3 ms·
You can read a political author for what seems to be his overt case or for what are his underlying ideas. There's an impressive (and really novel at the time)
by thanatropism 8y ago
You can read a political author for what seems to be his overt case or for what are his underlying ideas.
There's an impressive (and really novel at the time) case in favor of capitalism hiding in plain sight in the first book of Marx's Communist manifesto. Those who deprive themselves of Marxist theory for the moral catastrophe of communism miss out on seeing from the shoulders of tall people. The case for Carlyle is structurally the same.
- sebastos 8y agoJust wondering, cause I've often wondered if there's some interesting argumentation trapped inside a 15,000 word <body> - is Carlyle the go-to source if I want to read about the ideas without the ... rest?
- thanatropism 8y agoMy take is: start with Burke, which is the first skeptical take on the French Revolution.
- sebastos 8y agoInteresting, thanks! For others interested, I also found that Scott Alexander wrote a tremendous summary and then rebuttal of Neoreactionary theory. An excellent example of steel-manning an argument you disagree with, then taking it apart in ways that its adherents might actually find convincing. (Link: [https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy...)