Liberalism is an art. That is the truth. The other side of that is anything that poses as anything less than Liberalist ideology is not even a counter approach to reason. Quite simply anything dissociative of this acts as an antithesis to Liberal ideology. The philosophy against Liberal principles, is not a sure thing as merely to denounce from it a position of insatiablity.
"An anti-liberal theory on the rise..." does NOT consistute a philsophically plausible end game.
How Liberalist philosophy is proving to become nihilism is without validity. An indivisable slippery slope. Nothing to compete with there. It is simply peak anti-intellectual in the event that you are being censored if you speak Liberalist truth. (As herein...) "pretends to represent universal reason" is a laughable contractiction to all philosophy. Not just Liberalism. If pretending to reason, is predicated as Heidegger, you are instead - in fact - a lost soul. A vagabond.
Marco Almeida 2025 ©️
-The Peg
°□●•●●°•□●•●°●
Interlocutor:
An extremely important component of Professor Alexandr Dugin, alongside his criticism of the Western belief in "Progress", is that Liberalism is rooted in Medieval Nominalism. Nominalism being the doctrine that rejects Platos Theory of Universals and proclaims that there are no such thing as groups of things with identifying characteristics but that there are only individual material things. This is essentially where the Nihlism of Liberalism is rooted.
°□•¤•□《•□•□•
Prove to everyone that nihilism is Liberalism in principle. Unless you are informing me with presumptuous abstract philsophically aburdist ideals. Anyone, can try to do that. Categorically philosophy is meant to be debunked in such fashion. That is it. Your entire argument is a slippery slope.
MA2025
°•●•●•●•●••
Absolutism is a form of superlative, where conditioning is meant to inform the masses of what they think, and is a classic form of propaganda. Speaking as a philosopher, you should know that.
What you refer to right off this same interjection is what we can infer (is Liberal individualism) as a misnomer. It is such toothless approach to reason with - FYI. Empirically invalid, in defense of characterizing liberal ideology. This is outlandish communist idealism.
Further to not providing evidence that Liberalist notions are invalid... deserve a proper funeral. But not on Putin's watch and not while right wing idelaism exists. This follows...
I as a Liberalist take a counter revolutionary appraoch as Zelensky is with Ukraine.
To further contrast your description of "liberal individualism" - yes - things change. Times change. But thinking? No.
You are referring to liberals using a false dichotomy. Wait. Wait a minute... what if. What if what you are saying is categorically true.
The whole arguement: Katian ethics wouldn't even begin to acknowledge, that an incomplete theory in trying to negate the other, does NOT reduce Liberalism to a irrational stereotype. What on earth does ANY system that moral and ethical peoblems not arise? A dictatorship? A fascist state? A socialist form of government?
Let's not bullshit here. The illogical contractions embedded in communist ideology, is Putin trying to philosophically maneuver his ideas into the history thereof. If his shrills couldn't do it, then why not put the furtive together? How else is your message eliminating Liberalism.
I just have to know.
Marco Almeida 2025 ©️
-The Peg
°°●●°°●°●°▪︎°
Interlocutor:
Liberal Individualism constitutes a philosophical system wherein moral and ethical considerations are relegated to individual discretion, as opposed to being recognized as absolute truths embedded in the values of the society and civilization into which one is born and raised. This system is tantamount to a philosophy of Moral Relativism, which underlies the Liberal assertion that 'morality cannot be legislated.' In practice, it is impossible to reconcile Liberalism with a concrete, non-relative morality. This, in turn, deprives individuals of a sense of sacrality and absolute truth, culminating in an existence characterized by meaninglessness and atomization.
My response:
1- "This system is tantamount to a philosophy of Moral Relativism, which underlies the Liberal assertion that 'morality cannot be legislated.' In practice, it is impossible to reconcile Liberalism with a concrete, non-relative morality."
No. This fallacy is wrong. How is that you are describing a Liberal assertion. Prove it. In what are you deducing legislation, cannot be morally renounced??? That is beyond absurd. We are not on the same page if at all!
2- "This, in turn, deprives individuals of a sense of sacrality and absolute truth, culminating in an existence characterized by meaninglessness and atomization."
Metaphysical interpretation takes art. In what world should censorship be allowed.
Marco Almeida 2025 ©️
-the peg
°●•○°○○°○°○°
(Interlocutor)
The problem is in the Enlightenment reduction of everything down to reason alone. Kant made human concepts into fixed projections and that is a big problem. We need to see such concepts as part of life, being both creations and discoveries, taken together.
My response:
I do understand your words as in the terminology of what "Enlightenment reduction" ...may or may not ensue. However, let ensure (as we can trust) the arguemental fallacy associated that ALL - yes all - Libreal ideology terminating nihilism is a false dichotomy. (My point therein should help.) That the false cause in saying: Liberalism is Nihlism in disguise is a misnomer. I accuse anyone - ANYONE... in the abuse of using such an argument is not only anti-to reason. It is Kantian ethics run amok.
" We need to see such concepts as part of life, being both creations and discoveries, taken together."
Now that I can classify as reasonable. To an end point (Kant) that as a means (principly). That which acts as truth.
Marco Almeida ©️ 2025
That type of argument is in its (form is...) formal logic. (I would agree with.) However, if we take the informal approach to reason which is non empirical. Evidence has to act as proof of what is perception, added or heightened conscious awareness in practice. This does in no way qualify to performative elements. The rational animal thinks. The human mind deduces everything that happens using "sensory information". What that equates to is your individualist argument... that because we live in this day and age of informal fallacies (i.e. misinformation) the use of critical thinking (non-scientific) is to commit error upon error of validity.
My point hereafter, is (that) will always in no way mistake logic for illogical reasoning. Individualist (modern philosophy vs the tradtionalist) must cosider all of logic as the end game.
