One of many insights from this talk (in my book at least): ~16:08 “Words have tremendous force, right? They have tremendous rhetorical force. They are weapons in a way. And the ones who can wield them the best I suppose win.” (almost verbatim)
I'm a proud liberal. I'm not ashamed of that, for there is absolutely no reason to be. And I'm not afraid to call myself that publicly; nothing and no one can intimidate or force me into re-labeling myself to please them. But I am also a proud progressive and democratic socialist. Thus, I usually call myself a progressive instead of a liberal because I feel that emphasizes that I strongly believe in the moral, social, and political progression of the human species (which, despite widespread cynicism and pessimism, and recent political events, the world is trending towards and has been since the Enlightenment: things are getting better, much better, for the average person, even with all our problems). That is the main reason I employ the progressive designation. Anyway, good interview and I'm definitely going to check out the book. I've read much academic literature on liberalism (such as lengthy essays in academic press compendiums of political philosophy and political science, as well as classic philosophical works in the field or related fields by Rawls, Dworkin, Mill, Bentham, Scanlon, Spinoza, Dewey, Raz, Locke, Pogge, Rousseau, Cohen, Montesquieu, Popper, Griffin, Berlin, Paine, Condorcet, Rorty &c ), but I've been wanting to read a more comprehensive and historical intellectual history of this political value system for quite awhile.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
One of many insights from this talk (in my book at least):
~16:08 “Words have tremendous force, right? They have tremendous rhetorical force. They are weapons in a way. And the ones who can wield them the best I suppose win.” (almost verbatim)
Very fascinating facts that ideas and arguments similar to modern liberalism existed already during the Roman Empire.
"Duties" are included in rights, just a patriotism is included in liberal universalism and cosmopolitanism
Agree: "...people are quite anachronistic when they talk about liberalism."
Rosenblat takes a view the Catholics now hold. She mogies it snd uses it to attack the view that Locke was fighting repgious wars.
An american perspective which makes little sense outside of the US
Yes the new (social) liberalism and new neo-liberalism
Her book ignores judaism as it had no bearings on the concept…bizarre!
I'm a proud liberal. I'm not ashamed of that, for there is absolutely no reason to be. And I'm not afraid to call myself that publicly; nothing and no one can intimidate or force me into re-labeling myself to please them. But I am also a proud progressive and democratic socialist. Thus, I usually call myself a progressive instead of a liberal because I feel that emphasizes that I strongly believe in the moral, social, and political progression of the human species (which, despite widespread cynicism and pessimism, and recent political events, the world is trending towards and has been since the Enlightenment: things are getting better, much better, for the average person, even with all our problems). That is the main reason I employ the progressive designation.
Anyway, good interview and I'm definitely going to check out the book. I've read much academic literature on liberalism (such as lengthy essays in academic press compendiums of political philosophy and political science, as well as classic philosophical works in the field or related fields by Rawls, Dworkin, Mill, Bentham, Scanlon, Spinoza, Dewey, Raz, Locke, Pogge, Rousseau, Cohen, Montesquieu, Popper, Griffin, Berlin, Paine, Condorcet, Rorty &c ), but I've been wanting to read a more comprehensive and historical intellectual history of this political value system for quite awhile.
Read "Liberalism: A Counter-History" by Domenico Losurdo for a more critical analysis of what liberalism is and its hypocrisies.