You must log in or register to comment.

millchopcuss t1_itf95lr wrote

The comment about Al Franken at the end... I felt this way so strongly that it truly sapped any enthusiasm I could muster for the Democrats. To blast your own foot like that and pretend it wasn't an utter disaster is a good way to telegraph to your constituents that you are unserious about governing.

I still vote for them out of abhorrence for the Trumpist party, but my support hardly rises to the level of 'lukewarm'. With no vision but grievance and guilt, they offer nothing but a way to not vote Trump, and I'm bracing for impact because I know that isn't enough.


millchopcuss t1_itgm1i3 wrote

Thank you for this.

My own insights often lack the force of authority, because I am untrained in philosophy. What knowledge I have of it came entirely from my own curiosity and my ability to read.

This has firmly placed me in that camp that finds philosophy not rooted in real events to be so much vapid tail-chasery. I could be (and often am) confused for a Trumpist for my scathing invective at high-left omphaloskepsis. For this I am exposed to an effect treated briefly in this article: the weak attack not the powerful, but the vulnerable.


dzdidou OP t1_itgrs51 wrote

Check out Gilles Deleuze on what he thinks about philosophy. I think it will help you see that real philosophy is rooted and looks at the real world in very concrete ways and should be no means be confined to the academically trained.


TuvixWasMurderedR1P t1_itg6cld wrote

>In contrast, the Fullerites advise patience and forbearance: Painful as it may be for us to suffer Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Liz Truss, Jim Jordan and Nigel Farage, we are told, the pain is worth the potential next state that it makes possible: A truly pluralistic society where a monopoly of Truth no longer holds and where true and fair competition between ideas is possible

I agree. I'm even starting to see the popularity of this position grow in academic political philosophy circles with the current interest in Machiavelli from people like John McCormick, or in the anti-oligarchic philosophy of Camila Vergara.

The "pre" Post-Truth era had, as the background ideology, an aristocratic republican justification; let the "best" citizens - those who know better - tell you how things really are. Instead now we're seeing a re-ignited interest in a more democratic kind of republicanism amongst political philosophers, which I think reflects the sentiments of non-philosophers alike.

The post-Truth era is dangerous for sure, but it also is opening up the possibility of something constructive and positive.


BernardJOrtcutt t1_itd9ti1 wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.