Search Results
7/8/2025, 1:33:01 AM
>>24525984
>Is this worth reading in 2025 or is it outdated now?
I recently read the book, and in my opinion, it has three main problems.
First, the author doesn't clearly define his ideologies and systems. He broadly equates liberalism with individual rights and property, but he fails to assess how these can be implemented in almost any system. Similarly, his arguments for liberalism can often be extrapolated to other forms of regimes, which undermines his overall purpose. This issue isn’t critical if you're simply looking for broad arguments as to why liberalism might be the telos of humanity, but it weakens his case when critiquing specific contemporary ideologies.
Second, his defense of capitalism—since he equates liberalism with capitalism plus democracy—amounts to a claim that humans can't properly grasp and organize the economy, leaving capitalism as the de facto mode of production. In other words, the economy is supposedly too "complex" for humans to understand. While there's some truth to that, it's not a convincing argument for why capitalism must prevail in the long term, especially in light of recent technological advancements. Market socialism, a Gosplan-style computer-managed economy, or even a heavily regulated system could all theoretically address his concerns without requiring capitalism.
Lastly, and this is axiomatic to his analysis, democracy doesn't solve the problem of thymos (the spirited part of the soul that seeks recognition). Yes, democracy might allow people’s desires to be acknowledged, but that doesn’t mean it truly addresses them. I've heard he has since revisited these claims in response to the rise of populism, which suggests he recognized this shortcoming. But thymos alone can’t be the sole foundation of democracy. It only exists meaningfully in the context of justice in governance—no one would recognize someone becoming enraged over an unjust ideal. This implies that a just government, as long as it is perceived as just, would retain legitimacy and be able to govern effectively.
Overall, it's a good read that's well-written, but not a major philosophical breakthrough as it advertises itself. You can read it for anecdotal purposes, but imo it's not worth it if you want more.
>>24530184
Let me guess, this would enable the return of a trad christian nation that will usher in the kingdom of christ ?
>>24529475
Religious fundamentalism addresses the issue of spirituality which appears to be endemic to Man. Market socialism/regulated capitalism both also surpass traditional liberalism (and subsequent capitalism) in quality of life (EU countries) and specific economical objectives (Chinese specific industries like EVs, trains etc). These 2 are very well competitive, and seemingly address certain fundamental flaws within liberalism.
Now, you could argue for a synthesis of ideas but it's clear that liberalism isn't enough for *everything*
>Is this worth reading in 2025 or is it outdated now?
I recently read the book, and in my opinion, it has three main problems.
First, the author doesn't clearly define his ideologies and systems. He broadly equates liberalism with individual rights and property, but he fails to assess how these can be implemented in almost any system. Similarly, his arguments for liberalism can often be extrapolated to other forms of regimes, which undermines his overall purpose. This issue isn’t critical if you're simply looking for broad arguments as to why liberalism might be the telos of humanity, but it weakens his case when critiquing specific contemporary ideologies.
Second, his defense of capitalism—since he equates liberalism with capitalism plus democracy—amounts to a claim that humans can't properly grasp and organize the economy, leaving capitalism as the de facto mode of production. In other words, the economy is supposedly too "complex" for humans to understand. While there's some truth to that, it's not a convincing argument for why capitalism must prevail in the long term, especially in light of recent technological advancements. Market socialism, a Gosplan-style computer-managed economy, or even a heavily regulated system could all theoretically address his concerns without requiring capitalism.
Lastly, and this is axiomatic to his analysis, democracy doesn't solve the problem of thymos (the spirited part of the soul that seeks recognition). Yes, democracy might allow people’s desires to be acknowledged, but that doesn’t mean it truly addresses them. I've heard he has since revisited these claims in response to the rise of populism, which suggests he recognized this shortcoming. But thymos alone can’t be the sole foundation of democracy. It only exists meaningfully in the context of justice in governance—no one would recognize someone becoming enraged over an unjust ideal. This implies that a just government, as long as it is perceived as just, would retain legitimacy and be able to govern effectively.
Overall, it's a good read that's well-written, but not a major philosophical breakthrough as it advertises itself. You can read it for anecdotal purposes, but imo it's not worth it if you want more.
>>24530184
Let me guess, this would enable the return of a trad christian nation that will usher in the kingdom of christ ?
>>24529475
Religious fundamentalism addresses the issue of spirituality which appears to be endemic to Man. Market socialism/regulated capitalism both also surpass traditional liberalism (and subsequent capitalism) in quality of life (EU countries) and specific economical objectives (Chinese specific industries like EVs, trains etc). These 2 are very well competitive, and seemingly address certain fundamental flaws within liberalism.
Now, you could argue for a synthesis of ideas but it's clear that liberalism isn't enough for *everything*
Page 1