Liberal neutrality

By -
"Sure, liberalism claims and even aims to be neutral, but that doesn't entail that it really is or ever could be. To think that the mere existence of one's intention to be neutral guarantees that one really is neutral is not only a fallacy, but an especially dangerous one -- it makes the one beholden to it blind to his own biases." -- Edward Feser

Comments

  1. Daniel McCarthy8:07 PM

    This is true, but the more important question about liberalism, to my mind, isn't whether it's neutral or whether neutrality is desirable, but whether liberal non-neutrality is more conducive to peace---at least in our time and place---than other kinds of commitment are. A liberalism that stops sects from killing one another, if even it's not neutral about their metaphysical claims, is still a liberalism that's doing what it's supposed to do.

    Assuming it actually does reduce violence, of course.

    I've encountered Christian conservatives who want a Christian politics that can do roughly what liberalism is supposed to do. The problem is that as they articulate it, it tends to look a lot like liberalism (in its broadest, or perhaps earliest, outlines). Except no abortion, no gay marriage. There's something spurious about the whole exercise, as if liberal Christians can't admit how liberal they really are. I'm not saying this of Feser, by the way, it's just a tangent to the question of liberalism's job and whether there's really much demand for a substitute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:15 AM

      Dan, there is no plausible alternative to liberalism on the table at present, I agree.

      I am a MacIntyrean in this regard: we have to hunker down and found the modern equivalent of monasteries, cause the dark ages they's a comin'!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more