Reactionary Philosophers

[Valdyr]

This could just be my perception, but there seems to have been an uptick in the number of downright reactionary (as opposed to just status-quo apologists) thinkers in recent years. This may be different in other countries, but at least here in the U.S. this phenomenon mainly seems to manifest itself through a surge of downright medieval, hardcore Christian thinkers, demanding a return to Aristotle and Aquinas.

Now, I think I have a decent understanding of the basics of this phenomenon. Intellectuals, as a cross-class segment of the population, basically produce ideas, and they reflect the whole spectrum of ideologies, and thus class interests, at that time. When the status quo is in crisis, reactionary elements are more likely to emerge, as they can seize on the crisis to try to move towards reaction.

However, what I'm wondering is how a radical should approach these reactionary thinkers? For better or worse, I "know too much" so to speak to outright ignore them. I'm exactly at that stage where I've learned enough to understand their crap, but am too much of an amateur to inoculate myself theoretically against it. I was also wondering what a more detailed historical materialist analysis of the reactionary intellectual as a sociological phenomenon would look like, beyond the very rough sketch I've arrived at.

An example of a reactionary position would be


The point of life is not action, but contemplation, not doing, but thinking. (I mean 'thinking' in a very broad sense that embraces all forms of intentionality as well as meditative non-thinking.) The vita activa is of course necessary (for some all of the time, and for people like me some of the time), but it is necessary as a means only. Its whole purpose is to subserve the vita contemplativa. To make of action an end in itself is absurd, and demonstrably so, though I will spare you the demonstration. If you are assiduous you can dig it out of Aristotle, Aquinas and Josef Pieper.

while an example of such a movement would be "radical orthodoxy."

Thanks in advance for any thoughts, and note that this thread can also host general discussion of reactionary philosophers/philosophies.

[Robespierres Neck]

Well, I think most of us agree that we should get rid of Ayn Rand's works.

[Valdyr]

Well, I think most of us agree that we should get rid of Ayn Rand's works.

I agree, though I have trouble even considering Rand an intellectual.

[Robespierres Neck]

I agree, though I have trouble even considering Rand an intellectual.

True. A 16-year old could create Objectivism.

[Valdyr]

True. A 16-year old could create Objectivism.

And probably would considering the age distribution of said cult.

[Strannik]

It seems to me that these are reactionary times. After 2008 ruling class intellectuals can't see any rational way forward (that is, whith them still in charge) so obviously they start to look answers from the past. Similar things have happened throughout history.

Ayn Rands works are quite an interesting attempt to fantasize petty bourgeoise from semi-class into main progressive force in society. :) Her works show us that ideology is not everything - even sound logic is useless without material basis.

And if this is so then why engage reactionary thinkers? It is very hard to make someone understand something when their livelihood depends on not understanding it.

[Valdyr]

And if this is so then why engage reactionary thinkers? It is very hard to make someone understand something when their livelihood depends on not understanding it.

Even if there is little chance of convincing the reactionaries themselves, I think it can be important to engage with reactionary thinkers for multiple reasons.

First, reaction often operates by "mirroring" the left. Reactionaries too are critical of the status quo, just from opposite premises, so they often borrow some of the sentiments of the genuine left (or create inversions of them) to redirect the anti-establishment force into bolstering the status of whatever outmoded sector of society the reactionary represents. This also has the effect of working to deny the genuine left an ideological space to operate. Thus, it is important to engage reactionaries during unstable times on the theoretical as well as practical levels, not because society is formed by the battle of ideas, but to cut through their haze which would co-opt the peoples' dissatisfaction. To establish ourselves as the genuine alternative.

Second, as I hinted at in my first point, reactionaries are usually critics of the established order, just from the opposite "direction." Thus, I think that sometimes there is stuff to be learned from their critiques of contemporary society, even if their critique is completely "inverted" (think Marx and Hegel). For example, in philosophy, I am just as much a critic of the scientistic, analytic naturalism which dominates bourgeois thought, but am coming from completely the other side of history.

[scarletghoul]

Class struggle is intensifying, and bourgeoisie is attacking on every front, 'philosophy' being one of them. There is especially good terrain for them in this regard left over from the 90s and 2000s, the former being the 'end of history' (the triumph of liberalism) and the latter being the war on terror era (religious fundamentalism vs liberalism as the only acceptable dichotomy). Given the class situation i think it likely that the 'fundamentalist' and liberal/imperialist forces are starting to join together in some ways, to fight the now resurgent proletariat. We have already seen collaboration of this kind in the middle east.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's so awesome when you want to respond but other posters have pretty much summed up what you were going to say :D
Gratz guys, keep it up :cool:

[Valdyr]

What does everyone think of that quote I posted, by the way?

[Railyon]

The Vallicella thing? I can't help but think it mirrors the ideology of fascism into an inversion of it; that action for action's sake is absurd, a kind of defeatism contrary to fascisms "life is struggle".

However, the claim that the point of life is thinking as an end in itself is just as nonsensical; because what is thinking if not an action? The separation of "vita activa" and "vita contemplativa" makes no sense.

[Grenzer]

Hegel. Hegelianism is a disease which has not been fully cleansed from the Marxist movement.

Objectivism is just dumb. Not worth the time spent discussing it.

[Valdyr]

The Vallicella thing? I can't help but think it mirrors the ideology of fascism into an inversion of it; that action for action's sake is absurd, a kind of defeatism contrary to fascisms "life is struggle".

However, the claim that the point of life is thinking as an end in itself is just as nonsensical; because what is thinking if not an action? The separation of "vita activa" and "vita contemplativa" makes no sense.

And to some extent reflects the division of labor between "intellectual labor" and "manual labor," no?

[Robespierres Neck]

Hegel. Hegelianism is a disease which has not been fully cleansed from the Marxist movement.

Elaborate?

[blake 3:17]

I agree, though I have trouble even considering Rand an intellectual.

Please let's ignore that. What (Christian) thinkers do you mean? Vallicella seems harmless enough, but what do I know? The Pope's main intellectual war seems to be against relativism in all its guises. Should Leftists simply relativism because the Right hates it?



The point of life is not action, but contemplation, not doing, but thinking.

That's what I mostly do... I don't see why a Left-Right position needs to be established here, or to what it would serve other than getting a few more people to the demo.

Edited to add: Or to the monastery.

[scarletghoul]

Hegel. Hegelianism is a disease which has not been fully cleansed from the Marxist movement.
you uhh do realise that marxs theory is basically just a hegelian analysis of the political economy and workers uprisings of his time, right ?

[Grenzer]

you uhh do realise that marxs theory is basically just a hegelian analysis of the political economy and workers uprisings of his time, right ?

Dialectical Materialism isn't plain Hegelianism, though it is not able to escape its determinations fully. It's also no coincidence that I consider dialectical materialism to be irrelevant to class struggle and a revolutionary programme.

Some people consider Dialectical Materialism to be just another way of analyzing things, which is fine I guess; but there are also a lot of people who think it's an unnecessary and obscurantist portion of Marxism.

There are some Marxists who use dialectics in an idealist manner, rather a materialist one. That's what I'm criticizing. Hegel is great in his historical context; but with our current understanding, the idealistic form of dialectics is reactionary.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Ludwig von Mises et al. Objectivism can just be ignored, anyone in their right mind can tell Ayn Rand is full of shit by reading her.

John Maynard Keynes... Keynesianism is just a means of extending capitalism through state intervention and needs to be countered.

[Valdyr]

Please let's ignore that. What (Christian) thinkers do you mean? Vallicella seems harmless enough, but what do I know? The Pope's main intellectual war seems to be against relativism in all its guises. Should Leftists simply relativism because the Right hates it?

Simply what it?





That's what I mostly do... I don't see why a Left-Right position needs to be established here, or to what it would serve other than getting a few more people to the demo.

Edited to add: Or to the monastery.

It's not about simply reading a "left-right" position into every ideological conflict, but about how reactionary interests manifest themselves ideologically by looking at a concrete example (in this case, a quote).

[blake 3:17]

Simply what it?

Defend relativism. My bad.


It's not about simply reading a "left-right" position into every ideological conflict, but about how reactionary interests manifest themselves ideologically by looking at a concrete example (in this case, a quote). Other examples might be useful.

To go back to your first post, it is clear to thoughtful people that what was "normal" is less and less so. Turning to rightist solutions, socially or philosophically, makes sense on some levels.

It's super late here and my head is tired but will get back to the discussion in the next couple of days.

[Valdyr]

Defend relativism. My bad.

Ah okay. Nah, I absolutely don't think we should defend relativism, but I think we should expose the conservative tactic of using accusations of "relativism" to veil attacks on all forms of progressive education.


Other examples might be useful.

Fair enough, I'll try to cook some up.


To go back to your first post, it is clear to thoughtful people that what was "normal" is less and less so. Turning to rightist solutions, socially or philosophically, makes sense on some levels.

It's super late here and my head is tired but will get back to the discussion in the next couple of days.

Sounds good

[moulinrouge]

Don't forget the hate preaching conservative liberal (for the lack of a better term) atheists like pat condel and the downright evil environmentalists who hope that the majority of humans will die so they can build their ecofascist utopia.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah I view the entire new athiest movement as an incredibly reactionary wolf in sheep's clothing. I like Dawkins as a biologist but I think he and his partisans have done immense damage to the intellectual environment. I hope it will pass in a few years.

[Mr. Natural]

Reactionary philosophers? I find the entire field of philosophy--reactionary to left--has disappeared. Americans, at least, do not ask "What is life?" or "What is it to be human?" but scurry about mindlessly trying to make The System work for them.

Capitalism has triumphed to the extent there is almost no discussion of The System and its meaning. The philosophy departments of Western universities are a prominent example of this. Other than various forms of linguistic analysis and other varieties of lifeless formal logic, what do they discuss?

The global triumph of capitalism as a system has taken most of the life out of human thought. Various renderings of within-The System thought and antics prevail. Thus left "philosophy" has become Richard Dawkins' "genes versus God" and Slavoj Zizek's self-serving antics.

No wonder Hegel is reviled by "Marxists," albeit in mortal opposition to Marx, Engels, and Marxism.

And while we're at it, what in the universe isn't related? Hegel's philosophy of internal relations gets this right, as do the new sciences of life's organizational relations, but as they go against the reductionism of capitalism and its science and philosophy, they are ignored or opposed, even on the left.

Yes, I'm pissed. I woke up this morning to yet another day lived with acute awareness within a System I know too well and despise, and I'm surrounded by its mindless agents. Further, I must spend the next six months watching Obama versus Romney, and I realize there is not the slightest trace of any real political/philosophical countermovement developing in the US.

The Arab Spring and OWS? Bah, humbug! They do not engage The System; they are its creatures. There is no effective opposition to capitalism anywhere I can see.

Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is naked capitalist ideology, and this "philosophy" in its many forms has won. It serves The System, and there has been no oppositional response from a systemically-enveloped, thus conservative left.

Mr. Natural is very pissed today.

[moulinrouge]

The global triumph of capitalism as a system has taken most of the life out of human thought.

Don't you remember the good old days when workers could spend their entire lives wondering about the meaning of life?

Now i'm forced to be lonely because everyone refuses to listen when i tell them that they are mindless agents.

[Robespierres Neck]

What about Thomas More? He may have died refusing to swear an oath on Henry VIII's First Succession Act, but was against the king seperating from the Catholic Church (reformation) & supported his absolute monarchy system. A true "Renaissance humanist".
Also, from Wikipedia - his ideal society from his famous book Utopia:

"Utopia contrasts the contentious social life of European states with the perfectly orderly, reasonable social arrangements of Utopia and its environs (Tallstoria, Nolandia, and Aircastle). In Utopia, with communal ownership of land, private property does not exist, men and women are educated alike, and there is almost complete religious toleration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_toleration). Some take the novel's principal message to be the social need for order and discipline rather than liberty. The country of Utopia tolerates different religious practices but does not tolerate atheists. Hythlodeaus theorises that if a man did not believe in a god or in an afterlife he could never be trusted, because he would not acknowledge any authority or principle outside himself."It sounds great until the last couple sentences. He did influence socialist ideas; some claim for him to be important to the early development of it. But it was clear he was in support of a oppressive, religious monarchy.

[Valdyr]

But it was clear he was in support of a oppressive, religious monarchy.

Just like many of the Austrian school "libertarians" really support fascism, or something near enough. The fellow who currently runs the Ludwig von Mises institute (I believe, I will have to look for the exact quote again) has said that socialists, LGBT people, etc. will all have to be "physically removed" from the future capitalist utopia.

:thumbdown:

[Mr. Natural]

moulinrouge, Yes, my post of yesterday was bitter, but it was also radically aware.

Why shouldn't workers be concerned with the meaning of life? Are they just to work? In factories? Marxism is about the liberation and realization of "workers" as human beings. Class divisions are to be eliminated.

Damned straight I'm "lonely." I'm a red-green Marxist revolutionary and there are no others. There is not even any revolutionary thought and spirit--just a forlorn recycling of the classics while capitalism forecloses the human future.

I'm especially incensed and appalled that the materialist dialectic as understood and employed by Marx and Engels has been abandoned by "Marxists." The materialist dialectic is the life of Marxism, and it has been rejected or confined to a half-hearted survey of social economy. The dialectic needs development, not extinction.

Then there is the modern Marxist rejection of the sciences of organization. Marx and Engels revered science, and modern "Marxism's" shunning of the new sciences of organization while being unable to organize anything anywhere is beyond pathetic.

So each day I wake up to a triumphant capitalism and a moribund Marxism. As a Marxist I take this seriously and personally. I just fucking hate being stuck within a captive left within The System.

[u.s.red]

Karl Popper, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Martin Heigegger, Paul deMan, Saul Bellow, Milton Freidman. Pop philosophers like William Buckley and George Will.

You said that intellectuals produce ideas. I think it would be more correct to say that the "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society..." Marx, The German Ideology. The intellectuals express and justify the ideas of the ruling class.

[ed miliband]

Just like many of the Austrian school "libertarians" really support fascism, or something near enough. The fellow who currently runs the Ludwig von Mises institute (I believe, I will have to look for the exact quote again) has said that socialists, LGBT people, etc. will all have to be "physically removed" from the future capitalist utopia.

:thumbdown:

right-wing "libertarians" are many things but they aren't fascists

[Deicide]

Karl Popper..

[fabian]

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/wlc/image/alpha/bb160.jpg ?

[u.s.red]

So each day I wake up to a triumphant capitalism and a moribund Marxism. As a Marxist I take this seriously and personally. I just fucking hate being stuck within a captive left within The System.

I know how you feel. But I can tell you DON'T GIVE UP. If you stop fighting then you give into the system and become bitter and old. (I know.) I'm not saying that you have be a violent revolutionary (Marx wasn't after he moved to London), or that you have to live like a refugee (after Capital began to sell, Marx was relatively well off.) You have to speak out and be heard.

I would say keep reading as much as you can on Marx and socialist economics, because I can guarantee you that there will be another economic crisis in 4-5 years (maybe we are still in one) and suddenly everybody will rediscover Marx again. Also try to become actively involved in socialist politics. Marx advised socialists to run in elections even if they had no chance of winning, if for no other purpose than to bring socialist views before the public.

There are a lot of socialist professor types who are very dedicated to helping young socialists develop their ideas and social consciousness. A very good one is Paul Cockshott who writes on this site; he is a professor at Edinburgh University. There are other socialists all over the country in the U.S., mostly at universities; but you have to look for them.

[blake 3:17]

Yeah I view the entire new athiest movement as an incredibly reactionary wolf in sheep's clothing. I like Dawkins as a biologist but I think he and his partisans have done immense damage to the intellectual environment. I hope it will pass in a few years.

Have you read Chris Hedge`s I Don`t Believe In Atheists? It`s not too long. Thought it was great.

[Rafiq]

Hegel, despite his Idealist convictions, was actually one of the most revolutionary philosophers from the Western World. Praise worthy.

Anyway, Ayn Rand is a pseudo philosopher, so I hardly could think she counts. Such simplistic, apologetically elitist bullshit.

Fukoyama, though, the "End of History" guy isn't really a reactionary, he just embodied into ideology an already existing ideology: The end of history thesis was already something accepted unconsciously by the masses. It was, to some extent, fully deployed as a direct reflection of the rise of fictitious capital. But today, and you can even research this, Fukoyama has dumped his End of History thesis.

[L.A.P.]

I honestly think a large portion, if not most, of analytic philosophy is made up of what the OP described as status quo apologetics (actually stole the words right from my mouth, or finger tips in this case) especially John Rawls and Robert Nozick; former is a liberal idealist who takes bourgeois utilitarianism to the absolute fucking extreme while the latter is just the worst of libertarians. Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, was a pretty reactionary and useless thinker. Julias Evola, the philosophical predecessor of fascism, was straight-up aristocratic nonsense. Thomas Malthus was pretty overrated even within the context of classical economics and his overpopulation bullshit scores him a deserving spot. I would seriously argue that considering the influence she's had and how much un-earned acclaim she's gained, Ayn Rand is the single worst philosopher to ever walk the Earth. I dare anyone to say otherwise.

[fabian]

Rawls and bourgeois utilitatianism?

According to Rawls, Laissez-faire capitalism, "Social-democracy" (Welfare-state capitalism), and "State socialism with a command economy" (State capitalism) violate the concept of Justice as fairness, and the two systems that don't are Property-owning democracy (mutualism/ libertarian socialism/ freed market socialism) and Liberal (democratic) socialism.

[Paul Cockshott]

Yeah I view the entire new athiest movement as an incredibly reactionary wolf in sheep's clothing. I like Dawkins as a biologist but I think he and his partisans have done immense damage to the intellectual environment. I hope it will pass in a few years.

Why do you think that?
I would have thought that Dawkins and Dennet are among the most progressive thinkers in the Bourgeois philosophical spectrum.

[Leo]

Aristotle.

[Rafiq]

Aristotle.

Why? Wasn't his conception of democracy somewhat revolutionary, to an extent?

[u.s.red]

Aristotle.

Be careful. Marx thought Aristotle was the greatest thinker of the ancients.

[fabian]

Be careful. Marx thought Aristotle was the greatest thinker of the ancients.
And Aristotle would recognize this sentance as an appeal to authority :D

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Why do you think that?
I would have thought that Dawkins and Dennet are among the most progressive thinkers in the Bourgeois philosophical spectrum.

Their brand of atheism for whatever reason seems to totally lack any substance to me. Instead of providing some sort of space for 'free thinking' as they claim, it instead seems to degenerate into the worst kind of nihilism from their followers. At the end it just turns into more culture war bullshit. Center left narcissists bickering with christian fundamentalists in poorly written opinion pieces and awful cable news programs.

When it comes to Dawkins personally, I'm deeply suspicious of any White Brit who devotes as much time as he does to attacking the Muslim immigrants in his country. Regardless of his justifications for it, or his history of attacking other religious groups.

[Paul Cockshott]

Be careful. Marx thought Aristotle was the greatest thinker of the ancients.

One can learn a great deal about the class nature of the state and of the difference between democracy and oligarchy by studying Aristotle. His ideas on actual versus potential infinities are also useful in criticising Platonic idealism in mathematics.


When it comes to Dawkins personally, I'm deeply suspicious of any White Brit who devotes as much time as he does to attacking the Muslim immigrants in his country. Regardless of his justifications for it, or his history of attacking other religious groups.

He attacks Muslims and Christians for the spreading of arrant nonsense about biology.

He said that he noticed the "utterly deplorable" effect they were having first hand after visiting a Muslim school in Leicester as part of a documentary he made last year called Faith Schools Menace?
"Every single person I met believes if there is any disagreement between the Koran and science, then the Koran wins," he said.
"I spoke to a group of girls, and to a senior science teacher who believes the world is 6,000 years old. (Dawkins)

His criticisms are essentially the same as would have been made of religious education by Communists in the USSR.

[u.s.red]

And Aristotle would recognize this sentance as an appeal to authority :D

True enough. It is an appeal to the authority of Marx. I doubt, however, if Marx thought that Aristotle was reactionary. Aristotle was able to comprehend the distinction between use-value and exchange-value in a commodity. Marx observed that Aristotle was never able to discover the basis of value in labor because he lived in a slave society which did not consider human labor as a source of value; i.e. slaves were not humans in the sense that Aristotle was.

Aristotle, although antiquity's greatest thinker, was obviously limited by the social and economic conditions in which he lived (again, according to Marx.) I don't think he wanted Greece or civilization to return to a primitive Greek culture, as, for instance, Nietzsche did, and probably Plato.

At any rate, I have always thought that "reactionary" means, essentially, a desire to return to the heroic past, to halt any progress, etc. I remember W. Buckley once said that he thought his duty was to stand astride history and shout, "Stop." He should have added, And turn around and go back!"

(Note: the more I post on this site, and then go back and read my posts, besides being embarrassed, I realize more and more the dfference between off the cuff remarks and actual, coherent writing. Just a thought.)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

One can learn a great deal about the class nature of the state and of the difference between democracy and oligarchy by studying Aristotle. His ideas on actual versus potential infinities are also useful in criticising Platonic idealism in mathematics.



He attacks Muslims and Christians for the spreading of arrant nonsense about biology.


His criticisms are essentially the same as would have been made of religious education by Communists in the USSR.

Sorry I may not be explaining myself well. I'm not opposed to the criticism of religion, though I question the position he's arguing from. I'm just suspicious of his motivations for singling out the Muslims in his country in the last few years. There are plenty of individuals in the UK and here in the US that mask their attacks against immigrants as a defense of modernity or progress when it's obviously an issue of racism on their part. I feel this may be the case with Dawkins as well as his partisans in general.

[eric922]

On the topic of Dawkings, I do think it is possible that there is some kind of Islamphobia in the New Atheist movement that goes beyond normal criticism. Sam Harris is notorious for his stance on Islamic people, which is basically "nuke them." I find it extremely ironic considering his stance on meditation, compassion, and Buddhism. He certainly doesn't seem very compassionate to the people the imperialist powers are blowing up.

[Paul Cockshott]

On the topic of Dawkings, I do think it is possible that there is some kind of Islamphobia in the New Atheist movement that goes beyond normal criticism. Sam Harris is notorious for his stance on Islamic people, which is basically "nuke them." I find it extremely ironic considering his stance on meditation, compassion, and Buddhism. He certainly doesn't seem very compassionate to the people the imperialist powers are blowing up.

Look at this article written opposing the war in Iraq by Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/120-on-the-eve-of-war

[eric922]

Look at this article written opposing the war in Iraq by Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/120-on-the-eve-of-war
Well now I feel stupid... Seriously, thanks for the article it was very enlightening.

[Rafiq]

Look at this article written opposing the war in Iraq by Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/120-on-the-eve-of-war

I think, though, it's important to note Dawkins is still a Bourgeois academic and sees religion, and religion only, contrary to the very conditions and system, of which it is necessary, as a problem.

[Paul Cockshott]

I think, though, it's important to note Dawkins is still a Bourgeois academic and sees religion, and religion only, contrary to the very conditions and system, of which it is necessary, as a problem.

Quite so, but within the spectrum of bourgeois thought he is comparatively progressive. He is also a very good innovator and populariser within biological theory.
His progressive role in this context is directly linked to his relationship to the most advanced component of the forces of production - biotechnology in the broad sense.

[The Machine]

New Atheist movement

as a dawkins fan I can assure you that this is not a Thing

[L.A.P.]

Rawls and bourgeois utilitatianism?

According to Rawls, Laissez-faire capitalism, "Social-democracy" (Welfare-state capitalism), and "State socialism with a command economy" (State capitalism) violate the concept of Justice as fairness, and the two systems that don't are Property-owning democracy (mutualism/ libertarian socialism/ freed market socialism) and Liberal (democratic) socialism.

hence, bourgeois.

[Luís Henrique]

Aristotle.Why? Wasn't his conception of democracy somewhat revolutionary, to an extent?

I don't think it makes any sence to classify ancient people as "reactionary" or "progressist"; these are categories that only hold in feudal and capitalist societies.

Of course most of the uses made nowadays of Aristotle's ideas are reactionary, but this is a quite different issue.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

i don't think there are many "conservative" philosophers that are relatively mainstream. a lot of them are just average "liberals" and most of them probably lean somewhat to the left. most "reactionary" philosophers are generally quacks

[JustMovement]

Heidegger who was a straight up nazi is considered one of the head honchos of phenomenology. Carl Schmitt was another fascist who is considered quite important as a political thinker/philosopher. I think Hume could reasonably be considered conservative. Hobbes pretty much coined the human nature argument and argued for a state to keep people in check (the Leviathan). I think an argument could be made to throw Nietzsche in with the right, but it is debatable.

Those are the ones that come to mind. I always thought it was interesting that right-wing philosophy has a really strong nihilist bent to it.

[Leo]

I don't think it makes any sence to classify ancient people as "reactionary" or "progressist"; these are categories that only hold in feudal and capitalist societies.

So we have a patriarchal kiss-ass for Alexander the Great on the one hand who thought slaves weren't human and immigrants had no rights, such as Aristotle, and Diogenes of Sinope who told Alexander to go fuck himself and considered himself a world citizen; or Epicurus who had no problem in seeing women and slaves as equals and went so far as accepting them into his school and we are supposed to see the two kinds as the same? I don't think so.


Be careful. Marx thought Aristotle was the greatest thinker of the ancients.

Being a reactionary, and he undeniably was, does not diminish the value of Aristotle's philosophy.

[Luís Henrique]

we are supposed to see the two kinds as the same?

Erm, no, we aren't supposed to see the two kinds (if they are indeed only two kinds; I suspect that Epicurus and Diogenes of Sinope are very different from each other); I just don't think that categories of capitalist political systems (democrat, progressist, conservative, socialist, reactionary, liberal, revolutionary, etc) should be applied to these people. "Democracy" had a different meaning, "progress" or "reaction" weren't concepts for them, what they would like to "conserve" would be completely different from what modern conservatives would, socialism couldn't possibly exist unless under religious forms unlinked to a working class, "liberty" had a different meaning and was not related to a concept of "liberalism", that didn't exist, and there was no revolution that they could actually envision in any sence comparable to the bourgeois or proletarian revolutions from the 18th century onwards.

Of course I like Epicurus more than Diogenes, and Diogenes more than Aristotle - and Aristotle more than Plato, fwiw. But that is a different issue.

Luís Henrique

[Valdyr]

Erm, no, we aren't supposed to see the two kinds (if they are indeed only two kinds; I suspect that Epicurus and Diogenes of Sinope are very different from each other); I just don't think that categories of capitalist political systems (democrat, progressist, conservative, socialist, reactionary, liberal, revolutionary, etc) should be applied to these people. "Democracy" had a different meaning, "progress" or "reaction" weren't concepts for them, what they would like to "conserve" would be completely different from what modern conservatives would, socialism couldn't possibly exist unless under religious forms unlinked to a working class, "liberty" had a different meaning and was not related to a concept of "liberalism", that didn't exist, and there was no revolution that they could actually envision in any sence comparable to the bourgeois or proletarian revolutions from the 18th century onwards.

Of course I like Epicurus more than Diogenes, and Diogenes more than Aristotle - and Aristotle more than Plato, fwiw. But that is a different issue.

Luís Henrique

Doesn't it at some level make sense though to attempt to identify past thinker's relationship with the overall historical movement? Of course what is progressive for one era may be reactionary in another, and the people of that time probably would not have thought of themselves in terms of those categories.

[blake 3:17]

Those are the ones that come to mind. I always thought it was interesting that right-wing philosophy has a really strong nihilist bent to it.

On the other hand, you've got people like Burke and Arnold, who are conservative, but not nihilistic.

Could Jonathan Swift be considered a philosopher? His vigorous Anglicanism is tricky to match with the nihilistic streak of the fiction he is remembered for.

C.S.Lewis? Borges?

[Luís Henrique]

Doesn't it at some level make sense though to attempt to identify past thinker's relationship with the overall historical movement? Of course what is progressive for one era may be reactionary in another, and the people of that time probably would not have thought of themselves in terms of those categories.

I think the notion of "progress" is inherent to the decay of feudalism and rise of capitalism (indeed, that "progress" is exactly the progress of capitalist accumulation). So I don't think that people like Epicurus, or the Gracchi, or Spartakus, can be considered "progressist" at all.

The overall historical movement cannot be assimilated to the specific historical movement of the transition from feudalism to capitalism and further establishment of capital's hegemony over mankind. So, to situate those people in the overall historical movement should start by realising that they bore no relation to the saga of capital.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why? Wasn't his conception of democracy somewhat revolutionary, to an extent?

Aristotle's was, indeed. :)

[Valdyr]

Aristotle's was, indeed. :)

I believe Paul Cockshott references Aristotle and Athenian democracy at several points in his work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If my indications are correct, the CPGB might be starting work on discussing a critique of Aristotle. The ramifications would be huge, I think, because not only should "democracy" be discussed, but also "monarchy" and "aristocracy" and how it should be applied to internal party organization:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/value-electing-certain-t144804/index.html (a suggestion on "monarchy")

http://www.revleft.com/vb/educate-educate-agitate-t143439/index.html (a suggestion on "aristocracy")

[JustMovement]

On the other hand, you've got people like Burke and Arnold, who are conservative, but not nihilistic.

Could Jonathan Swift be considered a philosopher? His vigorous Anglicanism is tricky to match with the nihilistic streak of the fiction he is remembered for.

C.S.Lewis? Borges?

I didn't know Borges was conservative, but he must be at least epistemically nihilistic in the post-modern everything goes sense

[blake 3:17]

I didn't know Borges was conservative, but he must be at least epistemically nihilistic in the post-modern everything goes sense

I dunno -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges#Political_opinions

His most interesting fictions have a trickster element to them. He's actually very close to Swift on this.