Now, I’m especially puzzled by the correlation between political sides what seems to be the Enlightenment/Romanticism divide. Where could it possibly come from?
Eh, the Enlightenment and Romantic backlash to it, perhaps? But I’m sure it didn’t start then.
That is, ideas have genealogies too.
There are many explanations of this sort of divide out there. There are two I would recommend reading: first, Part I (Part II is mostly fluff) of A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell, and second, The Future and Its Enemies by Virginia Postrel. I recommend those two in particular because they look at this from very different lenses- Postrel uses terminology like yours, but Sowell uses almost the opposite terminology. (Which is, incidentally, a reason to read Sowell’s first.)
I recommend it primarily because she uses a divide like loup-valliant’s, and the contrast should be between two intellectuals who have thought about this long enough to write a book on it, rather than between Sowell’s view and loup-valliant’s view.
Eh, the Enlightenment and Romantic backlash to it, perhaps? But I’m sure it didn’t start then.
That is, ideas have genealogies too.
There are many explanations of this sort of divide out there. There are two I would recommend reading: first, Part I (Part II is mostly fluff) of A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell, and second, The Future and Its Enemies by Virginia Postrel. I recommend those two in particular because they look at this from very different lenses- Postrel uses terminology like yours, but Sowell uses almost the opposite terminology. (Which is, incidentally, a reason to read Sowell’s first.)
I usually recommend the Postrel book because I think of it as effective capitalist libertarian propaganda—not sure I’d recommend it to someone here.
I recommend it primarily because she uses a divide like loup-valliant’s, and the contrast should be between two intellectuals who have thought about this long enough to write a book on it, rather than between Sowell’s view and loup-valliant’s view.