Materialism>idealism

I’m not trying to get into a whole debate, it’s just interesting to me the way some people cling to these idealist philosophers. Same w the stoics imo. As a guy who used to read all of them… they’re useless to actually understanding life. Like it can be helpful to read them in order to understand how the Western worldview evolved, but they really shouldn’t be taken as some sort of handbook - which many seem to do. (reactionaries). People who read Nietzsche or Plato and think they have some sort of secret insight is my biggest red flag irt pseudo-intellectual who is just going to waste your time… same with Dostoevsky btw.

Confucius is based af though.

Edit: Also, yes these kinds of people exist- my former mentor/boss who spent decades at a white shoe DC law firm would accept any idea if you found a quote by Plato to justify it lmao.

  • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
    31·
    2 years ago

    Also with respect to eugenics, he very much was an advocate of a landed hereditary aristocracy:

    Will this aristocracy be a caste, and their power hereditary? For the most part yes, with occasional openings to let in new blood. But nothing can so contaminate and weaken an aristocracy rich vulgarians, after the habit of the English aristocracy; As it was such intermarriage that ruined the greatest governing body the world has ever seen: the aristocratic Roman senate.

    Even Plato, who was an aristocratic philosopher, didn’t think that aristocracy should be hereditary, but rather based on ability.

      • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
        51·
        2 years ago

        Will this aristocracy be a caste, and their power hereditary? For the most part yes, with occasional openings to let in new blood.

        How can you read this and not think he’s talking about genetics?

              • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
                31·
                2 years ago

                I have to post the 2nd half of this tiny quote too?

                As it was such intermarriage that ruined the greatest governing body the world has ever seen: the aristocratic Roman senate.

                How can you be this dense? He’s talking about racial superiority, not upbringing.

                  • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
                    41·
                    2 years ago

                    He’s referencing the intermarriage of roman families with conquered gauls, spanish, huns, and other “barbarians”, which was a historical talking point for aristocratic historians, that their downfall was because of intermarriage with “inferior races”.

                    How can you read the words “hereditary”, “new blood”, and “intermarriage” and think he’s talking about upbringing and not racial superiority?