Thinkers of the New Left, Roger Scruton

I have no problem with recognizing Stirner. It can be rehashed Stirner all day and that won't change a thing.

What I don't understand is how his comment about that which is attained naturally and freely, and that which is attained through an imposed plan is not recognizing his own spooks. Not only has he not criticized any natural organization, he hasn't made any comment about it at all other than it being the source of failure in state governed by thinkers not answerable to laws.

His criticism is only to point out the source of inevitable failure in a plan devised for people by people who stand above and outside those who they attempt to rule.

>"A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't."

Oh Jesus that's priceless

>So don't.

I don't get it.

if someone says theres no objective truth why would you believe them. its a paradoxical assertion because it invalidates itself.

>Scruton
>Libertarian

This is why we need Analytical Philosophy.

Language as we know it has too many loopholes like this to be fit for purpose.

He opposes seizing to obtaining by fair dealing in the market, with the seeming intent to say that the latter is somewhat more natural, and fairer, than the former. My point is, fair market, as presented by capitalists, is basically its own set of spooks - and by no way free of vices, as often, and quite correctly, pointed out by the very same lefties. Libertarian dystopia isn't really a much better place to live than a socialistic one.

i cant bring myself to be excited about grounding or possible worlds. its so dull and unimportant. analytic philosophy will never move beyond the world of ideas- continental philosophy has changed the world a thousand times over.

you could mathematically 'prove' any assertion and 99.95% of people alive would never understand or care.

Yeah, we don't disagree

>which invariably involves depriving individuals of things that they have acquired by fair dealing in the market

I cringed.

That's like saying political novels are better than pretty prose novels.

>Zero-sum economics
>X's gain is always my loss

You just BTFO'd the guy. How will he recover?

Individuals are not an adequate unite of analysis if you're seriously trying to grasp historical development. Hitler (or any other "great man") wasn't just some really bad dude that came out of nowhere... he was the product of social forces and embraced because of historical forces that some pure psychologism could never understand or even be interested in.

Justice is a purely social concept... outside of a social context the concept justice doesn't even make any sense. Social order is constructed it doesn't just "pre-exist"... property itself is just an entitlement guaranteed to you by the state... land is just land without the mediation of legal property titles. You can't even begin to talk about what is "fair" without utilizing some concept created by someone long ago trying to service their interests.

This guy really seems to like historicism when it comes to "muh law". The theological/juristic faggotry of the Romans is exactly what destroyed the revolutionary cultural potential that was in the metaphysical world-view of the Greeks. Your archaic barbarian faggotry mixed with Roman legal faggotry just gives you idiotic feudalism.

>strawman

How interesting that an accusation of willingly avoiding reality has makes no meaningful attempt to contact—let alone comprehend—the content of the reality it attempts to undermine.

The thing is with these anti-intellectuals is that they don't actually read the works they aim to criticize. They already have an idea of the content and merely criticize that, instead. Production of the ego solely, having nothing to do with the content.

Whenever I hear newspeak being used I think of conspiracy folk.

>Hitler (or any other "great man") wasn't just some really bad dude that came out of nowhere

Herbert fuckin' Spencer detected.

Great Men are not the products of their societies. Societies are the products of Great Men.

>Justice is a purely social concept... outside of a social context the concept justice doesn't even make any sense

The whole idea of 'justice' is borne out of the impulse to punish. Do away with it altogether.

>This guy really seems to like historicism when it comes to "muh law".

Well, he's an archetypal small-c conservative. Within the context of his philosophy, it makes sense.

Speak English.

>capitalism is only natural!
pure

tru dat

>pic related

New Left is cancer. It was started in the 1960s by a bunch of upper class faggots on university campuses cause they had free time away from there parents and no jobs.

Who /oldleft/ here?

Europe’s new right sounds like the old left
ft.com/cms/s/0/cffc9686-c393-11e5-808f-8231cd71622e.html#axzz4GmHbGbHz

*their

Im an INTJ. Should I care about any of this?

No
New Left is everything INTJs would hate.

>Im an INTJ
kys

Pointing out that somebody subscribes to an ideology doesn't refute their argument, you know

It's not like his political alignment is an unconscious secret only you are privy to

It doesn't have to be a perfect zero-sum game to be approaching one, or even to generally behave like one.

>not being an INTP

die

My personality is most like Blastoise according to a very reputable Facebook quiz. I don't take Scrutton very seriously but a Charizard might

>Justice is a purely social concept

And by this you couldn't possibly mean the statement in opposition to justice between non-semi rational agents. So you've said all of nothing.

Nobody here (except you, evidently) thinks minds exist outside of minds.

Actually I consistently get 50/50 split on j and p. I guess I misrepresented myself even though I dont know the difference between the two.
Thanks for saving me the time

That's some inception level strawmanning

wow, robert redford is getting old