• lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Doesn’t seem weird to me. Things are routinely named after their creators/discoverers/proponents in STEM. Nobody thinks you’re being dogmatic if you talk about Newtonian gravity or Fourier transformations. Why should political philosophy be different?

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s not that it seems to be weird, per se, more that it adds to that image of dogmatic attachment that leftists often have. In addition, cults of personality are a real thing, and sometimes it can be difficult to separate thinker from thought, especially when the thinker is centralized in the philosophy. At least, feels that way to me. In the stem fields, no one is going to argue that we must have a focus on God in the sciences, for instance, just because Newton was religious. That’s not the subject of discussion when talking about gravity, it’s containted pretty tightly to gravity and it’s explanation using observable, repeatable experimentation. Whereas it’s pretty common within Marxist communities that one must be an atheist to be a Marxist, as Marx was an atheist and talked about the abolishment of the church. Political philosophy isn’t as far removed from religious philosophy as we would often like to think.

      Big ass asterisk on this comment: I’m currently sick, and feel like I’m not explaining myself well at all. Got that brain fog.