Anonymous
9/17/2025, 4:00:20 AM
No.24729037
>>24729049
>>24729176
>>24729209
>>24729220
>>24729427
>>24730106
>>24730118
>>24730311
>>24730336
>>24730464
>>24730465
>>24731134
>>24732207
>>24732791
>>24734386
>"No, modernity bad! Middle Ages and Ancient world good! You have to be focused on le hecking virtues not what actually makes people happy!"
I get the feeling that these books (you can add "The Culture of Narcissism" and "Theology and Social Theory" too) are only considered "classics" because people feel they have to grant "the other side" some good points. That and people want to build them up so they have something to argue against.
Absolutely no one assigns these for classes though, not even graduate seminars. They aren't drawn on in philosophy except for at reactionary Catholic departments (which are irrelevant) and they simply aren't drawn on at all in the other relevant fields like sociology. It's just like how C.S. Lewis isn't read outside flyover state Christian book groups.
So why the "classic" label? Why the wasting of scarce attention on reactionary polemics? If you dislike liberalism, you're free to move to a trad paradise like Saudi Arabia or Russia.
Even the virtue ethics people (who are a small minority) don't try to resurrect Aristotle and final causes. They know only naturalism makes sense. They try to distance themselves from this stuff.
It's pure /lit/ pseud bait that serious scholars don't read, and this can be seen from open syllabus. You are told about them just so you know how to cite the reactionary ramblings in the right spot.
Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed" is similarly /lit/ /chud bait that will not doubt become a "classic" decades from now when people try to be magnanimous about how reactionaries aren't actually the pseuds postering as aristocrats and tradlarpers they really are. Nuff said.
I get the feeling that these books (you can add "The Culture of Narcissism" and "Theology and Social Theory" too) are only considered "classics" because people feel they have to grant "the other side" some good points. That and people want to build them up so they have something to argue against.
Absolutely no one assigns these for classes though, not even graduate seminars. They aren't drawn on in philosophy except for at reactionary Catholic departments (which are irrelevant) and they simply aren't drawn on at all in the other relevant fields like sociology. It's just like how C.S. Lewis isn't read outside flyover state Christian book groups.
So why the "classic" label? Why the wasting of scarce attention on reactionary polemics? If you dislike liberalism, you're free to move to a trad paradise like Saudi Arabia or Russia.
Even the virtue ethics people (who are a small minority) don't try to resurrect Aristotle and final causes. They know only naturalism makes sense. They try to distance themselves from this stuff.
It's pure /lit/ pseud bait that serious scholars don't read, and this can be seen from open syllabus. You are told about them just so you know how to cite the reactionary ramblings in the right spot.
Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed" is similarly /lit/ /chud bait that will not doubt become a "classic" decades from now when people try to be magnanimous about how reactionaries aren't actually the pseuds postering as aristocrats and tradlarpers they really are. Nuff said.