New Keith Woods and Joel Davis video on popular sovereignty - some criticisms

submitted by NeoRail from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Woods is too idealistic and refuses realism in favor of idealism which is informed by his Christian socialist beliefs.

His debate against imperialism was really weak and demonstrated that he understood nothing about military matters or supply chains. His video about fine tuning of the universe and how that proves God is real is really weak as well. For the record, I believe in God as well but his arguments against fine tuning were really weak.

People like Woods and Joel fall into the pitfall of over-intellectualization.

This is an issue with DR intellectualism. Too many philosophy and humanities graduates, blabbering about impractical and abstract concepts while being ignorant of real things like warfare, history, and scientific concepts.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Too many philosophy and humanities graduates, blabbering about impractical and abstract concepts while being ignorant of real things like warfare, history,

History is humanities.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Every "argument" for the existence of God is weak in my opinion. They're pretty much all logical fallacies.

By the way, didn't Joel debate imperialism?

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I disagree with some of the things you say, but I must say, some of the positions he takes on imperialism and internationalism are strange. I have not watched his debate on imperialism, but in this video on popular sovereignty he briefly addresses imperialism. I think he makes some good arguments against imperialist rhetoric, since given the situation in the West today such rhetoric is completely needless and a liability, but at the same time, the anti-imperialist position that he has adopted seems just as needless. I had thought that his condemnation of imperialism was motivated by a desire to build international solidarity, but according to the statements in this video the point of taking this position is to build more popular support in the West. In that case, it is difficult to see the utility of actually taking a position on the issue at all beyond the typical isolationist arguments about the cost of military interventionism, because beyond that imperialism really does not impact the lives of Western people in any way.

This is an issue with DR intellectualism. Too many philosophy and humanities graduates, blabbering about impractical and abstract concepts while being ignorant of real things like warfare, history, and scientific concepts.

You do not consider these a part of the humanities? I suppose STEM is a separate field, but there is also the philosophy of science which is just as important. All these make up a part of the humanities. I would assume that the study of warfare is also a part of the humanities, as a topic in history.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

beyond that imperialism really does not impact the lives of Western people in any way.

Keeping shipping lanes clear is not imperialism?

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You make a valid point, but I do not think it is relevant to my argument. If we have to be realistic, modern Western normies don't really care about the war in Syria or Israeli imperialism in Palestine.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You do not consider these a part of the humanities? I suppose STEM is a separate field, but there is also the philosophy of science which is just as important. All these make up a part of the humanities. I would assume that the study of warfare is also a part of the humanities, as a topic in history.

History is a humanities subject and imo one of the only good humanities subjects left. Warfare is a very murky field because it doesn't fall into any specific categories. There are elements of science, humanities, and economics in it.

It's just that I was complaining about the oversaturation of philosophers in the alt-right, Keith woods, Joel Davis, Jay Dyer, Apollonian Germ, Richard Spencer, Tyler Hamilton...all bombarding us with their droll philosophering...trying to tie present-day western decline to some obscure intellectual fad centuries ago, be it nominalism, Christianity, humanism, liberalism, etc.

To his credit, Joel Davis does point out correctly that the real root of the problem lies in the years in the immediate run up to ww2 and the events during and after it.

The absolute worst of the bunch is Jay Dyer.

[–]NeoRail[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see that you do not like philosophy very much. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. From the people you listed, I am only really familiar with Keith Woods and to a much lesser extent, Joel Davis. I have seen very little from Hamilton, since I don't like his work. For the rest, besides Spencer, I don't know anything about them. Personally, I don't consider Spencer a philosopher though.

It should be acknowledged that philosophy is not always useful, especially not when it is wrong. As with everything, a lot of people who engage with philosophy are wrong. It is not hard to understand why people dislike it. Still, I think there is merit in studying the meaning and history of ideas. To give one example, Freudianism was precisely an obscure intellectual fad limited to elite liberal circles, yet it has come to completely shape the popular understanding of the mind in recent decades. These revolutions in the way we understand the world are fairly frequent, and often have negative consequences. People who attempt to trace remote ideological causes for European decline typically do this because they believe that this can be helpful with returning to an original state of truth and health. I think that is a respectable mentality, although often there are all sorts of confusions and diversions.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a good point.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Woods isn't Christian. I have a feeling Davis is just a Christian larper who decided to convert to Christianity because he finds the traditionalist Christian way of combating liberalism appealing.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

because he finds the traditionalist Christian way of combating liberalism appealing.

Why? It has failed for centuries now.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I hope I am not being too harsh to Davis, but I feel the same way. He does not strike me as an especially Christian man. In general, I think most of the political Christians don't really take Christianity seriously. For them, it's just a convenient tool to promote right wing beliefs, since instead of having to justify their views on abortion, sexuality, etc. through secular logic, they can just refer to the Bible instead.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

since instead of having to justify their views on abortion, sexuality, etc. through secular logic, they can just refer to the Bible instead.

Which is silly. Secular arguments are much stronger.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In this era, yes, certainly. There is also the fact that secular logic makes it easier for people to understand each other and compromise. It is difficult to imagine why a secular rightist would be willing to side with the religious nationalists on issues like abortion, for example, if anti-abortionist positions are justified exclusively on the basis of Christian doctrine.