Also, I don't just mean they are reactionary in certain area or in their personal life (Like Aristotle was important for biology despite being an apologies for slavery)?
I mean worth looking into their thinking precisely in areas where they're reactionary.
Possible suggestions (not saying they're justified) that I expect people would put forward include:
- Carl Scmitt
- Heidegger
Fuck I forgot that Gogol was such reactionary :sadness:
Agree on the Plato.
Fair enough on the Campbell.
Still need to check Naipaul.
I never really understood the interest of Stirner.
I think one of the atractive things is his critique of monarchism wich is more solid than the liberal critique and can also be used against borgouise dictatorships. Also some decent critiques of heagel. And in many ways egoism atacks morality in the same way netzche does without being as rigid. But i think its much more interesting if you read it as a psychology or proto phsychology book. He higlights thinking habits without being fully aware of what he is doing.
The style is unfortunatley shit and his examples are not the best. There is a part a third in where he is talking about how identoty categories are esentialy forms and how people do not conform to them in an esentially revers platonism wich may seem ovious when you put it like that but is actually an important thing to be aware of. And to go from that to a thing is not itself there is a ver short jump.
However he is not yet fully aware of the implications of this and goes to say something like " you cant be a man and a jew" wich sounds horrible. But in context hes talking about forms. I think this is is a problem with most moder continental philosofers. They seem to lack a certain order in their minds. And of them striner is one of the better ones.