Igual, hay que ver cuánto dura la alta. Siempre que baja mucho frena en algún precio de soporte y rebota a la alza para volver a bajar de nuevo más.

too many conservatives and far right people. I'm more in tune with Ruth Benedict, Lewis Mumford, Arnold Toynbee, etc. in using Spengler as a heuristic source to the study of human societies rather than a political guru. 3/

are his insights and observations about history, sociology and anthropology, and less his political convictions, that were basically longing the old european aristocracy and the german hegemony. For me, the less interesting thing about his thought is the "decline" thing that attracts 2/

Yes, Spengler is very hegelian in many senses, unless he didn't believe in progress and the "happy end". I agree also that push further the political consequences of their determinism and classical german authoritarianism (in each flavor) is dangerous, but what I found interesting about Spengler 1/

Lewis Mumford was influenced by Spengler a lot.

Also, Spengler was heavily influenced by german anthropology, like Boas' one, that was no racist and already cultural relativist at that time. 3/

For Spengler, "race" is more related with kinship, the culture transmitted through this kinship to family (intended as a wide family net, like the patriarchal ones) members, and the will of power of those families bounded by kinship. 2/

Yep. I don't like too much Adorno's insights on Spengler. But, clearly Spengler in Decline of the West and even in their private letters is against scientific racism and eugenics of that time, and for him antisemitism was mere envy of jewish position in german society. 1/

More likely Heidegger was influenced by Spengler than otherwise.

I don't think so. Spengler wasn't too aware of many thinkers of his time. He often was accused of plagiarizing Bergson, because his vitalist epistemology seemed like Bergson's one, but Spengler didn't know who Bergson was when he was questioned about.

You must be careful to, in your desperation to criticize the far right, taking a childish position judging unfairly an author that has a lot to explore in terms of social sciences. 2/

You can criticize Spengler's conservatism, but historically (taking in account he was a philosopher of history) was far superior than Marx, because Spengler simply knew more history than him, and have a criticism of eurocentrism. Spengler prefigurates post-colonialism and post-modernism too. 1/

You clearly don't know nothing about Spengler. You can criticize his metanarrative, but basically he predicted a popular religiosity would arise around year 2000 and "caesarian" populist politicians would take the lead of that mass. Stop the tantrum and grow up.