Why Are Liberals Liberals?

Economics Political Theory
, , ,
81

Believing in something is not the same as determining if something is true. 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 has told us. Faith is a positive response to revelation. It is both a decision and a gift from God.

82

You’ve given three definitions of liberal so far in this thread. The first one was anyone who wants to improve the lot of man. That means Catholics are “liberals,” according to your definition. The second one was anyone who believes faith is irrational. That means that Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, and other Christian existentialists are “liberals.” Your third definition basically was anyone who doesn’t believe in “life after death.” SO a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-economic freedom deist (think: Founding Fathers) is a “liberal” by this definition. A pro-choice socialist atheist would also be a “liberal” by this definition. However, the moment these two individuals start believing in a heaven and hell, they magically stop being “liberals,” even though they have wildly different views on political issues.

The facts of the matter are:

  1. Your definition makes no sense whatsoever. It confuses many issues from philosophy to ideology to religion; issues which should not be confused with each other because they are from completely different subject matters.

  2. You continually avoid all the hard questions.

83

  • 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.

You’re skipping over the part where it logically follows that this “infinite being” is an omnipotent God, and more specifically, the God of the Bible/Koran/Torah etc. All we know is what we can see in the observable universe, and you yourself state that a finite being could have created our existence. So how is it at all possible to draw and logical conclusions about the nature of the divine that are NOT vauge?

  • Believing in something is not the same as determining if something is true. 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 has told us. Faith is a positive response to revelation. It is both a decision and a gift from God.

First off “reason” is not a type of knoweldge, it is a process. Secondly, if “faith” is something we know is true because God told us, your first have to have a way to differientiate “the word of God” from the word of man, and potentially your own dreams, delusions, and hallucinations. And in order to do that, you need to know the nature of “God”. Now, where are you getting your information on the nature of God? I’ve already discussed how your rational proof can only be vauge and amorphous to the point where it’s useless for determining this. Other than that, I can only imagine that you’re getting your information from 1.) Those who raised you (The word of man) 2.) Religious texts (The word of man) 3.) Your own anectdotal experience. none of which are the self-evident logical proofs you keep talking about.

I’m really failing to see a coherent arguement here, other than “I think you should believe in God”. Your definitions are all over the board.

84
85

In the West, God is the name we give the infinite being. That God exists is a no-brainer. There is nothing to decide. Saying God does not exist is like saying humans don’t have free will.

The decision that has to be made is whether or not God has communicated himself to mankind. I believe that God has because of historical events, and because people who don’t believe give bad reasons for not believing.

An example of the word of man, as you put it, is the resurrection of Jesus. It is an historical event that the followers of Jesus swore up and down that Jesus was alive. The word of God is that Jesus is alive in a new life with God.

86

Ok, so what are the consequences of this on political or economic philosophy? What can and can not be said? How do you enter into a discussion in an ever changing and ever unique world? What would be the “pragmatic” universal dialogue you would use. If there is none, than there is simply nothing to discuss.

87

The topic is “Why Are Liberals Liberals”. Liberals say and do certain things. Generally, the support the Democratic party. Other liberals, such as libertarians, support Republicans. I think it is quite important to understand why some people are liberals and some people are not. Naturally, liberals think they are being rational don’t need to be psychoanalyzed.

I think my analysis of whether or not there should be slavery brings out the irrationality of liberalism and libertarianism.

88

I’m a liberal because I prefer civilization to barbarism. That said, “psychoanalyzing” individuals does nothing for political or economic philosophy if we are trying to speak of universal principles of governance. Be it talking about a practiced art, such as legal theory or a science, such as economics.

The intellectual/vizirs/etc for the god-man Pharaoh, The emperor of Holy Byzantium, The divine-rights given King of France, Western Democracies, Holy Russia, The USSR, Maoist China, The Puritans at Plymouth Rock, England and her Church, Athens and her patron god Athena, Sparta and her patron God Hera, the Muslim Caliphits, the Zoroastrian Sassanids, The Emperor of China etc could all speak of politcal and economic sciences. And I bet, they could all do it in an inter-subjective sense with each other to try to make sense of things. If they couldn’t we’d probably be in an awful lot of trouble.

89
90
91

I’m a conservative because I prefer rationality to irrationality. This is my list of bad governments: The USSR, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Castro’s Cuba.

92

What do you even mean by “God exists”? I know what “this computer exists” means: it means I can see it, touch it, and it takes up space. God isn’t even alleged to have any of these properties, so I cannot process the utterance “God exists.” At least, until you tell me what existence means in this context.

93

I’m a conservative because I prefer rationality to irrationality. This is my list of bad governments: The USSR, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Castro’s Cuba.

I’m glad to see you support Chavez in Venezuela, comrade! And the congo! And Sudan, pakistan, iran, saudi arabia, thailand…

I mean… just wow

(BTW, what of Czarist Russia, fascist Italy, imperial China, etc?)

And you had the gall to claim moral superiority in your OP…

94

OK, walk me through this. There’s this term ffrreeewwilll, but you can’t define it for us. So that means I am not allowed to see it as anything other than a bunch of letters. How is this supposed to be communicating anything at all?

95
96

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

How to governments get a ‘right to rule’? why are governments legitimate?

97

That’s so broad that affecting anothers consciousness includes argumentation.

98

Haha.Conservative dogma.How does government get this ‘right to hand out rights’?

99
100