Political Liberalism

[@sadiesometimes1141]

Oohhh... a Bryan Magee interview that I haven't seen. Awesome! Will go back and watch soon🙂👍

[@LiquidDemocracyNH]

Perfect quote, couldn't have described it better myself

[@robertburatt5981]

Then for the "liberal " as here defined, margaret thatcher is their spokesperson when she said on record that "there is no society-only individuals " !

[@bozdowleder2303]

The problem with that - as liberals would see it - is that liberals are not skeptical of the concept of society. They don't even say that there aren't social obligations for individuals. The liberal idea is merely that the good life for the individual isn't subsumed in some broader social program. An individual isn't reduced to merely a productive well-adjusted unit of society. Society should allow and encourage people to find their own best life and this must be a part of any acceptable theory of how society should be governed. Denying a social framework, denying social responsibility, reducing people to individuals acting only in their own interest, and saying governments should let them alone to act with this narrow interest alone is very different - that was Thatcherism. Of course we're talking classical liberal theory here

[@OneMan-wl1wj]

Was not expecting those glasses to be so perfect for that head.

[@MrJsourouh]

😂😂

[@SirChucklenutsTM]

I feel like he's going to explain the fascinating creature, the Liberal, abides in its natural habitat

[@thecookreporting]

We are social animals regardless of what liberals want to believe.

[@TheEdudo]

true, but only partially; we are social, but we are not animals, that is why it is so important Catholic Church

[@rodrigosilveira2525]

@@TheEdudo we are animals regardless of what the Catholic Church wants to believe

[@thecookreporting]

I was quoting Bryan Magee from the cllip. We are biologically animal. Regarding the morality of what we call ''animalistic'' is behaviour and somewhat social. @@TheEdudo

[@TheWeedmonkey123]

There's no correlation between what is and what should be. The fact that we are social animals has no bearing on what we should do with our lives.

[@TheEdudo]

@@thecookreporting indeed, althou i am not materialist

[@treesurgeon2441]

And how did that all turn out?

[@jasonrose6288]

Compared to what?

[@peterv7258]

Well, blimey. Isn't it the case that both of those ideas are true within certain constraints? Those constraints are derived from the areas of our social ness which nurture us as individuals and those aspects of our individual ness which nurture our social necessity. And all of that is informed and governed by our moral duty before God.

[@peterv7258]

@@vhawk1951kl Hmm' I am not sure what to make of your statement entirely. Though I would ask, is being "truly free" and being "unconstrained" the same thing? There are instances where freedom is preserved by the fact that people have constraints. for instance, people's freedom to be not murdered is preserved because we generally agree on the constraint that murder should be forbidden. Now as to the idea that, even if our nature is somehow suited to social interaction, yet if an individual does not regard whatever biological foundations are therein and wants to be not social -which I think is what you mean by "indifferent to mechanical reactions of his functions," which could be extended to other things like pain or pleasure, starvation, disease, and a sort of envisioned radical detachment from all bodily, mental, and emotional needs, I suppose that in a sense one could all this a type of freedom, but it is a freedom which ceases to be human, or even, for that matter, ceases to bother about existing at all. It seems nihilistic and suicidal. I believe a better idea of freedom is to be unhampered from doing what we ought to do, not merely being able to do whatever we like. Though within the realm of doing what we ought to do there is still a great deal of ability to do what we like, within the ordinary structures of human activity. Now these people in this video are discussing a political philosophy which is getting at proscribing how people ought to live. Ultimately that question is a religious one. Partisan politics (I had this thought recently inspired by another video) is concerned with the questions of how do I love myself and solve the problem of other people, but Christianity is concerned with the questions of how do I solve the problem of myself and love other people. The answers which society and individuals needs are found in the Catholic Church not in politics. But that still leaves open the question of what political system to have and how it should work, because somewhere in that ambitious scheme there will be less universal success, and the variance is an issue. How Christians maintain their own freedom to practice their faith and exercise their civic duty and also allow for the plurality is the question which needs to be discussed. Though part of exercising the faith will always be wanting law and government to positively affirm certain base level truths, like the idea that killing unborn babies is wrong. This is a religious position, but no more so than any prohibition against murder. Generally, people will always care about their personal needs, like food shelter clothing and human association, and the person who would freeze stock still on a city street and allow himself to perish and be rained on, would be quickly sequestered (well, considering the homeless population maybe I'm wrong about that) but most of us are trying to survive, and have relationships and generally get by, and it is hard work, so whatever political philosophy comes to the fore it will be good to the extent that it furthers people toward those aims, and promotes human flourishing, and those outliers who are only concerned with their own pleasure index (did I say outliers, ever growing bunch of weirdos of which I used to be one) do not seem as important and should in fact be marginalized.

[@uncreatedlogos]

I think it is the utmost neglect to leave everyone to themselves. People need freedom but people also need groups and they need identity. That model of liberalism worked when families were intact and neighborhoods were open but people are getting isolated more and more and fail to get up by themselves. Small Communities and local culture strengthen the individual. If I know, I want freedom and I want to use my potential, then I need community and it can't be my own responsibility to search out for community. You cannot tell a lame person to get to the store to get the walk-again medicine. People have needs and if those needs aren't met, people don't work properly. You cannot tell people who are broken that they need to fix their environment. Oftentimes they are too broken to fix their environment that makes them broken. You cannot tell a lame person to get to the store to get the walk-again medicine. People need people. If people can and want to get around alone, they get to do that but the default before deciding that needs to be community.

[@uncreatedlogos]

@@vhawk1951kl a sense of belonging. Knowing that people need you. People in your community.

[@uncreatedlogos]

@@vhawk1951kl I was never talking about queer stuff. And I seriously don't think you need that. People need a sense of belonging. Not queer identifing. I was talking about basic Jordan Peterson/Jonathan Pageau Psychology.

[@uncreatedlogos]

@@vhawk1951kl nice conversation... I meant to say sense of belonging instead of identity. Have a nice day👍 Just say "strange", man...

[@o.s.h.4613]

The “radical left” holds that humans are a social animal, and we are, and that society has an effect on our material lives that conservatives seem unable to process.

[@coleride]

No, conservatives process our social element fine, they just recognize that the left wing prescriptions always end in famine and mass graves.

[@o.s.h.4613]

@@vhawk1951kl This doesn't mean anything.

[@o.s.h.4613]

@@vhawk1951kl Philosophers are so useless

[@o.s.h.4613]

@@vhawk1951kl It doesn’t mean anything because it can be said by anyone anytime, for any reason, anywhere; it’s not-exclusive and therefore lacks semantic content.

[@thomasweir2834]

You would have thought that as a species we’d have worked out that everytime the pendulum swings too far one way or the other it’s a disaster. It drives intellectals mad that the boring, pragmatic, middle way, is by far the best on every measure.

[@Reviving_Virtue]

Uhh this is the reconstructed liberalism of the cold war liberal project. This view was indeed whst classic liberals held. This is a very concerning clip.

[@jurgn]

Your comment is unclear to me. If this is reconstructed, how can it be classical too? Of what then is it a reconstruction, in your opinion? And why is that concerning, or even very concerning?

[@TheEdudo]

@@jurgn i understand him, and he is right on point. The first part of the coment is about our actual liberal democracies, but what classical liberals held was another thing. He is talking about the post war consensus. Look up for this book "Return of the strong gods"

[@CatGirl-xq9pj]

I would recommend watching the full clip for greater context as it's difficult to do Ronald Dworkin any justice in short clip. "justice" pun not intended. 😊

[@uncreatedlogos]

Absolutely. Communal responsibility instead of individual neglect.

[@itsROMPERS...]

Yeah, conservatives think the same thing.

[@itsROMPERS...]

@@vhawk1951kl I'm sure I'm confused by a great many things, and among them are comments that somehow come through with bizarre space characters embedded randomly for no reason.

[@itsROMPERS...]

@@vhawk1951kl guess what? You're a lunatic.

[@itsROMPERS...]

@@vhawk1951kl no