I think this is kind of weird because it suggests an opposition to systemic critique when the problem with liberal-democratic philosophers is not that they do systemic critique (and sometimes their problem is exactly that they’re too atomizing) but that they do it very poorly or anti-socially. The secret police in this scenario (which is a spooky way of saying intelligence agents, basically) are also part of the system, and if what they are doing is enabled by the system and bad, that too is part of the purview of systemic critique. The structure of society is the main thing a political philosopher should be concerned with, and getting too caught up in generalizing from specific cases (or stupid thought experiments) is an actual problem.
I mean, I think that what the quote here is really arguing against is cargo cult thinking, but I think it’s expressing that point extremely poorly.
I mean, I think you and I agree on the post, see the comment I made where I responded to the OOP and you said “lmao ikr.” I’m not in any way defending Thief (who is a cowardly asshole and completely wrong here) or this instance that I’ve never heard of, I’m just saying that the specific argument AnBol posted [as-presented] is a detrimental one because, as socialists, we should be very concerned with promoting systemic critique because we are opposed to the standing system and this argument is ceding too much ground to the liberals by acting like their society is good on a systemic level.
I think this is kind of weird because it suggests an opposition to systemic critique when the problem with liberal-democratic philosophers is not that they do systemic critique (and sometimes their problem is exactly that they’re too atomizing) but that they do it very poorly or anti-socially. The secret police in this scenario (which is a spooky way of saying intelligence agents, basically) are also part of the system, and if what they are doing is enabled by the system and bad, that too is part of the purview of systemic critique. The structure of society is the main thing a political philosopher should be concerned with, and getting too caught up in generalizing from specific cases (or stupid thought experiments) is an actual problem.
I mean, I think that what the quote here is really arguing against is cargo cult thinking, but I think it’s expressing that point extremely poorly.
Oh god dammit the philosophy nerds are here. I knew this post was gonna bring you mfers out.
I mean, I think you and I agree on the post, see the comment I made where I responded to the OOP and you said “lmao ikr.” I’m not in any way defending Thief (who is a cowardly asshole and completely wrong here) or this instance that I’ve never heard of, I’m just saying that the specific argument AnBol posted [as-presented] is a detrimental one because, as socialists, we should be very concerned with promoting systemic critique because we are opposed to the standing system and this argument is ceding too much ground to the liberals by acting like their society is good on a systemic level.
My comment was purely tongue in cheek, I too am a philosophy nerd lol.
Oh, please pardon me then, my mistake. Sometimes there are people who say things like that somewhat more earnestly.