Sanguine has responded to my post on the inability of anyone to define capitalism and science, so I will extend the courtesy of a counter response, despite it being very difficult due to the incommensurability of the positions we hold.
Firstly, Sanguine has evaded the central point of my post, and that is the inability to define capitalism and science. Beginning with science, he freely admits that:
“Half of the firepower of the last centuries philosophy of science was giving more or less credible definitions or responses to this”
The key take away is the plural form of “definition” which is an acceptance that there is no definition (singular) of science. This is a problem. Hence why Sanguine has just settled on Popper and evaded the issue. Past this point, it does get somewhat interesting as the accusation of Essentialism is not something I am familiar with, but is something I will tentatively accept. In fact, it is something that I have been pushing towards in my critiques of Modernity and its attendant obfuscations and gibberish.
Essentialism seems to be heavily connected to Realism and the philosophical tradition of western society (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle etc,) and I wouldn’t consider it a mistake. That Sanguine is using an arch Liberal thinker as a grounds for his accusation is curious, given Neoreaction was supposed to be a rejection of liberalism, but this is something I find more and more from Neoreaction – psychotic hardcore defence of Liberalism. Quite frankly I have zero time for Popper and consider him an enemy of any reactionary thinking. Reading his ‘Open Society and it’s Enemies’ is a formidably difficult thing to do, as it is so drippingly Liberal it makes me want to vomit. Reading his comments on Essentialism and his personal and grotesque criticisms of Aristotle just makes me think the man was a scoundrel, considering he basically declares Essentialism an error and enemy of democracy – Essentialism which he connects to Plato and Aristotle – central pillars of western society. This is in contrast to his Nominalism derived from Protestantism, which has turned western society into an interracial gangrape led by one of this great students at this very moment (note the connection between Soros’ ‘Open Society Foundation’ and the title of the book ‘Open Society’ I will let you go google yourself.)
Popper’s criticism of Essentialism is obfuscation and his definition of science is incoherent. Worse than that, his criticism of Essentialism is pure hate driven liberal bullshit without any real honesty. Consider also that I have made it clear I consider liberalism as nothing more than a roiling mess of stupidity which is fed from destroying order without ever having to stop consider it’s positions with any sort of clarity, and it is a wonder why Sanguine thinks bringing Popper to criticise me would be of any help. I literally consider Liberalism derived from Protestantism (as have many thinkers) which when combined with the insights of De Jouvenel, Feyerabend and Rene Girard lead me to conclude that it has not been successful through any integral value other than as solvent for society, a mass delusion/ fashion and the effects of selection pressure by power in a high/low dynamic. The very existence of Liberalism is predicated on a functioning society and tradition (built on the back of scholasticism or other actual tradition that required being able to define what you were talking about) to which it can play the negative. It is purely an anti-tradition.
Either there is something real to which the term science can be applied, or its nonsense. I have no problem putting forward the correspondence theory of truth and calling out the bullshit of modernity. What is Science and what is Capitalism? Answer the question without mysticism. Popper reverted to Falsifiability, but this is nonsense and renders it pointless. Rejecting Essentialism just allows the party to keep going, and it seems to me the central premise and crutch for this is “what other people think” ergo science is largely a mass movement, everybody just knows what it is, so stop asking, science is just consensus. This consensus is not explained. Ever. It’s a dirty secret, and the consensus changes a lot. Why is it a dirty secret? Because it is not supposed to be a consensus – it is supposed to be objective.
As for capitalism, it seems the desire for something to match with the word capitalism is again verboten because it punctures the consensus. I can provide a tentative definition of my own – Capitalism is non-ordered economic acquisition which equates to simply bad/ unsocial behaviour, which is again a negative thing, and not a positive thing. This is not too far from List’s criticism of free trade if we equate social to a social unit such as the nation. NRx has it’s own hyper Liberal philosopher making a similar point regarding capitalism but concluding this is wonderful, to which everyone agrees, with the underlying basis of such a proscription being the hyper-agency of the individual (which is fantasy), and a heavy dose of providence (in the form of Darwinism which is problematic in its own right.) Quite where the NRx supposed techno state comes into it is a puzzle. Unordered activity as per capitalism versus a state which has to order things to maintain as a state – am I missing something here? Where does the tension get resolved? Is the state the arbitrator of what happens or are the super capitalist individuals. If the latter, isn’t this just Ayn Rand porn?