>>9784418i did see but they were points i'm ambivalent about. spiritual decay? i would probably agree. due to philosophers? i would dispute which ones you point at and why - for the record, the two excerpts i posted strongly opposing kantian ethics were by nietzsche and schopenhauer
natural law? that would require further definition and likely something i would not accept - human achievement is a long ode that often opposes what is normally considered "natural." it's important to remember that just because we align on whom we vote for, there might be incredibly fundamentally different reasons as for why
i'm going to bed now so don't wait on a reply