Conversation

I was responding to your reactionary sympathy point, which suggested a 1700s vintage pre-liberal-democracy narrow Hobbes reading. Maybe current understand is expansive but I doubt in 1700s our 20th century forms were clearly foreseeable.
1
Replying to and
don't think they have to be clearly foreseeable as long as they're still iterated refinements of base ideas that were laid out in the 1700s. we have QM, relativity & mature non-euclidian geometry now but lots of problems are still solved in euclidian or newtonian domains
1
Not at all. I’m familiar enough with those two to regard him as a serious synthesizer beyond them. You vastly underestimate the sheer amount of data the last century has provided. He’s primarily an interpreter of recent history more than of Hegel via Kojeve.
1
Replying to
Heh, I just have a strong immune response to argument by authority in general, on subjects where there are no viewpoint privileges except time (as opposed to for eg astronomy with its instruments). My first theory of anything political is generally my own prima facie one.
2
Show replies