Nice read. But all of those philosophical dribble, pales in (my view) comparison to the political stand a person takes on the relevant political issues. That is the determinant of if he's a conscious and moral intellectual or just a man that can speak and write pretty word
I'm primarily talking about gaza here (I can't find "michea" stance on this). Not because I'm purist, it's the exact opposite because what action you choose or not choose/silent on this genocide determine your entire principle both on these issue and other. As gaza is paradoxically the most morally clear issue yet is also the most socially and economically (sometime politically) damaging to take a clear and principled stand on (not just waffling).
Thank you for taking the time to read. I really appreciate it. I tend to think that philosophy and politics (or theory and praxis, as is often said) are more closely linked than you do, but of course I agree on the clarity and urgency of the Palestine question. As far as I know, Michéa has not said much about it, though I admit that I have mostly read his work (much of which predates October 7th) and do not keep up with the interviews he may be giving to radio stations or magazines, etc. He may have said something, and I have missed it.
Thanks for replying to my comment. I always have such skepticism of intellectual and philosopher that tackle these complexes moral issue (sometime with non conformist conclusion). Yet hold back their tongue on question that even normie lib sometime would not waffle on. Probably because as I said previously gaza is the only if not one of (the other being early Iraq war opposition) the few topic that could endangered your career and ruin your life.
That's why it's such a litmus test for me. Because if you can stand up the most powerful lobby, then I don't think the fossil fuel or Wayne Pierre, the healthcare lobby or anyother special interest can influence or shake your resolve.
Nice read. But all of those philosophical dribble, pales in (my view) comparison to the political stand a person takes on the relevant political issues. That is the determinant of if he's a conscious and moral intellectual or just a man that can speak and write pretty word
I'm primarily talking about gaza here (I can't find "michea" stance on this). Not because I'm purist, it's the exact opposite because what action you choose or not choose/silent on this genocide determine your entire principle both on these issue and other. As gaza is paradoxically the most morally clear issue yet is also the most socially and economically (sometime politically) damaging to take a clear and principled stand on (not just waffling).
Thank you for taking the time to read. I really appreciate it. I tend to think that philosophy and politics (or theory and praxis, as is often said) are more closely linked than you do, but of course I agree on the clarity and urgency of the Palestine question. As far as I know, Michéa has not said much about it, though I admit that I have mostly read his work (much of which predates October 7th) and do not keep up with the interviews he may be giving to radio stations or magazines, etc. He may have said something, and I have missed it.
Thanks for replying to my comment. I always have such skepticism of intellectual and philosopher that tackle these complexes moral issue (sometime with non conformist conclusion). Yet hold back their tongue on question that even normie lib sometime would not waffle on. Probably because as I said previously gaza is the only if not one of (the other being early Iraq war opposition) the few topic that could endangered your career and ruin your life.
That's why it's such a litmus test for me. Because if you can stand up the most powerful lobby, then I don't think the fossil fuel or Wayne Pierre, the healthcare lobby or anyother special interest can influence or shake your resolve.