Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5576|London, England
I've been reading a rather fantastic history of Prussia titled Iron Kingdom. The focus of the last few chapters has been on the unification of Germany under Prussia and the rise of the liberal class. What I find most interesting about it is the way in which statism came to the fore as adopted Liberal philosophy, much of whose thought was based on the writings of Hegel.

The premise behind statism in Germany was simply a reaction against the ancient provincial politics in which hereditary fuedal lords still held sway at the local level. Statism was meant to generate a cohesive national polity in order to strip the rights of the those provincial lords, as well as the king, and to replace them with a more democratic form of government.

Now, this would be something that I applaud as it is largely what the United States did when it broke free from England. We as Americans have always had a natural repulsion to heredity and nepotism. What I fail to understand is why this Continental branch of philosophy was transported to America and why it took root. Why has statism flourished to such a large degree among Americas liberals? The States themselves are neither hereditary powers, nor are they undemocratic. They each elect their assemblies, senates and governors via universal suffrage.

What the democrats represent today is a ridiculous misrepresentation of their philosophical heritage. Why has no one ever stepped up and said 'Hey guys, we're misrepresenting what we are supposed to stand for, maybe we should change tack'? Just one of the many reasons I despise our national parties and the policies they represent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5803

You used a lot of terms really out of context in the OP..
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5803

First and most glaring is that you don't seem to understand the difference between continental philosophy and analytic.
What I fail to understand is why this Continental branch of philosophy was transported to America and why it took root. Why has statism flourished to such a large degree among Americas liberals?
Continental philosophy and analytic are just used as terms to describe different approaches to philosophy. Analytic take more of a technical view of philosophy and try to to bring science more into it. Continental not so much. Continental like to think in the abstract.

Take for instance Rand and Nietzsche. Both fall into the continental branch of philosophy both were extreme individualist. They both hated the state. And Nietzsche was a nurse in the Franco-Prussian war too. Now think of most anarchist and libertarian philosophers. They also fit into the Continental branch of philosophy despite their hatred of government. Now someone who uses charts and statistics to make an argument for socialized health care would be taking a analytic philosophers approach to the subject. Get it?

I could go on about other things in the OP like Hegel's philosophical views and the world he developed them in or about how certain apects of Hegel fit right in with the democrat party (trust in institutions for example) or how Marx was very critical of Hegel or how Hegel is held up by both the left and the right or how difficult it is to make heads or tails of Hegel but you get the idea.

Don't mean to be a dick but the OP is mostly name and term dropping without much substance.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6629|'Murka

Sounds more like you took a similar term, assumed it had only one possible use/definition, and used that as your context for interpreting what Jay wrote.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5803

Well people who are intimate with philosophy use the term Continental philosophy to mean Continental philosophy. There are no other meanings except, I don't know, philosophy from Europe? Really?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5576|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Well people who are intimate with philosophy use the term Continental philosophy to mean Continental philosophy. There are no other meanings except, I don't know, philosophy from Europe? Really?
I used the term in the context of it being disparate from English Philosophy. It's wrong, but I've always grouped the philosophies from mainland Europe together and just classified them as Continental in my mind. Now stop being a pedant and actually address what I said in the OP.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6629|'Murka

Macbeth wrote:

Well people who are intimate with philosophy use the term Continental philosophy to mean Continental philosophy. There are no other meanings except, I don't know, philosophy from Europe? Really?
"Continental" has been a commonly used description for things belonging to or originating from mainland Europe for a very, very, long time. It is much more commonly understood than your chosen singular understanding, tbh.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5803

Jay wrote:

Now stop being a pedant and actually address what I said in the OP.
Well, in regards to Hegel and the left, it fits in fine with modern democrats to a large extent. Hegel was alive during Napoleon and the French revolution. He liked the idea of Liberté, égalité, fraternité (yes I googled it just to put in French ). The way he saw bringing those about and protecting them was through government institutions. If you think that's naive, then you'll agree with Karl Marx who thought that was naive.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-09-16 13:45:25)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard