Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this article is to investigate the relationship between the notions of ethnocentrism and liberalism from the perspective of the neopragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty. In this sense, we show that this tenuous political philosophy, centered on these notions, emphasizes the connectivity between conversational practices and the moral, political and social issues shared by different cultures. In Rorty's philosophy, his thin notion of ethnocentrism acts as an articulating element between his anti-representationalist perspective of knowledge and his version of political liberalism. From the naturalist criticism that makes transcendental explanations of reality unfeasible Rorty draws the historicist consequences necessary for his proposition that there are no limits, except those of conversational character, for the apprehension and description of knowledge. In this ethnocentric proposal in which there is nothing transcendent in relation to cultural, contingent and historical practices, everything is considered to be dependent on the provisional intersubjective consensus, in terms of the vocabulary and politics of a given community and time.

Hayek's late work on liberal politics is characterized by the idea that free market represents the best way of not only economic, but also political coordination. Epistemic liberalism builds upon this idea, reasserting old and highlighting new arguments to demonstrate the epistemic advantages of free market over deliberative democracy. This paper discusses the theoretical roots of epistemic liberalism, presents its key arguments but also addresses some important distinctions that part epistemic liberalism from epistemic democracy.

Hayek's late work on liberal politics is characterized by the idea that free market represents the best way of not only economic, but also political coordination. Epistemic liberalism builds upon this idea, reasserting old and highlighting new arguments to demonstrate the epistemic advantages of free market over deliberative democracy. This paper discusses the theoretical roots of epistemic liberalism, presents its key arguments but also addresses some important distinctions that part epistemic liberalism from epistemic democracy.

In all of its varieties, traditional liberalism is a universalist political theory. Its content is a set of principles which prescribe the best regime, the ideally best institutions, for all mankind. It may be acknowledged — as it is, by a proto-liberal such as Spinoza — that the best regime can be attained only rarely, and cannot be expected to endure for long; and that the forms its central institutions will assume in different historical and cultural milieux may vary significantly. It will then be accepted that the liberal regime's role in political thought is as a regulative ideal, which political practice can hope only to approximate, subject to all the vagaries and exigencies of circumstance. Nonetheless, the content of traditional liberalism is a system of principles which function as universal norms for the critical appraisal of human institutions. In this regard, traditional liberalism — the liberalism of Locke and Kant, for example — represents a continuation of classical political rationalism, as it is found in Aristotle and Aquinas, where it also issues in principles having the attribute of universality, in that they apply ideally to all human beings.

Liberalism is based upon bold assumptions. It is a political doctrine built upon confidence in the rationality and good will of men. Crisis might well be treated as endemic to any theory so premised. Hence, difficulties caused by the failure of men to act in a manner consistent with such assumptions could be easily anticipated and readily dismissed. The present difficulty seems to go much deeper and to rest upon a questioning of liberal assumptions as valid guides to action.It is but a step from such pragmatic probings to a challenge of the essential philosophic value of liberalism. To lose faith today in the values of liberalism would, I think, be tragic. The liberal tradition is the strongest political heritage of western culture, and particularly of the United States and the British Commonwealth of Nations. What are the essentials of this heritage?The essentials of liberalism are familiar to us all—civil rights, the tolerance of political differences, freedom of opportunity and a career open to talents, belief in the dignity and integrity of human personality, the acceptance of diversity and of compromise. These are the elements, and to many bred in the liberal faith they are taken as universal truths.

Classical liberals, disciples of F. A. Hayek, are described as the most interesting among the Polish dissenters of the 1980s. By 1987 liberals had become the most influential & dynamic intellectual group, contributing to a change in the intellectual climate with a shift in the focus of attention from politics to economics, & a way from a political radicalism rooted in the leftist tradition to a broadly defined New Right. New developments in Poland are considered, & the liberal opposition is described as arguing for the liquidation of socialism without changing its name or infringing on the interests of its ruling elite. The shift to the Right visible in the ranks of the new opposition is explored, & the thinking of two of the chief ideologists, Bronislaw Lagowski & Miroslaw Dzielski, both of the Jagiellonian U of Cracow, is explored. Polish liberals can be accused of extremism in praising the free market & dismissing the merits of mixed economies; this extremism is seen as a sound reaction against the realities that surround them. In an afterword, it is noted that the defeat of the government's program of economic & political reforms in the referendum of 29 Nov 1987 has been a defeat for the liberals & has helped rehabilitate the term socialism. F. S. J. Ledgister

Intro -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction: The Choice of Liberalism -- 1. The Democracy Offensive and the Defenses of "Islam" -- 2. Women and/in "Islam": The Rescue Mission of Western Liberal Feminism -- 3. Pre-Positional Conjunctions: Sexuality and/in "Islam" -- 4. Psychoanalysis, "Islam," and the Other of Liberalism -- 5. Forget Semitism! -- Works Cited -- Index.

MANY CONTEMPORARY CRITICS OF EARLY MODERN LIBERALISM CLAIM ROUSSEAU AS THEIR PHILOSOPHIC FOREFATHER CITING, TYPICALLY, HIS HISTORICISM AND HIS CONCERN FOR VIRTUE AND THE COMMON OR COLLECTIVE GOOD. MANY PROPONENTS OF MODERN LIBERALISM ATTACK ROUSSEAU AS THE FORERUNNER OF HISTORICISM, AND OF MODERN SOCIALISM, COMMUNALISM, AND THE TYRANNY OF THE COLLECTIVE. THIS ESSAY SUGGESTS THAT BOTH POSITIONS ARE MISTAKEN. ROUSSEAU'S STANCE TOWARDS EARLY MODERN LIBERALISM IS MORE COMPLEX THAN EITHER HIS DEFENDERS OR HIS CRITICS GRASP. IT IS MORE CORRECT TO CHARACTERIZE ROUSSEAU AS ONE WHO DID NOT REJECT BUT RATHER REVISED--IN ORDER TO FULFIL--EARLY MODERN LIBERALISM, AND AS ONE WHO DID SO ON THE BASIS OF HIS ACCEPTANCE OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES.