From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 04:28:29 GMT
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the reply. Let me first sketch out where I agree, because I think that will clarify where
I disagree. I'm happy with 'liberalism' as what we're talking about, although (i) I think 'secular
humanism' is accurate too! and (ii) you and I understand liberalism as akin to Locke/JS Mill etc
rather than as a political insult. Within that JS Mill style tradition freedom of religious belief
is a high quality static pattern, one of the highest, which needs to be preserved and defended from
lower quality static patterns which might undermine it (eg an insistence on an established state
religion, variably defined, so Stalinism qualifies). Essentially, as you say, allowing free speech
to be a part of the process rules out an insistence on dogma, which would undermine that static
pattern and inhibit its dynamic evolution.
Now those things I think you and I can pretty much agree on. Where I think we still part company is
your insistence that it is only the practical outcomes of policies that "have a place on the Senate
floor". I am happy to say that I DO want to debate God on the Senate floor - if, that is, 'God' is
understood in a broad (classical or MoQian) sense, not a narrow (Modern) sense. I think that your
effective qualification on free speech does itself undermine that high quality pattern of
liberalism. I need to explain why I see a tension here.
The tension exists on two levels and it's the second that I think is more important and interesting
for our conversation.
The first, simple level, relates to your comment that "The secular vocabulary is the one used in
politics." This is clearly untrue for the United States, although it probably is true in much of
Europe. But what IS employed in political debate is the language of values, of what is the good
life, of, as you put it, "What type of people should we become?" I think this sort of language is -
for historical reasons if nothing else - religious language, although it doesn't have to be tied to
any of the established religions. I think that a MoQian language would qualify - in other words,
people are debating Quality in political terms.
The second (much more interesting) level, though, is a point about the 'basic tenets' of liberalism.
You said,
"Well, the problem I have with conceding that "it is at least _prima facie_ plausible that there
will come a time when the Dynamic evolution of secular humanism requires a reconsideration of its
basic tenets" is a legitimate objection is that I don't see it as an objection. I simply agree with
you and fail to see why I shouldn't be able to."
I want to know how it is possible to reconsider the basic tenets of [liberalism] without engaging in
fundamental considerations or articulations of the Good or Quality (which I think count as
'religious' on a family resemblance understanding). These would seem to be disqualified by your
comment that "The only sense in which religious discourse is illegitimate in a democracy is the
sense in which religious discourse poses as political discourse." I just don't see the division
between the two vocabularies that you do; in fact I think it is that division which you are trying
to enforce as a pragmatic 'add-on' to classical liberalism, and which I think is unjustified. You
seem to want to make political discourse purely technocratic, ie 'how can we best achieve X', when I
think an essential part of political discourse is 'what X should we achieve'. So you're making a
political point under philosophical disguise. I don't think that latter question (what X should we
achieve) can be answered except through the use of non-pragmatic language, both in the simple sense
of 'where should we go' but also in the profound sense of 'lets leave room for debating whether
liberalism is the best system we can have'. In other words, even if we're debating about health
care, I don't think we can escape ultimate questions of the good. (Perhaps we could focus on that?)
I don't think there's a huge difference between our views in practice (pragmatically!) but I think
the difference is important. What do you think?
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 26 2004 - 04:29:09 GMT