Who are the philosophers and literary figures who would support Donald Trump?
Hegel, Aristotle and Rand would doubtlessly have supported him and people like DFW would automatically oppose him. Nietzsche and Plato both hated democracy so they'd oppose him on principle but would be quite satisfied by him proving their points.
Ayn Rand would have hated him because he's religious and opposes free trade and abortion. I'm also pretty sure that both Hegel and Aristoteles wouldn't have liked him but I know too little about either to prove this.
>Aristoteles
Hegel, Aristotle and (Ayn?) Rand would have not supported Trump for different reasons. What you want is fascist neo-Hegelian philosophers like Giovanni Gentile
Is this anyone elses first time paying attention to an american election?
I was surprised at the huge amount of pseudo intellectuality that is everywhere. All these social "science" claims about Trump and his supporters. All the strawmen. All the outright lies. And then I realised that this is exactly the same for every single election!
that's his name you retarded burger cunt
Oh yeah, I'm sure Plato would be satisfied with a philosopher king such as Trump
All of them would oppose Trump on the basis of his being incoherent as fuck, having the argumentation skills of a prepubescent boy and complete unawareness of some of the most basic policy questions.
Are you twelve?
>Hegel, Aristotle and Rand would doubtlessly have supported him
This. And I doubt Trump would have appealed to Aristotle's golden mean sensibilities, as Trump is, if anything, a creature of excess.
Dostoyevski
It's the oppposite of your post. DFW would have supported him.
Socrates
Schopenhauer
Adorno
Walter Benjamin
Diogenes
Aquinas
+
Anyone considered a literary great would be too smart to fall for Trump's delusional posturing and fear-mongering and general dickishness within seconds of hearing the man talk
DFW predicted the essence of trump
do you really think they'd vote Hillary then? She's even worse.
>Rand
lol, no. Nobody has read Rand apparently in this board. Aside from the memes I dont think people really understood her.
>he's religious
Kek, he just flapped a bible around to get the evangelicals behind him.
You know DFW was a conservative who voted Reagan, right/
>if you don't like Trump, you instantly are a Hillary supporter
/pol/ is the other way.
So they wouldn't vote then?
Well, the USA being in a dilemma is not exactly news.
anarcho-Bernouts are voting for Johnson, (((Stein))), or Sanders as a write-in.
/pol/ is ten times more intellectual than this board.
>/pol/ = votes Trump
>Veeky Forums = leftist libcucks
One board is redpilled, the other is bluepilled.
Well, one board bases its entire cumulative persona on an analogy from a mediocre late 90s action flick.
The other has people responding to those guys.
Dunno, really. Sage anyway.
Gee, if /pol/ feels the need to proclaim its superiority wherever it wanders, it must be true, since all great figures have been judged solely by their boastfulness.
I think we should all strive to emulate that maxim, that when we appeal for a loan or to a traffic cop or whatever situation we find ourselves in where we are being judged or evaluated by other people, we should simply tell them how great we are and how lousy they are, and be done with it the /pol/ way.
/pol/ = mostly white males
Who built Western civilization? White males.
Consider yourself BTFO
>he's religious
I just don't see it tb h
me = a person
who did the thing = persons
I did the things!
No, really, why am I still replying to you?
Which ones would support Hillary Clinton?
I can only imagine philosophers supporting Trump "against Hillary" or Hillary "against Trump". Probably a great many of them would have supported Trump against a woman