The Faulty Foundation of Liberalism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2024
- In today's video, Murray looks at a resurfaced clip of Yuval Harari, a popular "academic," and shows how his seemingly absurd claims are actually the foundational basis of Liberalism.
If you want a complete understanding of what Yuval thinks:
His Ted Talk: • Bananas in heaven | Yu...
His not-so-Liberal talk: • Video
Also, check out his book "Sapiens," which is basically a repurposed Whig History book.
Central reference points for me on this topic are "Liberty the God that Failed by Chris Ferrara which you should buy through CFN's referral link: angelicopress.com/catholicfam...
Also to be noted are ++Lefevbre's "They have Uncrowned Him" and "Religious Liberty Questioned" (Even if you disagree with his consecrations of bishops without papal mandate or his view of Vatican 2, his works on Liberalism are fantastic)
Alternatively, you could read Burke's reflection on the French Revolution, Metternich's memoirs, and De Maistre. (Expect more content on them in the future!)
And of course, the primary texts themselves. To understand "Classical" Liberalism, read Locke's Two Treatises, anything Thomas Paine wrote, and Hobbes' "Leviathan". For Liberalism+Utilitarianism your best bet in Mill's "On Liberty"
For more of me, check out Catholic Family News! / @cfn_official
Music credits:
Emperor piano concerto 5 by Beethoven:
Ursula Oppens and DuPage Symphony Orchestra
Symphony 9 Beethoven:
Skidmore College Orchestra
Movie credits:
• The French Revolution ...
Follow me on X and Instagram @ MurrayRundus
#Liberalism #Catholic #christianity #History - บันเทิง
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.79[1/2] แก๊งไทบ้านพาบุกเมืองบั้งไฟโก้ ยโสธรรรร!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ldr3_fvTEXk/mqdefault.jpg)
For those interested, I did a live stream regarding some of the objections made to the argument made here: th-cam.com/video/4EGcLlRob78/w-d-xo.html
4:35-5:38 the classic rhetorical tactic of stating your opponent’s position in a sarcastic tone. Truly argumentation to rival Socrates.
No argumentation is necessary when the opponent's positions are ontologically wrong and utterly repulsive, among other things. The foolish and the spiteful heed to no arguments because, in their own mind, they can never be wrong. So meet them with the only language they WILL listen to. The same sarcastic tone you have just now employed as a reaction. Quite hypocritical.
@@CoyoteCatalyst yeah just say that your opponent is utterly and ontologically wrong and refuse of use argumentation. That's not how thinking and especially rhetorics work. Unless you want to stay in your comfortable bubble, then yes you can do it like that i guess. You have to speak in language they will listen to ? So you mean you have to stoop to your oponent's level ? Very christian indeed.
@@michakochanski9240 Those who wish to destroy the church are beyond arguing with and retain no intention to change. They hate you and want you bound to their debts. Continue fighting with reason and moral superiority. They'll use manipulation, perversion, harassment, and if they're not ignored or stopped they win. Define what bubble I exist in, far worse, tell me I need to listen to you to know what it means to be Christian. You are a coward, tolerance is not a Christian virtue, and the enemies of Christ have used that to their upmost advantage.
If you respect the scholastic tradtion of Aquinas and Aristotle; then perhaps it ought to be in your interest to follow their rules of dialectic and define your terms; this rather than adopting an equivocal and subjective definiton of "liberalism", which can be reduced to: "that which is unorthodox and displeasing to me," whilst also, in the same breath, criticising subjectivism as "that which is unorthadox and displeasing to me" in the same video.
I agree that certain liberal philosophies (there are many more than one) are deleterious to the health of a nation; but, commiting not a straw man, but a wicker man argument, is not a good way to go about convincing me to unadopt my opinions on government based on natural rights.
It would be great if you were to clarify what exactly you mean by liberalism. The classical liberalism of the founders of the United States for example, is based in the idea of natural rights, which is a fundamentally theological perspective that is at odds with subjectivism. Blaming liberalism for the illiberal institutions, policies, and anti-religiousness created by the modern political left is quite strange to me.
nowadays, liberalism = social liberalism = state in everything and everywhere = illiberal institutions + illiberal policies + ....
They are connected. But it takes a bit of work to show it, not because it is hard to see the connection, but because of the cope.
And not just the part of you and me. Though we have plenty, but on the part of writers like Locke, and the founding fathers.
If there's one thing liberalism brings without fail, it's mountains of cope
@@marvalice3455Do you have anywhere explaining this? Want to know not trying to debate you or anything.
@@a_Catholic_Ant not any one particular place no. When I have time I can try and walk you through it though.
@@marvalice3455Yep.
I’m no liberal by any definition but this is a very bad attempt at understanding the liberal tradition and basically is just you conflating multiple anti-Catholic philosophical and political positions and pretending they’re the same. There are much better criticisms of liberalism from a reactionary perspective.
Yeah.
This is definitely an interesting perspective. Fortunately, I have not come across any liberals like the ones described here. At least, not in-person. The internet still has plenty of them.
as a university student, this video describes pretty accurately the dominant view of students on campus
Really appreciate this video.
You give a very good explanation of the current problem but I wish you would go deeper into what you believe the solution is
Amen brother
This video was good but too short for the subject matter. I believe it deserves a sequel to respond to criticisms in the comments and establish what you believe liberalism to be in this context. Few men would deny that slavery should have been abolished and serfdom ended and yet these are often attributed to liberalism.
While half of this certainly approaches some proper criticisms of liberalism, you're not attacking the issues it actually has. By claiming Liberalism undermines its own subjectivism, while also advocating for undermining subjectivism feels completely arbitrary - if not entirely an overgeneralization of liberalism and a misinterpretation of subjectivism. Does Liberalism have serious issues? Of course, but it isn't this made up global morality being forced upon you. Morality, despite what you might think, is highly subjective to regions, cultures, and more. Implying that Liberalism leads to communism because of that is also just... so intellectually dishonest.
Overall, this seems like you're very articulate. The issue is you've constrained your search for knowledge first in solidifying the conclusion you've already made. Could rhetoric like this become popular? Sure, it has before, and its making a resurgence today - but that's due to liberalisms faults and strengths. And to clarify, I'm not for liberalism, I am against it, but the assumptions and poorly defined way you're talking about it reeks of propaganda and heavy bias instead of actually approaching these things intellectually.
And, you know what, that probably fits the bill. It seems you found your truth, and nothing short of some serious self reflection will change that. I just hope not everyone who watches this will blindly fall into the same trap.
Thanks for the comment here. I appreciate anybody offering their takes on these things. I used to be a committed Classical Liberal. Particularly a devoted fan of John Stuart Mill (Who also adds utilitarianism into the mix but that’s another story)
It was the realization that Subjectivism was false and that Liberalism is an extension of it which led me to reject Liberalism. I think it is the key issue here. If Subjectivism is false, Liberalism cannot be true, and most people don’t even realize they are connected.
As a Liberal I said that you needed to have some sort of moral framework, to preserve social unity. But adopting this leads to saying that human rights are arbitrary under Subjectivism. Communism does the same adoption of arbitrary values but simply “aims higher”. It shouldn’t be far fetched, Yuval’s position is closer to Marxism than it is liberalism, and yet he has the same starting principles.
The man seeking after wisdom should self reflect on his ideas everyday. I try to do that and still read Locke, Mill and Rousseau to better understand them. But no amount of self reflection could make me accept Subjectivism, for even such an acceptance would be to undermine Subjectivism itself.
Thanks again for watching and commenting
@@ConfessionsofAConvert
Yuval seems to imply, from the short snippet you linked, that human rights are a social contract rather than a physical one. Arbitrary might not be the right word, because social contracts are as much apart of theology as they are anything else.
The crux I'm facing watching your video is that you're tying in modern political bias with classical liberalist thought, then filtering it through a traditionalist view point. Communism, as an example, isn't even related to subjectivism as it relies on objective goals, material conditions, and universal principles it lays out.
The subjectivism you're arguing against is only one side of the modern ideological marketplace. Just as much as 'green peace, lgbtq, liberal globalists', so too is traditionalism another subjective aspect of liberalism. When one becomes the cultural norm, yes, subjectivism 'fades' but only as far as it takes a new idea to spring up - just as the church evolved over thousands of years, so too does every idea, perception, and take.
What you're saying is pointless, because eventually society has to agree on something, is the point and not the contradiction. It is more wide spread in liberalism, yes, but all philosophical, theological, and scientific thoughts follow that same dialectical process.
I feel like you are missing some dimensions to this argument that could be remedied by spending more time reading philosophy. I highly recommend spending time pouring over the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, it's a good starting resource that will spin you off into primary sources.
Most of the early liberals where direct heirs off the natural law and realist traditions of Aristotle and Aquinas. It is not just a stretch but incorrect to call the Roman Catholic Descartes an idealist. Rationalism is the belief that reason can ascertain truth about the world. Decartes affirmed this. That was the point of his famous statement. Rationalism is necessarily a realist philosophy as it makes real claims about the world. I'm surprised when you have later, post-enlightenment irrationalist like Kant you could have rightly noted. Indeed you characterize liberalism as essentially Hume or Kant. What about people like Hugo Grotius? Locke himself was neither Hume-ian or Kant-ian. The School of Salamanca were making contributions to the liberal idea of natural rights from the premise that God made man with a nature we all have and so we also have the same natural rights.
There is a great deal to criticize in the late liberal, early neo-liberals of the late 1800s, many of the things you rightly pointed out in this video. However many liberals carried the natural law tradition and classical philosophy of The Philosopher with them. Even if they need to be improved they should not be discarded carelessly.
If we are going away with human rights I say we start with that Ted talker
Joyful,Joyful, we adore Thee!Thanks for posting this and you are right, Christianity isn’t a simple fairytale
Looking at this from a different perspective as a Middle Eastern Atheist I see liberalism as the most authentic child of Christianity among the dominant modern day ideologies of the west, and considering the fierce attack today on liberalism by the left and Islamists I say Christians must stand proud of their tradition of liberalism not that of Christian theocracy.
Liberalism isn’t divided between empiricism and idealism, much of liberalism is divided between empiricism and rationalism. Idealism and rationalism are extremely different concepts. Liberalism also rejects subjectivism. You’re thinking of postmodernism. You clearly haven’t studied philosophy in any meaningful sense.
As a gen z person in high school who recently converted to Catholicism when I realized its the truth, I think your videos are amazing. Keep up the great work!
Just don’t let those priests touch you in the no no places, the Vatican is still harbouring a lot of them
I've read some quotes from his book. It's terrible
This is finally the perfect video that I can send someone instead of having to come up with my own thesis every time thank you Murray
So….do you just not believe in the concept of “rights”? Consent of the governed? Private property?
Because Liberalism is just the general term for the Analytic Philosophical tradition and is basically any ideology that believes in those things.
This video was rambling and lacked direction or a clear thesis. Are you arguing against the American political ideology we currently call liberalism? Or the concepts laid out above? Both? Neither? Are you even aware of the history and relationship of these concepts? Apparently not given how you didn’t talk about the historical reasons why “modern” liberalism shifted towards a concept of Civil Liberties + government protected Civil Rights and away from a mindset where there wasn’t a distinction between these two things.
You touched on “idealist philosophy” but you seem very ignorant of what that means even. Idealism is simply the idea that the primary cause of social “movement” comes from the concepts of people. They get an idea and they take action upon it and make changes to themselves, their life, society, whatever. It is just a statement on the primary locus of where things “come from” in a social context….
Like…wow. Just wow.
I disagree with that use of the term. I believe in the concept of rights in the Scholastic use of them, which deserves its own video. There are natural rights (from God) and civic rights (from the State) both legitimate sources of authority. Both are objectively true. The American founders, being based on English Common Law, were more in line with my tradition than the Classical Liberal one from Rousseau or Locke.
Thanks for watching!
Edit after your edit: I reject the liberal senses of consent of the governed and private property and accept the Traditional Catholic notions of them as expressed most clearly by Pope Leo XIII, again this deserves its own video. The point of the above video is to show that philosophically the Liberal can’t have an “objective” basis for those things without undermining Subjectivism, the basis of Liberalism.
Secondly, you are talking about Idealism in the societal sense, I am speaking of Idealism in the Epistemological sense and it’s doubting of the senses.
@@ConfessionsofAConvertI mean, that’s pretty idealist isn’t it? And that is something you argued against right?
You have a conception that nobody else agrees with and you are advocating for it in order to change people’s minds and actions based on this “new understanding”…which is literally idealistic philosophical reasoning.
Idealist in the philosophical sense, definitely not, I am an epistemological Realist. In a vague sense of having ideals? Sure, everyone has ideals, that’s not my critique.
@@ConfessionsofAConvertalso, they don’t claim an “objective” basis, and they don’t need one in order to justify themselves.
If they were Materialists, then sure, calling out a lack of foundation would be pretty detrimental to their cause, but that is kind of the point for them. The hold ideals that they agree with and believe societies move, grow, rise and fall based on if those ideas are good or not.
@@ConfessionsofAConvertlast comment, I swear, because I have to do a thing.
I chuckled at “I believe in…as laid out by Pope Leo…” because that is also idealist philosophical reasoning.
Like…you are DOING liberalism in this video and in these very comments, my guy.
ah yes, catholic Church in XIX century under Russia rule, especially greek catholic Church "wasn't by any measures discriminated and persecuted"🙃
Sorry, but no. If you are a Pole in XIX century - you would like to have political freedom in your region.
Political freedom and independence from a foreign power does not equal adoption of liberal principles
@@ConfessionsofAConvertFrom the Oxford Dictionary of Politics “Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.” It seems that political freedom would, by definition, come with the adoption of liberal principles. Also, in the video you claim WW2 came about as a result of liberalism which is frankly absurd.
I mean political freedom as in autonomous rule. The idea that autonomy didn’t exist before Liberalism doesn’t really make sense.
I’ll double down that Liberalism led to the rejection of traditional institutions that led to arbitrary ones that failed and created the chaos of the Weimar and Soviet Republics. Definitely.
You seem to be claiming that "traditional institutions," which I can only guess to mean monarchical rule and state religion, somehow lead to more stability both internally and externally for nations, but you give no real reasons for why, or by what mechanism that would be the case. If we look at any example of conflict in the supposed era of peace under the congress of Europe like the Franco-Prussian war, or the Crimean war, or the Austro-Prussian war, you will find that the degree of Liberalism in any of these countries had little to nothing to do with their cause. I'd also add that modern liberal democracies are exceedingly more stable than the traditionalist monarchies of the past, as demonstrated in the amount of coups and revolutions they have had.
You claim that liberalism is the cause for both the Weimar Republic's fall into fascism as well as the Russian Revolution which is akin to saying taxes are what caused the civil war. There is some small part liberalism played but I think that if you actually look you'll find that there are far more readily available explanatory factors.
More generally you seem to be complaining that your "tyranny" isn't in power and that liberal "tyranny" is despite it being abundantly clear that religions under liberalism are explicitly protected. Each person being free to believe what they want is antithetical to tyranny. And don't pretend like it's some horrific crime that the most abhorrent, destructive, and intolerant ideologies are disfavored in liberal societies.
Peace can only come through power
I was not expecting Brotherhood of Nod to be represented here.
@@vladiverse7516kane is still right,compared to the parisians
Kane Lives
Not really. Pretty facistic viewpoint ya got there
tradcath larp
Dude, you don't know what a social construct is that is just embarrasing to listen to you're flying off the handle because you don't understand what it is. Tuesday is a good example of a social construct.
I would like to say that XIX was not peaceful at all. 1st of all, you've said "Liberalism and middle-east wars" but my guy, XIX century is time of colonisation, conquest of Asia etc. How is this different?
Later, you say that under tsar etc. there was peace. There was also supresssion of people and revolutions. Belgian revolution in 1830, Polish november uprising, 3day revolution in France. Greek uprising. It's like saying that after ww2 Soviet union was peaceful because not so many wars happend and people didn't really rebelled that much...
Alexander the 1st died few years after vienna and metternich was known for corruption and supression.
You are not a historian, history is nuanced. Don't force thesis that cannot be defended. Facts are that especially to Europe and USA, post world war 2 period is the most peaceful one. Until split of yugoslavia there was no military conflict in Europe - 50 years. Surely there was also supression of comunist regimes like Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1960's etc. but this was not a war. Not to mention that after ww2 most parties in power were mix of liberalism and christian parties.
I don’t think this guy knows what he is talking about and doesn’t understand the separation of church and state.
>seperation
@@chinchillaruby4170 needed that. Gg.
This video is a joke, right?😅
I’m afraid it’s not. Idk why people like this exist. It’s like they don’t believe in free will and see everyone around them as envoys.
1:55 Did you just blame ww2, cold war, 9/11, war on terror on liberalism? And then cite the greatest time of peace was the 19th century? Things were certainly very peaceful during that century, like the American civil war, slavery, 0 rights for women, coal companies killing their workers for attempting to unionize, paying their employees with scrip, etc. 🧠
It’s peaceful ig if you only look at certain parts of Europe and ignore the rest of world history at the time. China’s century of humiliation. The scramble for Africa. You mentioned the civil war already. Latin American independence movements. It was a very tumultuous century.
I remember when we used to say Catholic with the same slur in voice that you use when you say homosexual, and I think Catholics ought to give themselves pause when thinking about the social ladder of them, dogs, and others historically in the crossfires, and not only remain humble, but develop their empathy and understanding.
You are right but you are coming from the wrong direction. Free your mind comrade
Secular socialism for the win, screw whatever nonsense this is
Liberalism is literally built on natural rights. This is just an idiotic take.
classical liberalism ... yes. On the other hand, modern liberalism or social liberalism, which is the liberalism present in all "liberal democracies" has nothing to do with natural rights, since the state is at the center of everything.