If you really want to understand our current political landscape...

By -
I recommend "taking" this course with Patrick Deneen. He has a deep, historical understanding of the relationships between various strands of our political culture*, and is very balanced (in my readings of him) in giving each strand its "fair shake." I am hoping to follow along as best I can, but so much of my attention is devoted to Indra at present, I am not sure how much of it I will be able to keep up with.

* For instance, he correctly identifies Marx as a progressive liberal, and not an anti-liberal, as many people confusedly categorize him: Marx's aim was liberal through-and-through: the emancipation of the individual. It is just the means he recommended for achieving the aim that differentiate him from other liberals.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell12:58 AM

    Marx? A liberal? Are his followers (i.e., Lenin, Stalin, etc.) liberals as well?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Samson Corwell1:00 AM

    Actually, I retract that previous question about Marx. I can see how he is indeed for the emancipation of the individual. He even agrees with Locke's labor theory of property. But I still don't think it's right to call him a type of liberal. Do his followers count as liberals?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:47 PM

      You have to make clear if you mean in theory or in practice! Of course, in practice, Lenin and Stalin were not liberals! I don't think Stalin really did much theory, and while Lenin did, I've never read it, so I can't say.

      But Marx is clearly part of the larger liberal movement IMHO (and in Deneen's, and in Voegelin's as well).

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell1:55 PM

      I don't see that as being applicable. For one thing, even if Stalin didn't do any theory, he still had them in his head. Of course, I have my own categorizations, labels, and definitions. They've unfortunately been uprooted ever since my mind went through the libertarian woodchopper, but I still retain them. I'm not in large agreement with the conventional liberal versus socialist line of analysis.

      From what I know about China, they remained Confucian even in the Cultural Revolution. Mao looked to Shang Yang for guidance. North Korea's Niche, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of Marxism.

      Delete
    3. gcallah2:28 PM

      "I don't see that as being applicable. For one thing, even if Stalin didn't do any theory, he still had them in his head."

      OK, at this point I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you trying to claim that, because Stalin had "theories in his head," therefore it is pointless to differentiate theory and practice?!

      Delete
    4. Samson Corwell3:08 PM

      Are you trying to claim that, because Stalin had "theories in his head," therefore it is pointless to differentiate theory and practice?!

      Not at all! That would be completely idiotic of me! Those are two separate propositions. One, I was trying to say that I don't think dividing a person's politics into theory and practice works. Two, you said that you think Stalin didn't write any theory, implying he wouldn't have a theoretical side. My point there was that I don't think writing theory is necessary to have political theories.

      Delete
    5. gcallah5:15 PM

      One, I was trying to say that I don't think dividing a person's politics into theory and practice works."

      So you DON'T think it is useful differentiating them after all!

      "Two, you said that you think Stalin didn't write any theory, implying he wouldn't have a theoretical side."

      No, implying I would not know what theories he held, since he never wrote them down.

      Delete
    6. Samson Corwell5:44 PM

      So you DON'T think it is useful differentiating them after all!

      Well, yes. I wasn't trying to deny that. I was denying that I thought that because of what I said about Stalin, since you wove that into your exclaimed question to me.

      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