RE: http://www.firstprinciplesjour...270&theme=home&loc=f

You write that “It (liberalism) lacks adequate answers.” I wonder what kind of “answers” you mean. Could they be the ultimate, fundamental, “transcending” answers of the kind that Mr. Kalb seems to find in religious mythology? But, isn’t that the rub? Those “eternal” answers don’t really exist, do they? It seems to me that, contrary to Mr. Kalb’s wishes, things change. Answers change; meanings change over time. And also contrary to Mr. Kalb’s “reasoning,” some of the greatest tyrannies in human history have been perpetrated by people trying to resist change, trying to retain the “traditional” way of life. (See the history of religions.)
It also seems to me that it is precisely because of its recognition that human history evolves (there’s that word again) that liberalism, and it corollary, scientific method, have gained such wide acceptance among the thinking public. Liberalism and science do not hope to provide the ultimate answers. They hope to provide the means by which people to try to devise for themselves the best answers they can at a given moment in time, with a given set of circumstances, based on the evidence. What is Justice? What is due process? What is equal treatment of the law? Can anyone really be taken seriously if he or she were to say that the meanings of these “technical” concepts are the same today as they were in 1610 or the year zero c.e.? Or if, as Mr. Kalb seems to insist, that their meanings SHOULD be the same? Why should the “traditional” meaning of anything be sacrosanct? Within the “traditional” meaning of marriage wasn’t the wife considered the property of the husband? Wasn’t there a local “tradition” within our country of the kind favored by Mr. Kalb which held that a black person shouldn’t, and by law, couldn’t marry a white person? Do you really want to live that way today? Come on, ya gotta change with the times my friend.
Though I did not “study” his work, it seemed to me from my casual reading that Mr. Kalb spent most of his time and most of his words beating about the bush. I read Mr. Kalb’s “transcendent tradition” simply to mean Christian fundamentalism. For him, it seems, some invisible being (or voice in his head) said it and that’s the end of it. And any attempt to question or doubt or to live not in accordance with what Mr. Kalb claims this invisible being might have said can only lead to the destruction of human society. And any government that does not force compliance with, or at least show preference for, these transcendent traditional proscriptions, but which allows its citizens the individual freedom to choose not to live in accordance with this mythology can only devolve into tyranny. As Mr. Kalb correctly points out, equal freedom and popular democracy are important components of liberalism. And these ideas Mr. Kalb thinks, again, correctly, are dangerous to traditionalism. By his logic, promoting equal freedom and popular democracy leads to tyranny. I, and hopefully the rest of humanity, on the other hand, see tyranny as the DENIAL of freedom and democracy.
History has shown religion to be the enemy of thought, liberty and progress. And progress, by definition, means change. But not all change means progress. We can regress. Which is exactly what we would be doing if we followed Mr. Kalb’s advice and returned to the primitive era of religious “tradition” from which humanity struggled, and is still struggling in places, so mightily to escape.

quote:

Originally posted by tom cook:
RE: http://www.firstprinciplesjour...270&theme=home&loc=f

You write that “It (liberalism) lacks adequate answers.” I wonder what kind of “answers” you mean. Could they be the ultimate, fundamental, “transcending” answers of the kind that Mr. Kalb seems to find in religious mythology? But, isn’t that the rub? Those “eternal” answers don’t really exist, do they? It seems to me that, contrary to Mr. Kalb’s wishes, things change. Answers change; meanings change over time. And also contrary to Mr. Kalb’s “reasoning,” some of the greatest tyrannies in human history have been perpetrated by
.
.
.
History has shown religion to be the enemy of thought, liberty and progress. And progress, by definition, means change. But not all change means progress. We can regress. Which is exactly what we would be doing if we followed Mr. Kalb’s advice and returned to the primitive era of religious “tradition” from which humanity struggled, and is still struggling in places, so mightily to escape.

Of course Liberalism lacks "answers." Its followers embrace timidity as a virtue and a refuge. How easy it is to declare with knowing satisfaction that "those answers do not really exist..." You feel progress but having mired yourself in a relativism where nothing is certain you can't claim to know where you are going or what end your thoughts are directed. When there is no truth to know then all that is left are wants.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nick_Bottom,

quote:

Inquiry of Liberalism

Thats probably why the Conservatives and Liberals cant get along. Conservatives will be downright belligerant in thier acts of sdition against Cnada whereas the Liberals are moreso passive in action...going a little slower than 30 miles/hour and the Conservatives cant stand the slow pace so blow up in Parliment but can t debate much without first exploiting themselves to whcih will ultimately be to the Liberals advantage.

____________________________________________

tape to cd transfer | concrete polishing | sell scrap gold | financial spread betting

This message has been edited. Last edited by: andrew45611,