Philosophy The Name of Love's Philosophy Essays

Reader mode
The Name of Love

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Scottty said:
Someone, or a school of thought, can both talk at length about something, and at the same time be leaving that thing out of their consideration when not directly thinking about it.
Click to expand...
You are guilty of making sweeping and outrageous statements about my beliefs repeatedly and without evidence. The only one who isn't talking directly here is you.
 
L

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
The Name of Love said:
Not... exactly. The point of my essay is that the Centrists do stand for something. They stand for what Leftism was back in 2012.
Click to expand...
Right so nothing then? Principals aren't easily changed and said principals inform a man's views/beliefs. As does lack of such I'm not really disagreeing. Just simplyfying it as I see no reason to make stuff complicated.
 
The Name of Love

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Lanmandragon said:
Right so nothing then? Principals aren't easily changed and said principals inform a man's views/beliefs. As does lack of such I'm not really disagreeing. Just simplyfying it as I see no reason to make stuff complicated.
Click to expand...
No, there's a difference between not standing up for something and standing up for something insignificant. Curtis Yarvin makes the distinction in his essay. Of the Centrists (which he refers to as Mensheviks in his essay), he writes:

Our post-Marxist semiotic deconstruction of social justice has shown that the historical essence of the ideology revolves around justifying the feeling of power above law. When we read the Mensheviks, we see a small and good resistance to this violent delight. We see lingering affection for the impersonal world of rules that our world is losing—in a civilizational decline which seems nowhere near its start or its finish.

The whole nature of Menshevik resistance is inconsistent with the general pattern of the ideology—except where it is consistent with an old disguise the ideology adopted when, too weak to thrive by bullying, it had to plead and cringe for lunch and life.

For the core of Menshevism is law above power—a clear betrayal. That betrayal is small. It is not even novel—it is just reflexive emotional attachment to a dying exception. But since chaos is the same thing as evil, betraying it is inherently good. And cannot the smallest spark grow? That was why Lenin named his newsletter Iskra, or The Spark.
Click to expand...
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top