Charles Taylor Discusses Meditation and the Lives of Faith Today

[@barblc3202]

love the distinction of those two ways of understanding secularization

[@rodrigomadrid9039]

Great lecture, enjoyed it very much, thank you.

[@jhonviel7381]

why do people always ask philosophers such difficult questions?

[@Adsensestrategist]

This really was not about meditation, imo.

[@kimfreeborn]

Good questions. Poor answers. Taylor's joviality is misplaced. Liberal tolerance and open dialogue can never get to consensus when tolerance is seen as repressive and a privilege of the stronger. Multicultural segregation creates in/outgroups that only further exacerbate ethnic and racial barriers. For these groups the time for dialogue is over and interests have become militant. The relativism of multiculturalism can only trade-off one group's privilege for the other's victimhood. What is to act as the arbiter? Really nothing. Within Taylor's gambit, it all seems rather arbitrary from a rational point of view. Time and arbitration are Taylor's answer. However he has no standard from which to make a decision that would not exclude his own philosophy: his liberal multiculturalism and egalitarianism. Like all Liberals Taylor needs some preordained victim to defend. Yet one can easily question this ordination.

[@Joeonline26]

Stick to uploading crappy lo-fi

[@kimfreeborn]

@@Joeonline26 Actually one of the things I like about Taylor is his admission that his answers are crappy.

[@Joeonline26]

@@kimfreeborn lol what?

[@kimfreeborn]

​@@Joeonline26 Perhaps Taylor's joviality is misplaced. Liberal tolerance and open dialogue can never get to consensus when tolerance is seen as repressive and a privilege of the stronger. Multicultural segregation creates in/outgroups that only further exacerbate ethnic and racial barriers. For these groups the time for dialogue is over and interests have become militant. The relativism of multiculturalism can only trade-off one group's privilege for the other's victimhood. What is to act as the arbiter? Really nothing. Within Taylor's gambit, it all seems rather arbitrary from a rational point of view. Time and arbitration are Taylor's answer. However he has no standard from which to make a decision that would not exclude his own philosophy: his liberal multiculturalism and egalitarianism. Like all Liberals Taylor needs some preordained victim to defend. Yet one can easily question this ordination.