5 ms·
The funny thing is, the critiques of Marcuse, Foucault and the like are 100% applicable to these status and sinecure seekers in the academy. They are worth read
by vzcx 6y ago
The funny thing is, the critiques of Marcuse, Foucault and the like are 100% applicable to these status and sinecure seekers in the academy. They are worth reading for this reason alone.
Lindsay defends the old-academy classical liberalism. The sort of gentlemanly debate that arises from such values is good, but only possible between people with a collegial relationship who both prefer truth over power. They cannot be used against enemies. When dealing with enemies, one must bring weapons, and the postmodernist weapons can be made to work in anyone's hands.
- erichocean 6y agoCurtis Yarvin has new, much-more-concise explanation of the "cathedral" and domininant power ideas up on his Substack that's worth a quick read: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the... (An oligarchy inherently converges on ideas that justify the use of power.) I think it's as good of an explanation as any for why old-academy classical liberalism is losing (and will continue to lose): truth is not dominant, and least on the timescales the game is played. 100% agreed that post-modernists are still worth reading, and that many of the critiques are relevant. Disagree that doing so will change anything—because truth isn't dominant in the short-term.