The defects of Liberal Thought

[Ruthless Logic]

Liberalism= The desire to indulge in idealism, while subjected to the constraints of the Human Condition, and unable to reconcile the realization.



P.S. My most efficient definition to date.

[Didymos Thomas]

This isn't a definition, it's an indictment. I could just as easily claim to have defined conservatism as you have defined liberalism, and in the process, neither one of us will have given a definition of either word that explains what the words mean, or might mean depending upon context.

And context is something worth noting. Classical liberalism is the backbone of American conservative economic thought.

[Aedes]

I'm afraid that this isn't philosophy, it isn't political science, it isn't politics, it isn't logical, and it isn't accurate.

It sounds like a soundbite from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

You've taken the word "liberalism" and expressed a critique of it in the disguise of a definition. You haven't actually presented a recognized liberal philosophy and critiqued its merits. And then you go so far as to entitle your thread "the defects of liberal thought", as if the definition you present somehow proves a defect. That makes no sense at all -- how can a definition prove a defect?

What you're REALLY trying to do is take the idea you hold of liberalism and critique it for being unrealistically idealistic. Well, why don't you start with civil rights and critique that. Or maybe critique the Declaration of Independence. How about critiquing the 14th amendment to the US Constitution -- that's a good one. Those were all movements and documents that are some of the iconic statements of liberal thought.

If you want to study liberalism in its purest form, take a look at the Bill of Rights, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the writings of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin.

If you find their thought "defective", then that would be worthy of philosophical debate.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

This isn't a definition, it's an indictment. I could just as easily claim to have defined conservatism as you have defined liberalism, and in the process, neither one of us will have given a definition of either word that explains what the words mean, or might mean depending upon context.

And context is something worth noting. Classical liberalism is the backbone of American conservative economic thought.

Fair enough! Let me provide some context to my sentence of definition.

The desire to indulge in idealism,= The belief that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

while subjected to the constraints of the Human Condition,= A typical turd contains millions of harmful bacteria, which exposed to Human Beings can cause sickness or death.

and unable to reconcile the realization= I understand that exposure to fecal matter can cause great harm, but if concentrate hard enough, I can suspend the existence of the bacteria, and consequently handle the turd with complete impunity.

But seriously, liberalism is the attention deficit student of the political classroom.

P.S. the turd analogy is not mine, author unknown.

[Didymos Thomas]

Except that you avoid providing any context whatsoever. Instead you belittle "liberalism" without having explained what you are talking about. We get it - you have serious disagreements with "liberalism". Now imagine our situation: we have no idea what you mean by "liberalism".

If you want a conversation on some political perspective, cool. So far you've made such conversation impossible.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Fair enough! Let me provide some context to my sentence of definition.

How does this context apply to some accepted concept of liberal philosophy? You haven't even shown that you know what liberalism is.

The desire to indulge in idealism,

= The belief that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

We all know what idealism is. Do you REALLY believe that idealism is unique to one political belief? Extreme liberalism (marxism / socialism) is full of idealism. Extreme conservatism (fascism, religious conservatism, monarchy) is ALSO full of idealism. The Republican party has conservative idealists (particularly evangelical Christian ones, libertarian 'personal freedom' ones, and big business ones). The Democratic party has liberal idealists (particularly the human rights and environmental rights ones and sociocultural idealism).

So lots of people indulge in idealism, +/- any desire to do so.

while subjected to the constraints of the Human Condition

,= A typical turd contains millions of harmful bacteria, which exposed to Human Beings can cause sickness or death.

and unable to reconcile the realization= I understand that exposure to fecal matter can cause great harm, but if concentrate hard enough, I can suspend the existence of the bacteria, and consequently handle the turd with complete impunity.

Ok, you've gone off the deep end here. Philosophizing through Beavis and Butthead-like analogies doesn't really work. Why don't you concentrating on telling us about the "Human Condition" and how you've come to know its "constraints" so globally.

But seriously, liberalism is the attention deficit student of the political classroom.

You're the one who created a thread entitled "the defects of liberal thought", lapsed immediately into defining it instead of critiquing it, and then supplemented it by talking about turds. So you don't really have the latitude to accuse something else of attention deficit...

Your name is "Ruthless Logic". If you aspire to this, you need to drop the stream of consciousness rant and start defining your terms, referring to specifics, and actually making a logically coherent point.

[Didymos Thomas]

In any case, I have some time before class. Why not turn this into a thread about liberalism.

Liberalism has a variety of uses, and applies to political ideologies that often seem worlds apart. Most basically, a liberal is someone who advocates individual liberty as the primary goal of government.

We can trace liberal ideas back to ancient Roman class struggles. The first liberal thinker in the modern sense was John Locke. In his Two Treatises on Government, Locke outlines the two fundamental aspects of liberalism, the need for economic and intellectual liberty.

Within this rich liberal tradition, the primary disagreement is over the nature of the rights the government should address. Positive rights are those rights which impose a moral obligation, negative rights obliges others to refrain from interference with someone's attempt to do something.

Classical liberals are those concerned with negative rights. They believe that freedom from coercion is the only sort of freedom. From this, they argue that government involvement in the economy is coercive and therefore restricts freedom. Milton Friedman is a popular classical liberal economist.

Modern liberalism, or social liberalism, contends that the government must play an active role in protecting the liberty and opportunity of each citizen. Rejecting the laissez-faire tendencies of classical liberals, social liberals tend to be more concerned with positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to an education, ect, especially through the mutual collaboration of social institutions.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

This isn't a definition, it's an indictment. I could just as easily claim to have defined conservatism as you have defined liberalism, and in the process, neither one of us will have given a definition of either word that explains what the words mean, or might mean depending upon context.

How about this definition from Ambrose Bierce's, The Devil's Dictionary?

Conservative, n: [Someone] who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.

It, at least, has the virtue of being bi-partisan.

[Didymos Thomas]

Funny, but that's about it.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Funny, but that's about it.

Not even a grain of truth?