“Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.”
That this describes probably 90% of most popular (and many less popular) political theorists' basic premise I think is really worth more attention and thought. I had noticed that trend, but honestly it hadn't occurred to me that it was a pattern of thought more at home with psychopaths. (Possibly also high school students.) In retrospect, considering how many political theorists are or were apologists for the existing order that makes some sense, but even many who weren't also posit that claim so that's notable. It seems possible that a belief that most humans are really awful is a strong predictor for becoming interested in politics, one way or the other. Which makes sense, because if you thought people were pretty ok they way they are, you probably would not think too much about how to fix them but just get on with your life. The only thing that might get you interested in politics with a rosy view of humans would be if your experience with governments was bad, and you decided you needed to fix that... which conveniently describes most of the political theorists who don't seem to think human nature is super bad.
Just a completely irrelevant observation: bad apples make drunk hedgehogs. Go look under an apple tree in the fall and there’s going to be a Las Vegas worthy convention of hungover hedgehogs and hedgehogettes.
I think Glazov would do well to read Iain McGilchrist and Louis Sass on the broader psychopathology of western culture (albeit focused on the schizophrenic nature of our post-modern existence) and then see how the psychopath can so easily thrive where perceptions and judgments of the left hemisphere gives him an opportunistic stage from which to act.
“Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.”
That this describes probably 90% of most popular (and many less popular) political theorists' basic premise I think is really worth more attention and thought. I had noticed that trend, but honestly it hadn't occurred to me that it was a pattern of thought more at home with psychopaths. (Possibly also high school students.) In retrospect, considering how many political theorists are or were apologists for the existing order that makes some sense, but even many who weren't also posit that claim so that's notable. It seems possible that a belief that most humans are really awful is a strong predictor for becoming interested in politics, one way or the other. Which makes sense, because if you thought people were pretty ok they way they are, you probably would not think too much about how to fix them but just get on with your life. The only thing that might get you interested in politics with a rosy view of humans would be if your experience with governments was bad, and you decided you needed to fix that... which conveniently describes most of the political theorists who don't seem to think human nature is super bad.
Hmm....
“ euthanize bad apples”
Just a completely irrelevant observation: bad apples make drunk hedgehogs. Go look under an apple tree in the fall and there’s going to be a Las Vegas worthy convention of hungover hedgehogs and hedgehogettes.
I think Glazov would do well to read Iain McGilchrist and Louis Sass on the broader psychopathology of western culture (albeit focused on the schizophrenic nature of our post-modern existence) and then see how the psychopath can so easily thrive where perceptions and judgments of the left hemisphere gives him an opportunistic stage from which to act.
Ideology drives Glazov.
I laughed out loud at the three point summary of L's thesis. Put in such direct terms it's pretty much impossible to refute, indeed it's self evident.