POS 273 Lecture 4: Theoretical Perspectives-Realism and Liberalism

[@kanyamagaraabdallah8300]

Merci d´Dr. Rober Glover a vos sagesse!

[@raviks123]

By far the best lesson on realism and liberalism. Thank you sir

[@patrickmorton7343]

@Robert Glover Thank you very much for posting these. I'm a Geopolitics-ophile, so I eat this stuff up. I've read many of the greats, but don't have a foundation, so the cart has lead the horse, so to speak. Your courses are really tying every thing together, helping me make sense of some stuff that did go over my head. Thank you!

[@MultiTinkerbells]

Very helpful! Thank you!

[@siddigadam9763]

Thank you so much Doctor

[@jamesbangura3595]

Well understood Sir, but can you please explain the meaning of Liberalism and Realism?

[@macr9680]

What is the music of introduction

[@ginborgho]

should have done my uni on KZbin 😭

[@sulljoh1]

44:42 "If you have a Realist set of assumptions you'll arrive at one set of answers" "If you have a Liberal set of assumptions you'll arrive at a different set of answers" What happens when you stop Gerrymandering reality to fit into your pet theory and look objectively at the data?

[@robertglover1168]

Which data? All of it? How does one do so with limited time and the necessity of making a decision? The point of theory is to give you some different tools to cycle through different possibilities to make sense of complexity and potentially limitless data. It is not to choose a "pet theory" as you imply. In the lecture wrapping up our coverage of theory (and at the outset) I expressly say this is the wrong way to think about the purpose of theory.

[@sulljoh1]

@@robertglover1168 Sorry "pet theory" was too flippant and I really enjoyed the lecture. The theories are very different and both aspire to be true explanations of reality. I want to know which is actually, factually closer to being objectively true. That can't be decided based on your personality - being the kind of person who sees the glass as half empty/full.

[@robertglover1168]

@@sulljoh1 That's the type of thing that IR realists and IR liberals would debate endlessly. In the social sciences, we never really marshal the type of evidence that would enable one to establish "objective truth"--we don't even use language like "proves" or "true." We collect data and evidence which suggests or supports things. Both sides marshal compelling evidence that supports their interpretation of the world. That doesn't make one's utilization of a realist or liberal perspective arbitrary or based on one's personality. It's just based on divergent interpretations of the massive amount of evidence drawn from human history and contemporary world politics.

[@sulljoh1]

@@robertglover1168 Steve Pinker seems to do a good job - at least to my naive engineering mind. His book brought me to this wonderful lecture: "Could the Long Peace represent the ascendancy in the international arena of the Categorical Imperative? Many scholars in international relations would snort at the very idea. According to an influential theory tendentiously called “realism,” the absence of a world government consigns nations to a permanent state of Hobbesian anarchy. That means that leaders must act like psychopaths and consider only the national self-interest, unsoftened by sentimental (and suicidal) thoughts of morality." If human nature can be studied empirically then there must be real answers out there - at least in principle.

[@robertglover1168]

@@sulljoh1 Pinker's interesting. I think a realist would reply that there's this tendency to look at momentary periods of stability and project it out indefinitely and imagine some alternative order. For them, that departs from the vast weight of historical evidence that suggests that such moments are fleeting in world history. People were saying the same sort of things after WWI and at the close of the Cold War. For them, international peace and stability are fragile and it's very easy for things to fall back into a world that largely aligns with realist assumptions. They'd reject the characterization as amoral psychopaths. The very opening of John Mearsheimer's "The Tragedy of Great Politics" provides a response to Pinker's mode of thinking: samuelbhfauredotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/s2-mearsheimer-2001.pdf

[@chedielnyirenda9664]

Good

[@shahiduzzamanshuvo1590]

Would u mind sharing the slide sir...........(Student of Professional Masters in International Relations of Dhaka University).

[@kanyamagaraabdallah8300]

Merci d´Dr. Rober Glover a vos sagesse!.