect is flawed, but you can't wish away the fact that they're intellectuals buddy

>2 pseuds, an internet cult leader, and a professional troll
woah

>Milo Yiannapolous
>Intellectual

Kek

>CS Lewis

>he's memeing about CS Lewis because that's the only name on the list he's ever heard of.

>go back to your thinkpieces about how Zizek is a fascist
left/lit/ loves sniffman what are you even on about

Probably because it's extremely difficult to conceive of that a person could spend thousands of hours in serious contemplation of things and then conclude that the status quo of now (or X years ago) was perfect and as good as it's going to get.
Right wing "intellectuals" literally just make excuses for and defend other people's rosy retrospection

Some people like him, I was being ecumenical in my selection. Unlike the left, the right doesn't conduct show trials for those who claim to be its allies.

>he's being wrong

He's saying Lewis isn't an intellectual. At least a very low tier one.

That's because right wing politics are just a distraction for the overfed.

Plenty of right-wing intellectuals.

Fact is that the best intellectuals are apolitical or anti-political.

Probably because it's extremely difficult to conceive of that a person could spend thousands of hours in serious contemplation of things and then conclude that the flawed rational abilities of now (or X years from now) will be perfect or at least getting better all the time.
Left wing "intellectuals" literally just make excuses for and defend their own barely-acknowledged resentment against the essential unfairness of human life.

And what, left wing politics are just a distraction for the underfed?

>essential unfairness of human life
Nice alienation.

It's actually not that difficult to conceive.
Otherwise how do you explain the solidity of the status quo?
Most people conclude that it's as good as it's going to get. Let me guess they're just not as smart as leftists and need to be guided by their all-knowing, seriously contemplated loving hand, kek.

A struggle for food.

Nice ressentiment.

>the best intellectuals are apolitical or anti-political
PURE UNDILUTED

>muh unhappy consciousness

If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/.

Fucking cibervoluntarios.

>Probably because it's extremely difficult to conceive of that a person could spend thousands of hours in serious contemplation of things and then conclude that the flawed rational abilities of now [...] will be perfect or at least getting better all the time.

That's a very dumb imagining of what Leftism entails, but putting that aside you do realize that the observable trend is an increase in literacy, education, and understanding over the course of history?

Nice bait post. The only reason you don't think there exist any right wing intellectuals is because you have lumped "anything I don't like" into right wing. You don't respect anyone's opinion or intelligence if you don't like their ideas, so there are no "right wing intellectuals" in your world view. Just sample bias.

There are plenty of times when you can think "this is pretty good", but because you are okay with it, you don't feel the need to write about it or slander other people. Hence, you have no evidence for people spending seriously contemplation.

There are plenty of respected philosophers and intellectuals who are "right wing" (nice dichotomy); so many mathematicians and scientists too (e.g. von Neumann, Newton, Godel). You are committing the same fallacy you accuse others of.

Nice humblebrag.

Sniffling Slovenian detected.

Stay political, pleb.

Nice ressentiment.

Ey! Cyber-Volunteer! go to >>/pol/

>Stay political
I will, as will you.

Whatever you say.

.......J
.......A
.......M
F R E D R I C
.......S
.......O
.......N

>Newton
>Gödel
>Right wing

>everyone is political

Wrongo.
All politics is merely disguised anxiety about obtaining and the concomitant desire to control women and their sexy bodies.
Those of us who have transcended the women meme no longer feel this anxiety and can quite easily exist apolitically. It is not in our natures to attempt to order society.

We just had a thread about this but I'll repeat myself.

Right wing "thought" has already been predetermined, by Jesus/God and requires no more analysis. Anything else is opening your mind up to the Devil.

"leftist author" is pretty much redundant.

Right wing authors usually hire leftists as ghostwriters.

...

MUCH LIKE sexuality, politics is not something you are free to chose not to participate in. opting out is opting in for your own class.

>observable trend is an increase in literacy, education, and understanding

More literacy and education does not necessarily entail greater literacy or education. Most college graduates today and, I would wager, many PhDs, have merely the fraction of the education even a mediocre graduate from a German gymnasium had 150 years ago.

Also, would like to know how you measure understanding.

>Nick Land
>Milo

AYYYYYYYY NIGGA WHAT YOU DOIN

>makes snowball estimation based on nothing but his own preferred narrative of history
>asks for "measurement" of understanding

posicucks are this stupid

>Peter Hitchens
>Nick Land
>Milos Yiannapolous
>Stefan Molyneux

I was literally in tears by the end of this list. Hysterical.

>opting out is opting in for your own class.

This is why Marxist theories of society/history will never not be shit. They cheapen the entire Human experience by reducing everything to economics.

You misunderstood my point. I was not asking for a "measurement" of understanding but was implying that understanding is non-quantifiable. The guy I was responding to was the positive who thinks that "more information = better information."

As for "snowball estimate on preferred narrative blah blah blah" how many languages does the average university graduate know today? In America, one, in Europe, maybe three. A 20 year old gymnasium student would have known Latin and Greek, possibly also Hebrew, certainly French, and probably also Italian too. He would have been conversant in multiple languages with both his contemporaries and the thinkers of the past. He would, in addition, also have had a rigorous training in music and athletics, because of the German love of Bildung.

Do you know anyone who comes close to any of this, let alone while still in his or her youth?

This. Modern education is terrible, what I'd give for a Prussian education. In the 1800s, people used to come from as far away as America to Prussia in pursuit of a proper education.

Nowadays people are essentially 'big children' - right through their 20s and possibly beyond.

>Tfw we will never have an education system/tier devoted to the creation of polymaths

that's because of there's no fucking need for polymaths

people love to jack off over jack-of-all-trades but the sciences have developed so much you gotta focus on one thing

>muh heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism

Congratulations, you've discovered one reason why everyone today is unimaginative, stupid, or both.

>Nothing is ever done for non-economic reasons

Reducing the whole of Human history to religious fervour/chivalrous enthusiasm/philistine sentimentalism/etc would be just as stupid, though.

The Marxist propensity to find economics at the heart of everything is a symptom of autism.

>need

L'ART POUR L'ART.

>>Nothing is ever done for non-economic reasons
The reasons don't change the outcome.

you have no idea what you are talking about do you?

well go ahead and do that, but if you want to actually do something for your field, you'll need to spend less time studying other things

The ideas that polymaths can have no expertise in a given field is fundamentally flawed.

>eople used to come from as far away as America to Prussia in pursuit of a proper education.
now people come to America from as far as Dubai to receive one
whats your point?

the left/right paradigm is like 200 years old at most.

most philosophers lived way before that?

Your genital organ is flawed.

They don't come for the education, they come for the paper that says they went there.

>He thinks the allure of Ivy League schools is down to a quality education, rather than the mere prestige

>slaughterdyke
>not a radfem
What a waste.

enjoyed reading this post

>he thinks appetites are controlling

What's it like to be a materialist psychopath?

Sloterdijk, leftys are also pretty much anti establishemtn so they have a lot to whine, right wing intellectuals tend to stay in the status quo

That would be a good criticism if that was what Marxists actually did. But they don't so it's not. Using a concept to understand events is not "reducing" those events. If it is, historians of every single stripe do it. The totality of history is unknowable.

>Who's your favourite leftist author?

Susan Sontag. Brilliant writer, although probably insane and a racist as well.

To which mythical Marxists are you referring? Because in both formative theory and actual practice it's exactly what they did. Do you even know what dialectical materialism is?

>Using a concept to understand events is not "reducing" those events.

It is.

>If it is, historians of every single stripe do it. The totality of history is unknowable.

Wrong on both counts.

>Totality of history is unknowable.

What's the comprehensive, meta-historical perspective you've reached such that you know that comprehension and meta-historical knowledge are impossible?

Implying Dugin's eschatology hasn't changed the intellectual landscape of Eurasia

you certainly don't. Marxism has not since the 70s in English and the 60s in French and German been guilty of the mythic economism you're falsely preaching. the economic has for a long time been understood as but one simultaneously determinate and determining branch in the overall structure of social totality. in explaining the interactions of these overdetermined phenomena (which include also ideology, culture, politics, religion, the law...) marxists are for the most part interested in the forms of alienation and reification—colloquially "oppression"—which they perpetuate on the basis of their involvement in the capitalist mode of production. i'm not going to explain to you why it is a safe bet that they will be alienating and reifying—that's why marxists read Capital.

Right wing intellectuals
Hilaire Belloc
Thomas Aquinas
Carl Schmidt
St. Augustine
Alasdair MacIntyre
Peter Geach
Edward Feser
Edith Stein
G. K. Chesterton
These are some of the ones I like a lot. I'm sure the French rigt wing user will post some of his

and we are told my our wage-payers that this sort of willing blindness is a good thing. when will class traitors become conscious of themselves?

>Marxism in the 70s and 60s
>LITERALLY irrelevant

Ok, we'll just define "Marxist" by whatever meme book you read instead of by those who formulated the theory and actually held power.
Just changing what your label means to avoid actual history is a way to avoid your past flaws; unfortunately for you it's also the first step towards dissociation and dissolution. Sorry about your failed ideology and its aborted attempt at evolution.

>It is.

If you're an idiot and a bad reader, maybe it is. but no comprehensive analysis merely reduces antagonism to class violence. each facet of the subject is comprehended according to its own internal necessity—however long that takes—before the crucial leap to (in culture, at least) ideological criticism, and from this, class, is made. this practice is not reductive but expansive. it extends minutely individual phenomena ("the experience of the religious," "sexuality," "literature") into their socio-historically determined totality, dragging up with them them all the baggage they would like to hide, and which you are trying to hide right now, in the name, presumably, of ignorance for its own sake.

>>If it is, historians of every single stripe do it.
>Wrong on both counts.

Actually, dude, no, history (as a genre of writing) is always produced by the reading of historical texts, be they documents or artifacts or whatever is of interest, and reading is always already informed by concepts and categories to which, according to your perspective, the object is "reduced." but a comprehensive analysis sensitive to the overdetermination of cultural production is not reductive, it restores life to the petrified remains of history by banishing the accumulated dirt of our own ideas of them and elevating them into the social totality of which they are at once a cause and an effect.

he was parroting your own position. Marxism attests precisely to the opposite.

it's really astounding that you're accusing me of re-labeling something, where you are the one who exerted actual effort to change what i said from "since the 70s and 60s" to "in the 70s and 60s," in order to change the meaning of what I said to some sort of periodism or preferential reading. but if you think marxism is a dogma, that it's something like the biblical exegesis whose methods and doxa are regulated by a governmental body (the church here, presumably, according to you, the ussr for marxism) then you're just wrong, and are rapidly revealing yourself to be either a redditor, or a wikipedia scholar. please leave, or start reading, which will require you to leave.

The guy you're arguing with strikes me as an acolyte of the Sniffling Slovenian.

Don't bother desu.

Nick Land is right about literally everything btw

literature

The Sniffling Slovenian is very, very far away from a ~defender or marxism desu senpai~
He like, claims that there must have been a perversion in it right from the start (so that it ended up as Stalinism), calls himself a "very critical Marxist" and kinda advocates a (partial) return to Hegel from Marx

Still that anti-Marx guy is retarded, Marxist-Leninist dogma has pretty little to do with contemporary (or good from the past) Marxist theory. Not to say that it isn't Marxism or that there aren't plenty of people today who cling to it.

He sleeps with a portrait of Stalin over his bed.

Back to the drawing board with you.

is this a troll, or do you earnestly believe that what you saw in a youtube is a substitute for reading books?

Neither and both.

Your explanations are absurd and filled with the garbled groans and convulsive nouns that always marks Marxists in the post-mortem period; thus it's little wonder that you can't manage a stable definition other than "intangible force that solves everything."

Those of us who aren't mystified by it account for it by the way it was actually wielded, nothing else. That way was a practice called dialectical materialism.

You've already joined the cult so of course you see your petty cult readings as magical urtexts capable of spawning infinite expansion, and somehow it's our fault for not being able to account for your confused gibberish. What you've written here is so detached from reality that it wouldn't be a stretch to describe it as nearly schizophrenic.

No they don't, unless you're counting tankies and those lads barely count as lefties anymore

How fuckimg new are you?

Society could rightly be called intangible, though not quite a force. It structures everything you are able to chose and yet is nowhere empirically present. This knowledge—that as an individual you will never achieve anything more than what it is already possible for you to achieve, given the conditions of the society into which you were born—is frustrating, and you can rest assured that the "garbled groans and convulsions" that you're now experiencing and projecting on to me have been experienced and projected by countless before you, and will continue to be experienced and projected, as the mind finds itself with nowhere to turn against the dual choice between absolute positivism and the possibility that being—all being, the total sum of human being, society-as-such—is not empirical. i invite you to take the dialectical leap beyond this false quandary but if you are unwilling to we have nothing more to say to each other. but you can be comforted in the knowledge that your assessment of the illegibility of my writing is not wrong, but you should also know that it isn't true, either.

>right wing is conservatism and nothing else

Tankies hate Zizek, they're the ones making thinkpieces calling him a fascist. Post-marxism to them is revisionist evil

The spectre of marxism is still with us.

>What is the incompleteness of the historical record for $2000, Alex

That's literally entry level History. You are morons.