Isn't the core of all our struggles nowadays just the battle of 2 kind of ancient philosophies?
On one side there are the teachings of Aristotle that represents individualism, freedom and self-responsibility In the other there is Plato who is recognized as the first dictatorship intellectual, he represents the search for the ideal world and authoritarianism
Thus, as an example, the 2 world wars were fought by countries of one branch against the other
The authoritarian platonist countries also follow German intellectuals such as Nietzsche, Marx and Hegel
Meanwhile, the aristotelian countries seeking freedom follow British intellectuals like Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill
Platonists tend to be a complete failure overall, since authoritarian countries have been BTFOed in wars or they ended up imploding themselves
From your perspective of what reality is is what you will come to decide your politics on. Plato represents the idealists, the Aristotle represents the materialists.
>In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.
It's just the type of person you are. There will always be sheep that are ready to follow someone else's lead, and the personality type of the leader dictates which branch he will follow.
Joshua Edwards
Bump
Josiah Martinez
Well, I take with a huge grain of salt anything said by ancient philosophers with regards to what the ideal state should be, since they didn't exactly live in a free society. If they had any brains, they would keep their mouths shut or kiss the ass of whoever happened to rule them.
Jayden Mitchell
Personally, I like MacIntyre's update to Aristotelian theory. The Marxist are in their death throws because automation and 3d printing are going to make individuals the owners of capital and labor.
I am reading Popper's "Open Society and It's Enemies" and it lays out a good critique of all the deterministic theories. My next quest is to read Agamben's work on creativity. It also appears to be Aristotelian.
Hunter Fisher
They shouldn't technically be independent of each other. A society that influences responsibility creates responsible people (Republic Rome king of the hill system) and responsible people create responsible societies.
Authoritarianism could be classified as diffusing of responsibility to the authority. Individualism could be the driving force to a better society but again, dominance hierarchy. The individual will dominate.
Alexander Baker
>unironically lumping in Nietzsche with Plato Do you even Twilight of the Idols, dude? What is this shit?
Asher Campbell
Yes, this is the great philosophical conundrum or civilization and we already solved it though the concept of liberty.
Liberty is not the same as freedom, but rather a framework for when authoritarian measures become acceptable. Finding a serial killer being the classic example.
Unfortunately, the authoritarian pricks got wise to that and have now created permanent artificial wars such as the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, simply to justify ever greater stripping of our liberties.
Bottom line, authoritarians will always win until they are violently replaced with new authorities. That's where fluoride and chemtrails and mercury in the vaccines come in. To postpone the day of rope indefinitely.
Also, I'm pretty sure the Chinese were the first to recognize it in the debate between the Confucians and the Legalists.
Nathan Hall
nice insight have any source?
David Miller
>Bottom line, authoritarians will always win until they are violently replaced with new authorities. The only reason liberty ever became a thing in the first place and was allowed to flourish was due to the equalization of POWER. It was only when men became equal by means of force (eg the introduction of cheap and easy-to-use weaponry thanks to the industrial revolution) that democracy and equality were able to flourish. This liberty and equality have stagnated and died since roughly around the 1930's but more after the 1950's with the introduction of expensive weaponry that required more extensive training (eg tanks, airplanes, nuclear bombs).
James Rivera
You may have a point but an extremely stretched and abstract one. Sure if you were to divide the world into two ways of thinking you could ultimately describe some and others with each side. The question is how well do those thresholds actually describe the phenomena at hand? As a t. Platoist I would argue calling USSR anything remotely like you did as silly
Robert Brooks
>What do you think Sup Forums?
i think molyneux is a scumfuck weasel
Isaiah Turner
It's much more simple than this. It's MUH FEELS vs MUH Logic.
Anthony Sanders
>platonist >nietzsche you need to stop shitting up Sup Forums and go kill yourself, user.
Jaxson Edwards
The real root of all our conflicts, root of left vs right, is temperamental.
The left has low disgust sensitivity. The right has high disgust sensitivity.
Disgust regulates your willingness to engage with outsiders.
Chase Turner
>Aristotle >individualism You have no clue what you're on about
Hunter Gutierrez
Aristotle is not a materialist.
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
Anthony Walker
Oh, okay peterson I'll sort myself out now.
Parker Hernandez
pretty much
Hudson Collins
I wouldn't say "all is mind," but "all is information."
Mind is information, but information is not necessarily mind. You are made of the same stuff as reality, but all of reality is not just you.
Camden Ward
I think, when talking about this: it's more of a pendulum thing.
When one side becomes too extreme, the other one pushes back in an effort to restore balance, but they end up starting a new swing on that pendulum.
When authoritarians push too hard, there is revolution because of the lack of individual freedom. When individualists leave too much freedom, there is an authoritarian reform or coup, to restore a sense of order.
My position is individualist. But I do think we need some form idealism that we strive for.
It's an endless debate between : Liberty VS Equality.
My country does a good job, imo, as in its the our fucking motto ...
Thoughts?
Samuel Jenkins
CHECKED you have a point, nature and human history work in cycles
Owen Long
Why is this? Why is it that certain propositions seem to gain more ground at certain times in history than others?
Landon Thompson
don't know any idea?
William Ortiz
>Thoughts? Wasted quads.
See It's like you guys have never taken five minutes to look at history. The vast majority of human history in civilization has involved authoritarianism. Liberty is not only relatively new but it's also almost an exclusively Western idea that was born out of the Medieval period where society existed without the state. From this, Western man realized the state was not an integral part of society and could be done away with. Hence, liberalism and the enlightenment.
Why am I even still posting and trying with you half-baked autists is beyond me.
Jack Sanders
>the 2 world wars were fought by countries of one branch against the other >NS germany never invaded the USSR
Gabriel Fisher
internal fightings communism and nazism/fascism are closely related
Carson Morris
...
Hunter Ross
Socratic philosophers stated that all civilisations tend towards disorder, Plato himself said that democracy leads to tyranny (bear in mind this was someone who had seen democracy fail when Sparta won a war against Athens) Plato said that democratic societies tend towards authoritarianism/tyranny because as people care more for their rights/freedoms/liberties they get increasingly frustrated at the government for infringing on those rights, as a result stronger political leaders are needed to pull the parties together and to calm the public, this is one of many many different ways that liberal societies often become tyrannical and like someone else said is a bit like a pendulum. They gain ground for many reasons, often it's just the pendulum swinging back
