hm? I'm saying that they're separating two western philosophies that are hundreds of years old into "wants to destroy western civ" and "is the western tradition"

Western civilization is full of those dialectical tensions though

Philosophy

But I see your critique. I think Endeavour needs to go further backwards

I dont think it actually is about going backwards to be honest. I think ultimately you have people on both sides who dont respect the tradition of American philosophy, and then you have two factions who think theyre doing their best to uphold those traditions in different, contradictory ways

Often because they think the founding fathers wouldnt have agreed with (insert later thing) or because they think something is a low priority

Sure, and what I'm saying is this is par for the course in western civilization. And perhaps that's his point as well, but I have just come across this dude so I don't know for sure

On one side you have people who devalue the 2nd amendment, becasue they think the founding fathers couldnt have forseen an m16. On another side you have people who think that dragnet surveillance is okay because the founding fathers couldnt have forseen modern terrorism
And you've still got like 5 other major factions

I'm just basing this off of this one analysis

it might be that he gets it right elsewhere, though I doubt it. His high level assessment is just completely off

Well how high of an assessment are we going for here? 😂 because I'm someone Pro-logos, whereas the West has been anti-logos for quite some time

well a 15 minute video about "left' and "right" is inherently a high level assessment

it's the pseudocode of politics

I see this left/right false dichotomy as the modern scenario of liberalism, whereas you are seeing it as modern tribalism IIRC

I think we're going to agree on most things, but through my lens we've been downhill since the Renaissance

Wouldnt that mean that the United States shouldnt have succeeded?

The french revolution happened so I don't see how anything can't happen

the French Revolution was uphill?

At the paradigmatic level, it's consistent. Regardless of the event or outcomes something can be logically consistent or not

@Abstract Cossack I have many problems with both of those videos. I'm not even sure where i'd begin tho heh.

@everyone

The more people looking will help.

I dont have much of a social media presence.

https://t.co/tX0OqSKU4T

They already found her

@Shadows I disagree a lot of what Endeavour says, my point in sharing him was to show that Left/Right is not just different ways of showing how Liberal u are

Channels like Distributist and Endeavour are examples of rightwingers who don’t make a claim to that label, they seem far more interested in maintaining a traditional social order than they are in arguing for a philosophy of liberty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF6K2rhnCAc

@Abstract Cossack well you have to recognize I'm also part of the right, so I'd be included in that as well lol
If we're taking common assumptions about all of the groups in the right (different groups advocating for different things more than others, or valuing things others don't), pointing out we're not all liberal makes sense, most would be quick to affirm this. But if we're talking about the worldviews in those groups, we have to look at what these groups are contained in. All of them have American government (or whichever country) to work with. We can't have a group for example that advocates for total communism or monarchy that is serious, because they're categorically contradicting our system; they'd mean to destroy it, not reason with it. We don't have anything that allows for an authoritarian to have their way with the country at large, nor can any one person have complete control over 100% of the government, there's far too many mechanisms/checks in place.
It might sound wrong at a glance when I say the left and right are both liberal, but it's true. I'm not talking about ideas at the level of the individual, but at the level of the paradigm. And in this case it's paradigm-ception in a sense lol a system that is subject to the authority of another system, because it's contained in it.

I think you're tackling a different thesis, I would be interested to know what question you are responding to

What I'm saying is that, as terms, Left and Right serve a useful function

But that they are often misused

And often on purpose to distract people from whatever the actual topic is

Kinda like how left-wing psychologists came up with a "Right Wing Authoritarian" test, but no Left Wing Authoritarian test

I'm pretty sure I was originally just making a general statement about the left and right here in America. I'm pretty big into presuppositional analysis, though I'm just a layman who has plenty to learn and open to criticism.
And yes that's exactly what I agree with in the video, the branding aspect. It would be appropriate to say the two sides operate as a mechanism or tool, and that they're circumstantial and undergo changes mechanically. The dynamics between party and constituent can get ... interesting to say the least. e.g the left giving a voice to the worst parts of people's personalities.
And yeah, the assumptions deluded leftists are working with, some of which are pointed out in the video, can lead to ridiculous crap such as a test like that. In their view, we can only be [insert pejorative of the week] who [insert aggressive verb] daily

Thanks for clarifying

I know I'm still trying to figure a lot of this out too, and I can tell I still have conflicting views on the proper definition of Left/Right-wing, how to use the terms, how sufficient they are to describe political or cultural positions

At this point I think it's safe to say that they are necessary terms to describe aspects of moral & political thought, but far from sufficient

And they seem to provide a good first-level classification of moral/political philosophies. Like how we use "Kingdoms" as the first-level description of an organism

In my opinion, a philosophy has to answer the ancient question of the One and the Many. Is the universe all made up of one 'thing', the monad. Or is there more, different 'things' that exist? This question will radically change your worldview depending on how you answer it. You could think about the question as a problem, as someone recently put brilliantly like a philosphical math problem you should solve, but with a presupposition that you want to take and run with.

'Kingdoms', or animal groups, presupposes that something can have identity over time, which is an incredible assertion that needs grounding.

ehhhh....depends on the topics

i would be but I’ll be in bed 😒

but tomorrow morning will = podcast time