Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche and The Sun Sister, Lucinda Riley.

From an egalitarian pow it sounds rather attractive. Noone marries into money, the droids would of course be doled out attractive according to measurable service done for society, in the package with housing, vehicle, and other fruits of ones labor. Kids born sent to common kindergarten as fast as possible to guarantee fair race.

Would suppose the aftermath of slavery and later Jim crow laws is the biggest driver. A gigantic lower class construed. Also the home of the rap culture. The symbolic defeat of the hope for a fair race and the biggest driver for glorification of crime worldwide. All the making of the guys who really were racists.

But of course, gun laws, lack of social welfare, immigration on an uncomtrolled scale, drugs do not help.

The cure - the fair race as the vision. The ruthless meritocracy with comfortability strictly doled out according to personal merit. And no fast lanes from birth. No mommies asking offspring what they want to do with life. All in the same race and all work office/factory/hospital hours until same age retirement. If you want to talk justice, are you ready to walk that walk? Crime would be pretty hard to commit in a community like that, wouldnt it?

Yep, the Scandinavian word "Lagom"

This seems an incredibly naive belief, and it is not a consensus in the medical ethics community. Many countries have not implemented any sort of vaccine passport, precisely because it is in stark contradiction with forced medical procedures, of which it is a foundation of modern medical ethics not to do, so much so that it is put into laws that are very difficult to change, essentially constitutional (and many medical ethecists say shouldn't be changed).

And domestic vaccine passports are not the same thing as needing a vaccine to travel to a different country (where you are a guest and are not "forced" to go to) nor for participation in a relatively minor set of professions (you are not "forced" to have that profession).

Forcing everyone to undergo a medical procedure by making life practically impossible without it, is obviously a controversial thing in medical ethics. Nazi's thought they were "improving society" too; and, that institutions can go disastrously wrong (if not today, then maybe tomorrow) is the foundation of the moratorium on forced medical procedures in favour of "informed-consent" based medicine. — boethius

I agree to this, this is barely a kind of "ethical" question. I think the good people not ready to get a vaccine should avoid getting infected for own egoistical reasons. Getting that germ is no walk in the park. That should be reason enough not to go hugging galore.

Trivia : My Scandinavian home country had a national referendum 1980 on whether Nuclear Power was to be allowed here. All the discussions here on the last page, I do remember(Just barely not old enough to actually vote) from the discussions leading up to that referendum. If something, better discussions, since the late 1970's-early 1980´s was a time(at least here) when political agendas were on a low for sexual appeal.
Global Warming was definitely a part of the discussions.

So, looking back to the OP and what hs been said, has any conclusions been made so far?

↪Ansiktsburk ↪boethius
Well I feel like that covers only a small range of people, those who proscribe things that they themselves wouldn't have to do because they are shielded by money in one way or another.

Global warming is like a guest at a dinner party who embarrasses everyone, doesn't respect the rules of polite conversation, mentions the elephant in the room etc.

We could spend trillions on geo-engineering but we don't. We don't because rich people have all the money and states work for them. The logical conclusion is to get rid of rich people, but that's awkward because for many decades rich people have made us believe that they are gods.

What to do in such situation? — Jingo7

That like the trillion dollar question and the right one. What to do?

In a situation where right wingers like me (in Scandinavia which is probably midway btw Democrats and Republicans in the US) tend to try to say that global warming isn't happening. But, being anti-activist-as-a-lifestyle I still would say that IF global warming was not probable you would have seen big studies by relevant institutions saying so. The economic backup for such studies should be no problems... but we do not see such studies, just odd scientist having doubt. So - as far as I am concerned - and, unlike some activists who probably sees fighting the global warming as a "goal in life" and in line with their red-green agenda, I sadly must believe the global warming is happening and that it will have consequences.

And it seems like most western countries are at that place. I do not see the situation is "something our lifestyle" has produced, capitalism or whatever. I come from a poor family, most scandinavians were around 1900, and the society has given my family a much better life, which I cannot for my life see as a bad thing. I would say that people being angry on "capitalism", should do some genealogy.

But, the problem is that our good efforts, to make life better, do cost a lot of energy, and that energy mainly comes from burning of fossil fuel.

Unless you start discussions from another standpoint I think you will be unsuccessful. You will only make the majority of people angry, and the majority will decide in some way. True, governments and big companies have agendas to make money but at the end of the day its about people.

And I think what is actually done, Windmills, solar power and - yes - nuclear power do work, energy is produced. And I think the psychological effect of that is good. As well as practical stuff people can do in societies where a lot of energy is consumed, eating less red meat, recycling, drive cars that have low emissions. That is important, to get people in favor of getting things done.

Then, bigger measurements are needed, maybe geo-engineering, maybe restrictions - including ALL energy consuming countries. It's not like Canada and Sweden that emit the most. But the world must be in a Corona state of mind to get things done. Sadly, Corona impact was very visible and very fast. Global warming is not.

What I wish is that people like my Countrywoman Greta Thunberg would try to side up with people having a good reputation even among "right wingers" of the world, like maybe Bill Gates, to de-activistify the question. It is much too important to become a flower power romance ingredient for children from academical families looking for "things to do with their lives". Which is, imho and to a large extent, how certain protests, and sadly also warnings by scientists(very seldom coming from a daytime worker background), are perceived by the people of the world not being left wing, daytime workers, and which will only do bad for getting things actually done.

Public transport. — Jingo7

If someone who do not commute tell other people how to commute, that is not necessarily a good thing. I'm not saying you do, but that is a possibility in discussions like this. A lot of people do, for instance blame "capitalism" for causing problem when they themselves get the pleasure of not having to do a daytime job thanks to a social position guaranteed by some grandparent who made money enough to let relatives become scientists, artists or musicians, having the cultural capital to do that. One has to be very careful in discussions like this, not to talk about what "we" have to do when it is in fact "they" who will pay the price. You didnt, which is good.

That said, Geo-Engineering is a viable way to reduce impact of global warming, or rather, reduce global warming but I doubt that that will actually happen. But again, one never knows.

The solution is planetary-scale geo-engineering, all other solutions are moot at this point.

I don't think people have understood yet the full implications of golbal warming and the response this will require.

On the other hand at a practical level it seems incredibly easy. Just direct, say, 3 trillion dollars every year toward geo-engineering and research, as well as producing good policy, mass-transit etc. — Jingo7

What is Mass-transit?

[

↪Ansiktsburk conservative weak but nationalism strong... interesting — deleteduserax

A northern european country governed by social democrats long time. Majority very poor 1900, a slow revolution that made equality around say 1970 very strong. Strong focus on personal merit, big trust in institutions. Good people working. Last years, global havoc, big immigration followed with high criminality. Lower class non-immigrants badly affected by immigration, upper class progressives happy "having saved the little man". The only conservatives - immigrants from muslim countries. Of course, absolute majority of immigrants good people. But havoc in a classroom is not caused by the majority being chaos kids.

Where I live, socialism is an ingredient in the local mix of isms that make up our democracy. As libertarianism, Conservatism(locally weak), nationalism(locally strong), red-green activism(locally strong) and some other isms. A pretty good system. (Guess my country...)

white supremacy über alles! — 180 Proof

Well, where I come from, we´ve had frog eaters and black haired guys ruling us blondies for centuries...
You bring up Lady Di and all that, I think you´re on the right track there, Royalty, as well as noblesse and clans from Rockefellers, Hells Angels, or clans wherever never was about "supremacy", really. Not anything in the line of Meritocracy. Rather, a way for rather mediocre guys enjoying the fruit of the labor of others. And some kind of artificial imagery to cater for that. Meghan having a baby too dark might fck that up. She should, as you say, have been aware of that.

Give us some true Meritocracy and we'll see who is the surpreme...

At Blake then, in my listing?

Donald Trump Covfefe
Carlos Ruiz Zafon Shadow of the Wind
William Blake Tyger Tyger
Dr. Dre feat. Snoop Doggy Dogg, 'Nuthin’ But a ‘G’ Thang'
Khachaturians Adagio of Spartacus
RHCP Otherside

Can they be put under the same umbrella? Where does music begin?

Some claim that free will precludes a speaker being held responsible for listeners' actions. — creativesoul

Yeah the guy who shot McKinley, wasnt he at a meeting with some hotshot anarchist celeb before shooting the Hawaii stealer? If I remember correctly that guy who held that meeting got some serious flak from media afterwards?

The soft nihilist says there are no transcendent values, no external source of meaning, nothing. I am free to invent myself. This could be considered exciting. — Tom Storm

If one simlpy likes living, going to ones not-so-fantastic job, do whats needed in the family and then just chill, driving ones wife half crazy by saying no to all fany plans for the future, does that qualify a guy to the ranks of the soft nihilists?

I do agree that it is possible to be ecstatic as a nihilist. However, I believe that it is complicated because for some the nihilism leads to suicidal despair. Some people with despair over lack of meaning in life do present to mental health services, looking for possible interventions. We could ask to what extent is despair a mental health problem? — Jack Cummins

When you just observe the beauty of the latest week's beautiful scandinavian sunrises and sunsets, you get pretty ecstatic in the progress. Or if you listen to certain parts of "Down Down" with Quo. What does saving the world really add?

So all this talk about determinism, free will and physical processes - how does that have an impact on Free speech at campuses?

Values and life goals are pretty much the reasons why anyone is alive at all.

Life is not a joyride, it's hell unless you're in the developed world. — Darkneos

Do you say that from own experience? Don't forget most of us non-academy guys have poverty just a few generations back. My grandfathers and grandmothers was from the scandinavian plebeys, born late 1800-s. They for sure enjoyed life. But using the Rosling measurements they sure grew up in the lowest of those 4 clasiifications. Food on the table was the level of life.
Also, most people, if you read both Rosling and Pinker is NOT on that poverty grade any longer.

Myself born in working class with no mothers curling or enthusiasming have absolutely no need of "goals in life" or "meanings". If we go further than have a job and make sure the kids are fine. As long as all catastrophies are taken care of, give me an Ipad or a book, and I do need no more "goals"

I am born in working class but stumbled into university since I did good in school, I have no problem understanding complex problems, so I ended up, doing the work I was alotted, living in a semi-posh neighbourhood. Kids here do definitely get curled. And they do have that "meaning of life" karma hammered into them from the semi-posh parents. I can see that a lot of these kids end up as "entrepeneurs" or "social justice warriors". It seem like, the more you are spoiled the more you have to be a utilitarian. Know what's best for the world. And MUST have those meanings and goals.

While the good folks I grew up with and people I have met travelling in "poorer countries" seem to enjoy life a lot. Without all that fancy meaning.

Why should one kill oneself at all? Why do one need "values" or "life goals" to live? Enjoy the joyride. Sure there are people that live shit lives, mental disorders or whatever. People that run into hopeless situations. Those people also probably dont think much about values and stuff, they know bloody well their pain and thats probably it. But for anyone not in a current hell, why suicide?

Rather than Dylan and that 68 I wish we could get to something better. Flower power just pisses daytime workers off. A worldwide movement towards empowerment and responsibility. As a matter of fact I do think this IS actually happening. But very, very slowly.

The key at the moment I would controversially say - is to bring in the women into that loop. Women need to start to see people as people and not as roles. Their children, other peoples children, oppressed people and whatever. People need, worldwide, to take personal responsibility, not to be taken care of. I am NOT saying that women do not take responsibility, they do - too much! They need to make other people take responisbility. Do their part of the chores that need to be done. Starting with their own children.

Thread start looked promising, but going to the last page i mainly see stuff that looks like mathematical equations.

Could anyone active in the thread summarize the findings so far in this thread?

You say that, 'Its easy to be a Robin Hood when you do not take the consequences yourself'. I can assure your that I am not leading the most comfortable life. I don't have a — Jack Cummins

You say that, 'Its easy to be a Robin Hood when you do not take the consequences yourself'. I can assure your that I am not leading the most comfortable life. I don't have a job and feel very uncertain about my own future. So, I don't feel that I am writing from the perspective of advantage. I also think that many of the categories between working and middle class have broken down. Also, academic qualifications may not count for that much nowadays.

So, my whole discussion of prejudice must be seen in the context of a rapidly changing world and of changing values. We may be moving into a world in which yesterday's prejudices may be receding and a different set of new biases and inequalities surfacing. Therefore, my consideration, which was stressed in the opening of the thread, is not simply about seeing prejudices 'out there's in the world but about the whole way in which we think ,form and hold on to preconceived ideas about people. I see us being in this altogether, despite our often lonely struggles, and the only solution I see behind it all is a general need for compassion. — Jack Cummins

Sorry for late answer, aint here too often..
From an overall perspective I do to a great extent agree with your views here. But the ways to adapt to a changing world can be good or bad, and the ”posh children leftist-Activism”, similar to the ”students” of the 1968 revolts has not proven to be the best catalysts.

Even if the world is changing the ”end of history” kind of paradigm is imho worth fighting for. Not necessarily capitalism as we see it today but still the relatively well working idea of a western social-liberal state where people are empowered and takes resposibility.

MLK probably did not have the vision of the rap/gangsta culture that has spread from the USA to the immigrant suburbs of European states. Higly unliked by the ”daytime workers” that do live close to the "no-go-zones". The situation in the US differs in a way from my Scandinavian home country since the gangstas can be traced back to the Slavery, people involountarily transported from Africa to work at the cotton fields in the south, while the gangstas in my home country mostly are children of people having been admitted as refugees. But still there is a similarity - its posh people that brought slaves to US (Englishmen stemming from british gentry), and it´s posh leftist people that heavily supports unrestricted immigration without making sure integration works. And those posh people also do have in common with the gangsta community the lack of Daytime job for daytime jobs sake.

I think this is the formula - Daytime job for everyone. Of course that requires a weaker capitalism to avoid unemployment, also good since capitalists(as well as a lot of academics) produces drone offspring, IE people that do not work with what they best serve mankind with.

The concept of "school" or "working in a bigger organization" is a very good concept. You do stuft that needs to be done, good for the community. If you do it good you get a good grade in school and you get a good raise working for an organisation. I think this should be the story for EVERYONE.

And when you do not work, you can pursue whatever art project, sport or whatever you like. But the discipline of getting your comfort from your own hard work is from every political point of view a good one.

Equal opportunity? Tax to make sure that opportunity is equal? Of course. But the standard you have is fair and personally earned.

Well-to-do mommys will of course have a challenge to adopt to this world view

Quite a few in my home country, Åsa Wikforss probably the most known outside the academies.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am interested in discussing prejudice and I don't consider my background as being 'snug' or'posh'. I would argue that that the striving to overcome prejudice goes beyond being a progressive idea and is central to any genuine concern about human beings. — Jack Cummins

It´s very easy for people from a academical, semi posh background to be theoretical "world savers", typically, not suffering from the consequences. While blue and white collar people gets heavily affected.

A locally famous Philosophy professor in my home country grew up in a not-so-good suburb, but her mother being from a posh background made it so she went to a posh school where no troubles were, coming into adolescense, and she florished in Wittgenstein and what not.

She and her daughters do now push hard for immigration to be expanded in a country that have allowed much more immigration than other neightboring countries. Our prime minister has admitted the immigration is not successful due to the large numbers of immigrants. There is an enormous lot of problems due to this immigration.

Those problems will not affect the professor and her daughters, but her classmates from her old school, the nerdy ones that took care of their studies, but cannot afford living in the academical parts of towns, their kids will face almost mandatory bullying by immigrant gangs in the schools of the not-so-good suburbs.

Its easy to be a Robin Hood when you do not take the consequences yourself. In other words : The acadademic that pushes for stuff like immigration should bloody well make sure that their kids are sent to the downtown high schools.

The question is a practical one :
What chores for other people is worth saving a life?
Closely related, what chores for productive people are worth increasing standard for non-productive people?

Lots of people here born in warm, snug, semi-posh academical families with ”progressive” values, seemingly.

The sound parts of masculinity and femininity could well be something that both male and female should conform to.

What about toxic femininity... — Hanover

That need to be discussed heavily. Women having suffrage has not only influenced society in positive ways. Spoiling of kids have become institutional and has lead to the development of hailing of low effort and results. The typical academic woman will go to extreme measures to perform well herself (at work, at home, with friends) but will spoil her own kids severely, making them "snowflakes" if the husband do not put some sense in the kids. She will further push for "weaker people", not requiring any personal responsibility from poorer people, refugees, people in minorities or whatever.

Being from a background way more disprivileged than any group in current scandinavia, the poorer people still held a high sense of responsibility and industry. As did scandinavian people that emigrated to the USA.

A male view, like that of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King is that Opportunity indeed should be equal, but people should also, regardless of situation do their best.

I do also doubt that, If female had suffrage from say 1750, that the mean lifetime and comfort would have been the same as the one we have now. Scientific discovery and industry are heroic activities, apart from also being team efforts.

As always, I do not say that all men are all masculine, and that all females are feminine. I love romance novels. But femininity as such is nothing that is all good.

Not being from a Academical family but a daytimejob background, a family that have made the scandinavian class journey from poor agricultural workers in the 1800-s to now in my generation (me, my brother and all my cousins being either medical doctors or civil engineer) made the class journey to the academics, now living in academic/posh neighbourhoods filled with people whose grandfathers were wealth can see masculiny from probably a better viewpoint than one that has been in a family without social movements:

Masculinity has, as I see it two main areas in which to exist: The family and the world.

In the family people like those brought up in something like a republican conservative family might look back on 1958 and seeing that as the wunderland, when dad worked, mommy made food and kids were grounded if smoking.

Having a dominant father, a rather humble mother and being from something as unusual as a Scandinavias actively Christian family I had my fair share of that. My Mother died just before the Covid and my 80+ yo father had to learn stuff like washing clothes and so. That my mother did all of until the day she passed away.

This was NOT very good, especially when we were kids (way back in another millenia), and my mother just couldn´t cope with two strong-willed sons. But the kids and the home was her resposibility, dad brought the cash.

Myself being married to a woman of equal education and salary as me, we have like shared everything. I wash the dishes and have forced her to be able to fix stuff that breaks down in the house, taking care of the economy and so. That works splendidly.
Even so more, because I have a very Male view on how children should be treated and she has a very feminine one. She is kind "want to do whats best for the kids" ask them "what they want to do with their lives", while I, being from a poorer background than my wife do not tolerate any traces in my kids of being spoiled or omnipotent. My daughter and son has got a little of each, and although they do have some more sense of pressure to produce results, they seem to do good in University, and will not be drones but people that really contribute to mean human lifetime and human comfortability.

Because the other area is the world. And the world is a place which, for humans have become a tremendously much better place than in the 18th century. And it continues to be better and better. Fewer and fewer people are poor. Fewer and fewer wars are fought. For sure there are problems with ecosystems and so, but the solutions to that will be in the same area as fixed mean lifetime.

And that is where Masculinity comes in. Face it - what big contribution to human welfare has a woman´s name? What really big scientific discovery? For sure, women have not had the same chances to education and such in earlier times, but they do have those chances now. Guys do invent stuff. That testosterone, Darwin published Origin Of Species earlier than he had intended, to make sure he got the honor, other guys were on the track too.
Women do great good too, but that is more in terms of making a case for humanity. I do not doubt that the reduction in warfare can be traced back to womenly influence including suffrage.

So guys push forward and girls moderate. We see a very interesting fight on this subject among caucasians in my Scandinavian home country. Among people of education, the people that will be politically influential - The question of refugees from middle east and Africa. We have admiitted a tremendous lot of immigrants to come to our country. Something that on a humanitarian point of view seem like a good idea, but at the same time, a very large crowd of people from a totally other culture has seen a tremendous lot of problems, murder, rape, beatings of "whities" and a very large unemployment. And through that, a Racism that did not exist before. Generally, a lot of guys goes to the half nazi party that used to be like 4% and now is like 20% in our elections, while women of academy tend to vote for the red-green party that hails Greta Thunberg and want to admit an unlimited number of refugees to our country.

There, some Yin and Yang for you... The solution? Governments that can take a Yin and Yang look at stuff. In my country the feminine view has been a little too dominant for a couple of decades, while the Middle East countries would fare well with a little more, probably.

taking over responsibility for other people's lives - is only our duty as good citizens, some people are too irresponsible to look after themselves and it would be both disruptive to social harmony and indecent of us to just let them ruin their lives out of a misplaced sense of individual freedom. The harmony of the community as a whole must come above individual freedom if the community is to thrive.

not taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves - People who are unable to take care of themselves are a burden on others, it will be painful at first to not take care of them, but it will be best for the long-term health of the community if we don't continue to support their dependency. All they need is a bit of a 'kick out the door' and they'll stand on their own two feet, which will not only benefit the community, but give them more self-respect and dignity.

imposing all these solutions 'from above' - is necessary because only that way can the voices of the dis-empowered be truly heard. If we let community groups manage their own affairs it's too easy for the loudest voices in those groups to simply dominate and we can police that as well with hundreds of small groups as we can with one big government.

ignoring corruption - is necessary because corruption does not actually change policy to any great extent yet focussing on it takes government and policing effort away from matters which actually affect people to the detriment of society. There are serious crimes like murder and rape, there are important decisions to make like fighting terrorism and this focus on a trivial matter of a few thousand in bribes detracts from that important work.

and not codifying values which support social harmony - is important because societies are dynamic and policies toward social harmony need to be reflective of that fast moving situation. Codifying them in law would make yesterday's solutions legally binding for today's problems. We need as small a law as possible so that we can remain adaptive to changing circumstances. — Isaac

Think Laws (and taxes) seems like a pretty good idea anyways. Gives people room for initiatives within given frames and still possibilities to give help for the ones really in need. You have a lot of stuff here, som that I approve of and some not, but the concept of a state with an effective framework of laws, taxes and government has proven to be a useful solution to the problems you mention.

The Globalized world makes this a little more tricky, of course.

But, this Christian obsession is annoying and plainly wrong - I can't believe that someone who usually is so determined to get to the bedrock of human understanding is stuck in this shallow paradigm. The Logos idea is not even Christian. It was certainly around in 5 century BC with Heraclitus and who knows how much earlier. The entire Christian creed is derivative. — yebiga

What exactly do you mean by Christian obsession? The Biblical series on youtube?

The birthrate has a double peak: women in middle management positions and semi-routine occupations are by far the largest contributors to the birthrate. The former will typically be in good, reliable, twin-income households (in couples in which only one person works, it is more likely the worker is male here; likewise the vast majority of couples contributing to the birthrate are heterosexual). — Kenosha Kid

Do I recognise that... Live in a community where both male and female mostly are academics... Me and missus have two great children(now in university age), but boy did she go on about having a third in the beginning of the millenia. All the neighbour women managed to wring a third(and some fourth) out of their husbands but I remained steadfast. Having neighbour gettogethers, the neighbour ladies even tried to convince me, and there were evil schemes laid out...

Yep, back when you died of toothache. The life expectancy was below 40 years iirc. Personally I'd take dentistry and medicine over self-rule, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a happy medium between strict authoritarianism and anarchism. — Kenosha Kid

A boring, unsexy thing called social liberalism, where the state tries to guarantee a reasonable standard of life for all citizens but still allows for personal initiatives. But maybe not the paradise for young offspring of lawyers, artists or capitalist, seeing saving the world as a possible meaning of life, daytime work working hours unthinkable.

We used to have that in the country where I live, considered leftist by most US people. But academical family born leftist have spoiled it all with dreams. Now racism is worse than ever and our political system is in chaos. A bit anarchistic, maybe. People shoot each other. They did not use to do that here.

Anarchism worked for most of the history of the human race. It just isn't practical now. — Kenosha Kid

When the mean lifetime was 40 ys and childs dying in infancy was a common thing.

Which is what the original left, the true left, stands for -- liberty and equality for all -- and what the original right, the true right, is against. — Pfhorrest

Being from at poor/working class family, grown up in a no-go area until 8yo, poor on all my grandparents sides back to the 17th century - What my ancestor and all my friends(i never made friends with the badasses) strived for was Equal Opportunity. And of course a stable state where institutions protected one from opressors of high and low type.

That "liberty and equality for all" sounds kind of good, and it somewhat relates to something I have seen. But most of all it sounds like a vision dreamt ut in the head of some bourgeoise kid looking for "a goal in life". Things have to work, and there is no such wonderland as that of Nozick or leftist/rightist Anarchist. But of course, if one can make it work, why not? Just haven't seen it.

As I see it, Those antifa, blm, congress invaders whatever they are called are really not on a left/right scale either. As the Nazis were not on a left/right scale.

Far right is the minimal state and far left is total equality. All those extremista just want to push for their own group’s well being. Not least the red wine environmental left, that primarily want to make their lives meaningful, Hägglund style.

When an anarchist is not a snowflake or a chaos familiy kid, I get surprised. There should be some islands in the pacific where those people could go living, anarcisming each other. Leftist and rightist.

And I believe this is aided more by great literature (and music and art study and practice, meditation and psychedelics) than by philosophy. Both are desirable though; sharpening of the critical faculties and cultivation of the affections. However one can live a good life, ethically speaking; while holding central beliefs that from a philosophical point of view, are absurd, just as one can have the sharpest critical intellect, hold few absurd beliefs, and yet be a total arsehole. — Janus

So what good does listening to music and eating magic mushrooms do?