Why Are Liberals Liberals?

[I_Ryan]

If you don’t even tell me what your words point to, you’re simply talking to yourself.

@David Roemer

Only a liberal would have pretend that they did not understand the concept of free will.

Understand what?

@David Roemer

Free will leads logically to God’s existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins.

Where did you find that logical connection?

@David Roemer

Free will means we possess a center of action

What’s a “center of action”?

@David Roemer

that makes us unified with respect to ourselves

Unified how?

@David Roemer

and different from other beings.

Different in what respect?

@David Roemer

It is because of free will that humans are finite beings.

What’s a “finite being”?

@David Roemer

God is an infinite being.

And what’s an “infinite being”?

[krazy_kaju]

@David Roemer

Not all libertarians are liberals. Only the ones who think religious faith is irrational are liberals.

So Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, Karl Jaspers, and other Christian existentialist theologians are all liberals?

[David_Roemer]

You and me are finite beings because we are different from one another. We also both exist. This means we are compositions of two incomplete beings or metaphysical principles: essence and existence. Our essence limits our existence to ourselves. God is a pure act of existence. God has existence, but no limiting essence. God is an infinite being.

One of the reasons to believe God has communicated himself to mankind is that the Jewish name for God is “Yahwey” (Exodus 3.14). This means, “I am who am.” The human authors of Exodus did not know anything about essence and existence. They were inspired by God to get his name right.

[David_Roemer]

Kierkegaard and Tillich are not liberals because they believe in life after death. Jaspers is a liberal because he makes a point of saying there is no life after death, I think. Liberal = believing in heaven and hell is unenlightened.

[Libertyandlife]

Liberalism is a political philosophy, stance, view or movement. It’s not a religious or ontological viewpoint.

[David_Roemer]

The trouble with defining liberalism as a political philosophy is that you have to spell out what that philosophy is. If the philosophy makes no sense and is irrational, you can’t spell it out. The statement “human beings have rights” is nonsense. The only rights humans have are given to them by governments. (We can say U.S. citizens have more rights than Cuban citizens. ) Liberalism as a movement , however, can be defined as being made up of people who say “human beings have rights.”

[Autolykos]

@David Roemer

Karl Rahner gave a more general definition of power than is given by libertarians. Libertarians define power in terms of utility theory. Rahner defined power as the ability to affect somebodies consciousness without their consent. Before the fall of man, Adam and Eve interacted freely. The way I think of it is that if Eve tried to nag Adam, Adam could tune her out. After the fall, Adam and Eve were subject to death, concupiscence, and unwanted interference from each other.

By that definition of “power”, typing this response to you gives me power over you. Also, no matter how much Adam could tune Eve out, she had power over him every time she nagged him.

@David Roemer

It is completely arbitrary to define power in terms of force.

How is it any less arbitrary to define “power” in terms of affecting someone’s consciousness without his consent?

@David Roemer

Suppose you are stranded alone on an island, struggling to survive, and another weaker persons lands there. Should you cooperate or should you make that person your slave? Liberal answer: cooperation. Conservative answer: follow your conscience. The liberal answer makes no sense at all because we all know what utility theory says. There is no point in saying it twice. What to do in a concrete case depends on the circumstances. The conservative answer is the more rational one.

How is the conservative answer more rational? What is your definition of “rational”?

@David Roemer

What is negative about liberalism is that liberals think religious faith is irrational.

What makes religious faith rational, in your view?

[Prateek_Sanjay]

Autolykos, the basic idea is that liberals have a faith in rationality, which is itself irrational.

We can’t answer the hardest questions about this universe through rationality, what with chaos theory and everything.

[Autolykos]

@Prateek Sanjay

Autolykos, the basic idea is that liberals have a faith in rationality, which is itself irrational.

We can’t answer the hardest questions about this universe through rationality, what with chaos theory and everything.

How are you defining “rational” and “rationality”, Prateek?

[Autolykos]

Mr. Roemer, I hope you don’t mind if I respond to several posts of yours within one post of mine.

@David Roemer

Since humans have free will and conscious knowledge, they are embodied spirits.

I fail to see how embodiment of spirit follows from having free will and conscious knowledge. Can you provide your reasoning for this?

@David Roemer

1. We know we have free will because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. We can comprehend free will, but we can’t define it.

How can one comprehend something without defining it, at least implicitly?

@David Roemer

2. Conscious knowledge: Consider knowing that this page is white and black. This means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It means an awareness of this. What is it? There is the conscious knowledge of humans and the sense knowledge of animals. There is no such thing as unconscious knowledge.

How do you know whether animals have awareness of things like “whiteness” and “blackness”? If there’s no such thing as unconscious knowledge, why not simply use “knowledge” and define it as implicitly requiring consciousness?

@David Roemer

3. Another way of saying humans are embodied spirits is that they are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence.

Would you say that becoming conscious of something is the same as comprehending it?

@David Roemer

4. The soul is the metaphysical principle that makes humans members of the same category of being. The body is the principle that makes humans different from one another. Biologists need the concepts of body and soul to put the study of humans (embodied spirits) on a rational basis.

Once again, can you please explain what you mean by “rational”?

@David Roemer

The reference to “intuitive creeds for which no logically sufficient proof can be provided” is a derogatory reference to revealed religion. The author of this screed thinks people who believe in the Bible are his intellectual inferiors. Such people are immature and prone to political extremism.

How does one determine whether his religious revelations are true? Or are they all true by definition, according to you?

What is it that leads from believing religious revelations are irrational to immaturity and political extremism, in your view? Or again, are you simply defining “immaturity” as “believing religious revelations are irrational” and “political extremism” as “political movements founded upon such belief”?

@David Roemer

It is absurd for a biologist to say, “free will evolved” because free will is not a scientific concept. We can comprehend free will because we have it. However, we can not explain, explicate, or define free will. But it is because humans have free will and animals don’t that slavery is wrong, but it is okay to own animals and use them for food. Humans are a separate class or category of being.

Why can’t “free will” be a scientific concept? How are you defining “scientific concept”? Why can’t we define “free will”?

@David Roemer

While many liberals say, “free will is an illusion,” they live their lives as if they have free will. They feel guilty when they do something wrong, apologize, and promise not to do it again. In any case, an honest scientist has to leave questions about human rationality aside and deal only with observable and measurable concepts. A biologist can do this with the metaphysical categories of form (soul) and matter (body), as I explained above. Biology is the study of the human body, not the human spiritual soul.

That presumes there is such a thing as what you call “the human spiritual soul”. Is it possible for free will to be an illusion, but also be a useful illusion when it comes to human behavior?

@David Roemer

Only a liberal would have pretend that they did not understand the concept of free will. Free will leads logically to God’s existence, which means we may have to pay for our sins. Free will means we possess a center of action that makes us unified with respect to ourselves and different from other beings. It is because of free will that humans are finite beings. God is an infinite being.

Please explain how free will leads logically to God’s existence. As far as I can tell, you haven’t done this yet.

@David Roemer

The trouble with defining liberalism as a political philosophy is that you have to spell out what that philosophy is. If the philosophy makes no sense and is irrational, you can’t spell it out. The statement “human beings have rights” is nonsense. The only rights humans have are given to them by governments. (We can say U.S. citizens have more rights than Cuban citizens. ) Liberalism as a movement , however, can be defined as being made up of people who say “human beings have rights.”

Where do you think governments get the ability to give people rights?

[Prateek_Sanjay]

I said that in half jest. I didn’t really mean it.

But if I were serious, I guess it’s the idea that observing things and deducing from them will lead you to the truth - that’s not going to be feasible when things change faster than you can observe them. That’s what the chaos theory tells us.

[Autolykos]

@Prateek Sanjay

I said that in half jest. I didn’t really mean it.

Sorry, I had no way of knowing that. But thanks for telling me.

@Prateek Sanjay

But if I were serious, I guess it’s the idea that observing things and deducing from them will lead you to the truth - that’s not going to be feasible when things change faster than you can observe them. That’s what the chaos theory tells us.

Things changing faster than current observation techniques in no way invalidates the general principles of observation and deduction.

[LogisticEarth]

This is turning out to be like that “Ask a Marxist anything” thread. The guy gets dogpiled by everyone here and can evade the hard questions by scattering back a bunch of quick responses to the numerous challenges. This of course prompts more dogpiling, rinse and repeat.

Maybe instead of having massive lists of quotes with one-line responses, one or two posters can discuss his central ideas one at a time?

[David_Roemer]

Defining power in terms of affecting another person’s consciousness without their consent includes coercion. It is more general.

If you are stranded on an island with another person, slavery might be called for. You may need a beast of burden and cannot afford to pay. The slave may grumble from time to time, but suppose the slave thanks you for being tough with him?

There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we know something is true because God is telling us. I am giving you my reasons to believe and am summoning you to believe. I am not demanding belief or criticizing you for not believing.

[Autolykos]

@David Roemer

Defining power in terms of affecting another person’s consciousness without their consent includes coercion. It is more general.

So what? Why are more general definitions better or, at least, less arbitrary?

Regardless, if we go along with your implicit assertion (as noted above), we should define “power” such that everything that exists, has ever existed, or could ever exist falls under it. After all, that’s the most general definition that can be used for any word, right?

@David Roemer

If you are stranded on an island with another person, slavery might be called for. You may need a beast of burden and cannot afford to pay. The slave may grumble from time to time, but suppose the slave thanks you for being tough with him?

I fail to see how this denotes or demonstrates a fundamental distinction between “the liberal mindset” and “the conservative mindset”. Can you please explain how it does?

@David Roemer

There are two kinds of knowledge: faith and reason. In reason we know something is true because we can see the truth of it. In faith, we know something is true because God is telling us. I am giving you my reasons to believe and am summoning you to believe. I am not demanding belief or criticizing you for not believing.

What makes faith knowledge? How are you defining “knowledge”?

In your description of faith, you assume that the God of the Bible exists. Yet you’ve also claimed that the God of the Bible’s existence can be proven by reason. So which is it? Can the God of the Bible be proven to exist, or must he simply be assumed to exist? If the latter, why should anyone else agree with that assumption?

---

Can you please respond to this post?

[krazy_kaju]

@David Roemer

Kierkegaard and Tillich are not liberals because they believe in life after death. Jaspers is a liberal because he makes a point of saying there is no life after death, I think. Liberal = believing in heaven and hell is unenlightened.

But previously you stated that anyone who believes that faith is irrational is a liberal! Surely then, Kierkegaard and Tillich are liberals?

[David_Roemer]

1. What makes humans different from animals is free will, conscious knowledge, mental beings, and human speech. None of these things can be defined. They are not scientific concepts. Hence, humans are indefinabilites. Since we have bodies, we are embodied spirits: indefinable = embodied spirit.

2. We don’t know whether or not animals have conscious knowledge and free will because animals don’t speak.

3. An example of irrationality is saying, “free will is an illusion.” Being and reason are fundamental metaphysical concepts and can’t be defined.

4. I believe in revelation for three reasons: 1) historical events, 2) the proof of God’s existence, and 3) people who don’t believe give bad reasons for not believing.

5. Free will isn’t a scientific concept because we don’t know of it from our senses.

6. Free will means that humans are finite beings. But finite beings need a cause. If every being in the universe needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, an infinite being exists.

7. Governments get the ability to give people rights because they have power over people.

[LogisticEarth]

• 6. Free will means that humans are finite beings. But finite beings need a cause. If every being in the universe needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, an infinite being exists.

Please explain how this isn’t a series of non-sequitors? Are you basically saying “the universe had to come from somewhere, therefore god exists”? If that’s the case then the “rational” definition of the divine is so vauge that most if not all of the assertations you’re making in this thread are baseless assumptions rather than logical proofs.

[Autolykos]

Thanks for responding, Mr. Roemer. My responses to you are below.

@David Roemer

1. What makes humans different from animals is free will, conscious knowledge, mental beings, and human speech. None of these things can be defined. They are not scientific concepts. Hence, humans are indefinabilites. Since we have bodies, we are embodied spirits: indefinable = embodied spirit.

You assert (again) that “free will” and “conscious knowledge”, now along with “mental being” and “human speech”, can’t be defined. Why not?

Thanks just the same for explaining that you consider “spirit” to be the same as “something that is undefinable”.

@David Roemer

2. We don’t know whether or not animals have conscious knowledge and free will because animals don’t speak.

Is that the only possible way to find out whether animals have conscious knowledge or free will?

@David Roemer

3. An example of irrationality is saying, “free will is an illusion.” Being and reason are fundamental metaphysical concepts and can’t be defined.

Thanks for the example, but I still don’t understand what you mean by “rational”. Can you please tell me?

@David Roemer

4. I believe in revelation for three reasons: 1) historical events, 2) the proof of God’s existence, and 3) people who don’t believe give bad reasons for not believing.

Do you consider “believing in [something]” to be the same as “determining that [something] is true”? Why or why not?

Otherwise, can you please explain those three points in more detail?

@David Roemer

5. Free will isn’t a scientific concept because we don’t know of it from our senses.

How do we not know of it from our senses? Couldn’t we say that, whenever we see a person doing something, we’re observing free will?

Either way, if we don’t know of free will from our senses, how do we know of it?

@David Roemer

6. Free will means that humans are finite beings. But finite beings need a cause. If every being in the universe needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, an infinite being exists.

As I mentioned before, “an infinite being” is in no way necessarily the same as “the God of the Bible”.

@David Roemer

7. Governments get the ability to give people rights because they have power over people.

By “power”, do you mean “physical force” or “the ability to affect a person’s consciousness without his consent”? Either way, where does government’s power over people come from?

[David_Roemer]

The basic idea is that a finite being needs a cause. The reason is a finite being can’t exist except as finite. Hence, a finite being can’t be the reason for its own existence. There must be some other being that caused it. If the other being is finite, that being needs a cause. Hence there must exist at least one being that is not finite.

I don’t think the concept of an infinite being is vague. A finite being is a composition of essence and existence. An infinite being is a pure act of existence.