Anyone who reads and understands Aristotle will be a lot smarter.

Anyone who reads Twain and understands that he doesn't always really mean what he says, will be a bit smarter.

Anyone who reads Derrida with great seriousness will be sad for all the trees that gave their lives in vain.

Alfred North Whitehead was probably right: Modern philosophy is nothing more than footnotes to Plato.

George Carlin was a far superior philosopher than Derrida, imo.

(Bet y'all have never even seen a Derrida meme )

In your opinion, which given its spageti monster roots, is near totally worthless in this instance.

As I said, reactionaries wont like contemporary thinkers and that is really the essence of this discussion.

That's because Tolstoy largely had a biblical view of human nature.

"Spageti[sic] monster roots"! Oh, boy that was clever! I've never heard that one before!! Good job, IAMTHISNOW! I'm impressed!!

Nice try, Skippy. (Next time I'll call you Jiff.)

I enjoy a number of contemporary thinkers, such as Peter Kreeft and Alvin Plantiga.

Yes we are all surprised that you like a thinker on Christian philosophy.

I will clarify, radical contemporary thinkers, not thinkers rehashing a 2000 year old superstition.

The bolded suggests to me that you haven't read much of either Kreeft or Plantiga.

Plantiga especially is respected by even secular philosophers. He practically refuted the ancient argument commonly called "The Logical Problem of Evil." Because of Plantiga's work , very few (if any) major atheist philosphers employ that argument anymore as a defeater for theism.

I should mention that a Postmodern philosopher that I did learn much from was Richard Rorty.

Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was "hot off the press" as I was taking an Epistemology class around 1979. We read the book cover-to-cover in that class.

Again its no surprise to anyone familiar with short stacker the poster and arch reactionary, which I am flabargasted you would even attempt to refute as a label, likes the work of Christian philosophers but not radical French post structuralists.

With all your baggage going in the chances of you liking Derrida, which I would be deeply surprised if you have studied in a detached intellectually honest way first hand, were always close to sub zero.

Surely if you have any self awareness you will acknowledge this.

Your judgement about Derrida speaks volumes more about you than it does Derrida.

I don't know what an "arch reactionary" is. I suspect you don't either, but are just hurling insults as this point. (Which is fine with me; I enjoy insulting you back!)

I don't know what you mean by "my baggage." I suspect you don't know either, but are just trying to be insulting. (Which is fine with me; I enjoy insulting you back!)

Actually, I don't acknowledge that. I became a Christian about six years after obtaining my Philosophy degree. (I hope your poker reads are better than your reads about me in this thread.)

I don't know what you mean by this. I suspect you don't know either, but are just trying to be insulting. (Which is fine with me; I enjoy insulting you back!)

FWIW My favourite philosopher is/was Christian.

Kierkegaard.

Im not hurling any kind of insult.

Its totally fair and reasonable to describe someone who has openly described the democratic party as "demonic" as reactionary. That is the quintessence of reactionary.

Im genuinely surprised you refute this, I dont agree with you much but have respected how if the cap fits you wear it, this cap fits you perfectly.

I neither affirmed nor denied whether or not I am an "arch reactionary." Our conversation would go a lot smoother if you actually read what I write before responding.

So, please define it for me and I'll give you a straight answer. I'm not known for hiding even my controversial views under a bushel.

Did you like the Christian philosophers before you became a Christian?

If you did that is one hell of a coincidence.

No. I think the only Christian philosopher I studied in some detail at that time was St. Augustine of Hippo. I wasn't particularly impressed by him.

I have played this please define a word that everyone knows what it means game with you before.

You know full well what a reactionary is.

Well, here is the definition from dictionary.com:

adjective

of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

By this definition, I am certainly not an "arch reactionary" (which was the term you used earlier).

In most areas I tend toward "extreme rightism", but in others I'm more libertarian.

I most certainly do not "oppose political or social change."

So, my response is: Pigeon holes are for pigeons. I kinda fit in the reactionary hole, and kinda not.

Im still going with described the democratic party as demonic as strong indicator of being reactionary and think that is totally fair and reasonable.

You do get that it is quite the thing to describe them as specifically demonic right?

1. I found a definition of reactionary from a credible source (dictionary.com)

2. Based on the definition, I was able to mark 'X' in some boxes but not in others.

3. So, I do not myself self-identify as a reactionary.

4. You are welcome to label me any way you wish. It's a free country (as the old-timers used to say).

5. Numbering a short list of terse statements is as pretentious as it is unnecessary.

Good question. On this forum it is very common for people to pose questions or ask for demonstrations of things they KNOW no one can quantify or answer and then act as if that is a winning point when they do not get the answer.

Lets see if he, at least, tries to answer, as i typically do not get any answer to the same type query you are making here.

Not sure if I am the he in question but the answer here is trivially easy.

Firstly though let me point out I was never claiming any given individual had a better understanding than another about human nature just that better understanding exists now than two hundred years ago.

This is easily evinced by pointing out that two hundred years ago people understood human nature in such a way that they concluded half the population were incapable of reasoning enough to be allowed to vote or do numerous other things.

Technically it was more than half etc and there are other cohorts that have the vote denied and much worse because of the contemporary "understanding" of human nature.

There are numerous examples of how understandings of human nature in the past meant cohort X could not do Y or could be treated in Z way.

Of course such examples still exist today but to argue there has not been progress in this regard is a nonsense.

The discussion was never about what the masses thought and always about what "cultural elites" thought.

Nothing I say above has to do with the masses in anyway what so ever, not sure where you are getting that from.

Also as has been cleared up the by the OP on this issue, we are not talking pure cultural elites.

Obviously half the population being denied the vote is due to the agency of Elites, and the dissemination of their "understanding" of humanity from the top down.

Even if pure "cultural" elites of the time did not directly contribute to that situation it would be one the vast majority agreed with.

Half the population not being able to vote is not something that is possible if Cultural/Elites are collectively opposed to it.

Of course there will be individual examples of those opposed.

Its also important to also remember the corollary of the unknown cultural figure in their time going onto be viewed as "elite" in another time, which is the elite in their own time who is totally forgotten in other times, this example is far more numerous.

Forgive me for mistaking "people" with the masses.