Left wing: theoretical and logical

Left wing: theoretical and logical
Right wing: practical and spiritual

Do you agree with this?

>left wing
>logical

No.

Left wing: Theoretical and Spiritual
Right Wing: Logical and Practical

>I don't understand it
>therefore it makes no sense

I disagree

Right wing: theoretical, logical, practical, and spiritual
Left wing: Cucks

there are no wings. There is only flight.

Left wing: theoretical and satanic
Right wing: practical and spiritual

> He fell for the wing meme

I understand the left. They're lazy, but want a utopia and don't like wealthy people. In fact, they hate the right and wealthy so much, they're willing to have the state control everything and drive the country into the ground.

Leap clear of all that is corporeal, and make yourself grown to a like expanse with that greatness which is beyond all measure; rise above all time and become eternal; then you will apprehend God.

Think that for you too nothing is impossible; deem that you too are immortal, and that you are able to grasp all things in your thought, to know every craft and science; find your home in the haunts of every living creature; make yourself higher than all heights and lower than all depths; bring together in yourself all opposites of quality, heat and cold, dryness and fluidity; think that you are everywhere at once, on land, at sea, in heaven; think that you are not yet begotten, that you are in the womb, that you are young, that you are old, that you have died, that you are in the world beyond the grave; grasp in your thought all of this at once, all times and places, all substances and qualities and magnitudes together; then you can apprehend God.

But if you shut up your soul in your body, and abase yourself, and say “I know nothing, I can do nothing; I am afraid of earth and sea, I cannot mount to heaven; I know not what I was, nor what I shall be,” then what have you to do with God?

I was basically trying to say that right-wing philosophy is often focused on some spiritual ideal of human greatness and achievement, whereas left-wing is more about achieving equality and thus their worldview is more "grounded"

No. Left wing is high in openness and agreebleness, but low in conscientiousness, right wing is vice versa.

>muh privilege
>muh microagressions
>logical

The right wing is very open and agreeable as long as you aren't degenerate.

Tell me more, pls

Modern liberalism is none of the above except for theoretical.

Left is theoretical and spiritual, since they use emotion to make decisions

Do you want to remove jews, kebabs, and blacks? Then you're OK in my book.

And that what makes you low on agreeableness and openness scales.

To some degree but replace left wing with liberal and right with conservative, but most here are not well read enough to see the trends.

Conservatism in the current sense arose out of reactionary movements to the enlightenment which was the blossoming of human reason and the ideal of using reason or logical systems to solve political problems.

Conservatives were connected to the romantics who held up nature, tradition and spirit.

However liberalism has evolved over the years and bifurcated into free market neoliberalism of Clinton and the socialism of Bernie and the Marxism of identity politics.

If anything we are almost all liberals today, in that we accept there is no god and put our faith in reason and science.

Can you not read? We're very agreeable. As long as you're white.
>Russian bants

That's what I said. You're low on agreebleness and openness. If you were high, you would care for most people and probably animals and stuff and the idea of racism probably would seem to you as moraly wrong.

Can you not read? We're very agreeable. As long as you're white.
>Russian bants

What about you? That's exactly what makes you low on agreableness scale. Or at least lower than a regular american left-winger, who is more concerned with not harming (high agreeableness) than purity (low openness)

I think both the left and the right are short-sighted more than anything else. They are concerned with the here and now, and are at best reactive. They are like drivers, slamming the brakes only when the crash is inevitable... and then speeding up again.

As Enoch Powell put it:
>The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
>One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary.
>By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Left wing = gay, homosexual, race traitors, who love Jews and are submissive faggors who stand for nothing. Other than letting men use women's bathrooms.

>You're low on agreebleness and openness. If you were high, you would care for most people and probably animals and stuff and the idea of racism probably would seem to you as moraly wrong.
If that is your deciding factor, then 90% of mankind is neither agreeable nor open. This pathological obsession with justice, kindness and universal morality is mostly limited to white people. Everyone else is motivated by three things: (1) what is beneficial to me, (2) what is beneficial to my family, and (3) what is beneficial to people who are by their loyalties bound to act in a manner which is beneficial to me and my family. In short, self-interested tribalism.