It’s funny how political pundits, as they get closer to political power, begin to realize that Action has priority over reflection, but in being “reflectives” they can, at best, “put in a word or two” to the Men of Action in hopes that it might guide them.
The “court philosopher” is supposed to write apologia for the man of action— by creating a theory which explains his actions, though this theory is only a product of his action.
This is the Hegelian/Kojevian problem of political theory— reflective speculation must either *literally* serve men of action (& thus lose its detachment), or it must become sovereign (the philosopher-king).
In this sense, all interested political theory (not purely disinterested speculation) serves as an *audition* for power.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
