Read on Twitter
I read all the leftist theory when I was a teenager-- then I read all the rightist theory when I was a "young adult"-- now I am an actual adult & I have transcended the dialectic.
Read Spengler & Marx
Read Burke & Proudhon
Read Rousseau & De Maistre
Read Herzen & Dostoevsky
Read Wyndham Lewis & GB Shaw
etc
There's no good reason to ghettoize your understanding by cloistering it in one "culture space" without understanding the dialectic.
Read Burke & Proudhon
Read Rousseau & De Maistre
Read Herzen & Dostoevsky
Read Wyndham Lewis & GB Shaw
etc
There's no good reason to ghettoize your understanding by cloistering it in one "culture space" without understanding the dialectic.
Rightist theory is in dialogue with Leftist theory & vice versa-- they're part of the *same project*-- which is the production of answers to the fundamental problems of the time! It's extremely stupid to "pick your answers" to the problems without engaging with the QUESTIONS.
Ultimately-- you're going to be lead all the way back to Plato & Aristotle-- & from their you're going to be lead all the way through Antiquity to Modernity-- & all of it is relevant-- the era of German Idealism still leans most heavily on our contemporary debates.
To just arbitrarily select "the good guys" & ignore "the bad guys" is re*arded. "I read Schopenhauer & Nietzsche so I don't need to understand Kant & Hegel" (despite Kant informing S/N & their philosophies being created in diametric opposition to Hegel)
"I read Deleuze & Baudrillard so I don't have to read Wittgenstein & McLuhan"-- lazy ppo justifying this "heuristic" of delimited understanding so that they can keep their sense of certainty in the provisional answers they champion (without engaging further with the QUESTIONS)
Personally-- I had never even engaged with "Right Wing Theory" until I was about 18-- prior to that I had read a vast array of "leftist theory" without even understanding the "other side of the debate"-- I'd read Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin &c-- but not Junger Heidegger &c
I think if you're in the opposite camp-- having read what, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Cioran, Evola, Guenon (trads) or Hayek, Popper, Mises, Nozick, Strauss (right libs)-- but not their equivalents on "the other side"-- you're missing tons of relevant context.
Ppo like Georges Sorel is extremely influential on both the "Right" & "Left"-- if you read Wyndham Lewis's "The Art of Being Ruled"-- he's not just "citing right wing thought"-- he's creating a synthetic reading of a wide array of Left & Right thought.
Letting your provisional "political commitments" in the present determine the scope of your understanding-- is how you end up re*arded & duped. You gotta broaden your horizons! Otherwise, you're just making propaganda & you might as well be Charlie Kirk if you're going to do that
For instance, let's see what you think:
Napoleon was a
Napoleon was a
