I don't mean to sound like a retard, but is it just me, or is secularism becoming increasingly anti-intellectual? It seems like it was very intellectual back in Foucault's day, but now it's trending more toward Sam Harris and SJW's and misogynistic libertarians.
Anything becoming more common means there will be more anti-intellectuals involved in it. Secularism is more common now than at any other point in western history so the plebs and charlatans are starting to fuck around with it.
Politicians are especially guilty here because back in Foucault's day, neither American political party was avowedly secular, but now one basically is secular and the other is dominated by religious zealots so there's incentive for both sides to be shitty about it but the change is more pronounced for the secularists because they were much more intellectual than the average religious person within living memory.
>people have democracy
Representative democracy is fundamentally a form of Political Oligarchy.
And it doesn't even work properly because you cannot have equal political capital when economic capital equals greater political capital.
what you are all saying is that you have a fantasy of a democracy, a pure delirium, and once you attempt it, you find that the reality does not comply to your imagination.
You do not even know why you want a national structure to manage people. you do not even know why you want to manage people, beyond yet another delirium terrorising you about a lack of rules.
We want rules because without them people behave like savage animals to each other on anything beyond a tribal level. We wanted democracy to uplift the working class and better distribute political power among the populace. We want a national structure because in the current state of things we find that without it, many people will die.
>plebs who think we have genuine democracy
>plebs who think genuine democracy is something to strive for
absolute monarchy is something we need to bring back
no, I don't want to be a king nor I envision myself as one
I wouldn't call it anti-intelectualism, I would cal it philistinezation instead. A lot of it is backed by an overextended empiricism into areas that generally weren't empirical. Areas that depended more of an understading of history, psychoanalalysis and literature.
I think that that Sam Harris quote about how ethics are boring says it ali. You only can think boredom can be used as an argument if you look down at an discipline that is not yours.
The sons and daughters of Enlightenment rationalism thought they could create perfect democracies and spread their democratic ideals all around the world for people who would be willing to learn from them. They were wrong, and now all they to is tweet about how bad Islam is and how racist people are.
The solution? Violent war followed by absolutism. Only a great King can change the face of this declining world.
>war followed by absolutism. Only a great King can change the face of this declining world.