Jump to content




Udemy



Photo

History Of Western Liberalism

classical liberalism neoliberalism The Enlightenment The Age of Reason The Classical Era Objectivism libertarianism Austrianism progress history

10 replies to this topic

#1 Kyrel Zantonavitch

Kyrel Zantonavitch

    $$$

  • Members
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gotham City
  • Interests:Broad general world culture, history, philosophy, politics, controversalia, etc.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:44 PM

This is a brief history of the philosophy and culture of liberalism. It describes a life-style and civilization which lifts human beings far above that of animals, chimpanzees, hominids, and even tribalist hunter-gatherers. Liberalism features man at his best. Liberals are clear-thinking and rational men: natural, sound, healthy, happy, uplifted, and heroic.

Liberalism is a fundamental category of philosophy and life-style -- something broad and general. It constitutes a definitive concept -- beyond which one can not venture or improve -- like life, happiness, greatness, transcendence, virtue, beauty, pleasure, thought, reality, existence, and the universe. Liberalism's subsidiary concepts are also ultimate and final: rationality, egoism, and liberty.


In the story of mankind, first come bonobos, then semi-human Homo habilis, then primitive man Homo erectus, then highly advanced Neanderthals, then truly intelligent and impressive Cro-Magnons -- who used their 100 IQs to exterminate their brutish competitors, and invent sophisticated arrow technology, and make art such as those Venus statues and cave paintings.


By 9000 BC the Ice Age ended and humans immediately converted from hunter-gatherers to rancher-farmers. After domesticating multitudinous plants and animals, by 3300 BC human beings further cultivated them with irrigation on their new private property, backed by their revolutionary social institution called government. By 1700 BC men had well-established written laws, and well-developed literature and art, and easy personal transportation using horses, and elaborate international trade using sophisticated great ships.


All of this constituted impressive advances in humans' quality of life; but none of it constituted philosophical or cultural liberalism.


Finally, by about 600 BC, the ancient Greeks created the indescribably magnificent phenomenon of Western liberalism. They invented rationality or "Greek reason" or syllogistic logic -- or pure thought or epistemology. This is usually described as "the discovery of science and philosophy."


But along with the stunning and wondrous epistemology of reason -- naturally and inevitably and inherently -- came the ethics of individualism, and the politics of freedom.


All of this can be fairly, accurately, and usefully denominated as the thought-system and life-style of Western liberalism -- of liberal philosophy and culture, especially as exemplified by Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno the Stoic. These three theorists, ironically, were labelled by their intellectual opponents as "dogmatic." This was not because these scientifically-minded, open-debaters claimed to know everything based on faith, but because the claimed to know something based on evidence and analysis.


By the 100s BC in Greece, the general ideology of liberalism was well-established in the middle and upper classes. Then the Romans conquered the Greeks and within a century made liberalism their own. They even advanced the noble ideas and ideals a bit, with such thinkers as Cicero, Lucretius, Virgil, Horace, and Aurelius.


But skepticism of reason ascended rapidly by the 200s AD, and with it came the decline of the greatest country in human history. The new phenomenon of monotheism began to dominate in the 300s AD, especially Christianity or "Plato for the masses." By the middle of the 400s the philosophy and culture of liberalism was dead, and so was Rome. A long, terrible Dark Age ensued.


This irrational, illiberal nightmare of Western civilization lasted for a millenia. The wretched and depraved philosophy of Jesus ruined everything.


But a bit of reason and hope came back into the world in the 1100s of northwest Europe with the mini-Renaissance. High-quality Greek thinkers were gradually reintroduced. Then came the 1300s and the Italian Renaissance.


By the 1500s a whole European-wide Renaissance began with France's conquest of northern Italy. The French brought their reborn art and philosophy to everyone in the West. The beautiful general philosophy of liberalism ascended still higher while the ghastly evils of fundamentalist skepticism, Platonism, monotheism, and Christianity declined. The classical liberal era was brought about by radical and heroic innovators like Francis Bacon, John Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson.


The late 1700s Enlightenment and Age of Reason in Britain, France, Holland, and America featured liberalism at its height. But it was gradually and massively undermined by the irrational, nonsensical philosophers Bishop Berkeley, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Hegel.


After the 1790s the French Revolution went astray and embraced ideological dogmatism and self-sacrifice to the cause. It also converted itself into an early version of modern communism; as well as the false, evil, and illiberal ideologies of right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism. In the art world this was manifested by the slightly but definitely irrational Romantic movement of 1800-1850. Paintings started to turn ugly again.


Socialism and communism fairly quickly went into high gear after Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto of 1848. Religion also somewhat revived in the late 1800s. These two monstrous ideologies backed the moral ideal of self-destruction, or the "Judeo-Christian ethic," or, even better, the "religio-socialist ethic." The fin de siecle 1890s was the giddy, despairing, hopeless, lost, end of a noble era in the West -- a dynamic, heroic, rational, liberal era.


A practical, real-world, irrational, illiberal, dystopia was achieved in the mid 1900s with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Later in the 1900s there was Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and countless other despots. Illiberalism reached a hellish trough around 1985.


Then came Ronald Reagan in America, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Mikhail Gorbachev in Russia, and Deng Xiaoping in China. These four political semi-revolutionaries, in four leading nations, used their governments to change world culture in a liberal direction.


These liberal leaders emerged on the world scence because theory always proceeds practice, and the theory of liberalism began to rise again -- at least intellectually, and in certain recherché circles -- around the early 1900s. It began anew with Austrian economic thinkers like Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Friedrich Hayek. In addition to the dry, mechanical realm of economics, they addressed the fields of politics and sociology -- and even ethics and epistemology. They filled in many of the gaps, and corrected many of the weaknesses and failures, of Locke, Smith, and company.


The Austrians also attacked the communism, socialism, and progressivism of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, among others. And they taught the fiery intellectual novelist Ayn Rand.


Rand converted from fiction to philosophy from the late 1950s to the late 1970s. She was by far the most liberal thinker in the history of man. She created the philosophy of Objectivism. Ayn Rand advanced human knowledge about as much as Bacon, Locke, Voltaire, Smith, and Jefferson combined.


Sadly, however, Rand undercut her liberal ideology with a heavy atmosphere and subtext of cultism and religiosity in her propaganda movement. This was understandable, considering how revolutionary and hated her philosophy was, but hardly rational.


However Rand died in 1982 and a highly rational and non-religious organization organized around her discoveries emerged in 1989. This brought the world Objectivism as a thought-system, not a belief-system; and Objectivism as a rational, benevolent, effective philosophy -- not an irrational, malicious, weird cult.


There are currently three separate but related avant-garde liberal ideological movements: Austrian economics, libertarian politics, and Objectivist philosophy. All three are tiny but, based on historical intellectual standards, seemingly growing solidly.


Pure liberalism -- a pure, clean, complete comprehension that reason was 100% right in epistemology, individualism was 100% right in ethics, and freedom was 100% right in politics -- began in the early 21st century. Randroid illiberalism began to die out. A New Enlightenment is about to begin.

 


'Pure Liberal Fire' -- a radical and challenging new book which contains at least ten important new ideas not found in any other Objectivist writer: www.Amazon.com/Pure-Liberal-Fire-Philosophy-Liberalism/dp/1484872681

#2 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:45 PM

Kyrel,

 

Thank you for posting this interesting - and optimistic - article!



#3 Kyrel Zantonavitch

Kyrel Zantonavitch

    $$$

  • Members
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gotham City
  • Interests:Broad general world culture, history, philosophy, politics, controversalia, etc.

Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:47 AM

Thanks, Jerry. That was my attempt to write a lightning-fast intellectual history of the West, while trying to place the radical ideologies of Austrianism, Objectivism, and libertarianism in context.


'Pure Liberal Fire' -- a radical and challenging new book which contains at least ten important new ideas not found in any other Objectivist writer: www.Amazon.com/Pure-Liberal-Fire-Philosophy-Liberalism/dp/1484872681

#4 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:06 AM

Thanks, Jerry. That was my attempt to write a lightning-fast intellectual history of the West, while trying to place the radical ideologies of Austrianism, Objectivism, and libertarianism in context.

Concise summaries as you have written can be quite valuable.  I remember a television interview that Eric Sevareid had with Eric Hoffer (there were two prime-time hour-long specials in 1969-1970).  At the time of the interview, Hoffer had a position as "visiting scholar" at Berkeley. He told Severeid that often, students would come to his office, brimming with what they thought were new and innovative ideas, which they wished to explain to him. He did not have a high opinion of verbosity, since it led more often to obfuscation rather than clarity. So, he would tell them to not write a long treatise, but instead to concisely summarize their points into a one-page statement, and then submit it to him. 

 

Which is exactly what you have done here!



#5 Stephen Boydstun

Stephen Boydstun

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Metaphysics; Theory of Concepts and Predication; Philosophy of Science and Mathematics; Philosophy of Mind; Foundations of Ethics; Physics; Mathematics; Biology; Cognitive Science

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:23 AM

Kyrel,

 

Yes, provocative. And stimulating in a good way.


It would be nice to see an amplification of liberalism and the Greeks. I would look at and show how rationality, egoism, and liberty were treated by their philosophers we take as major, at what schools of philosophy had influence on their politics at the various periods of their civilization, and at what were the various weights of influence of philosophy and science and religion and past events on their political organization. One work pertinent to liberal constitution and Aristotle would be Fred Miller’s* Nature, Justice and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics* (see also ab). There are good chronologies and references on the Grecian wars at J. D. Lewis’ site here. His Early Greek Lawgivers* would seem likely to be helpful. Let us know sources you have found helpful already.


By the way, George Smith has a book coming out in April from Cambridge University Press titled The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism.* Good news that bears repeating.


Showing in some detail the ways in which the Romans “made liberalism their own” would be good. I’d consider too what other big influences, besides Greek, if any, there were favoring any liberal elements in Roman politics and culture.


About the philosophy of Jesus. I wonder if there are other important influences in the philosophies and theologies of those in power during the Christian era besides the influence of Jesus. You mention “Plato for the masses,” and it would be nice to see elaboration of that.

 

I would question whether Berkeley had any influence on political philosophy at all, whether Hume’s influence on political philosophy and constitution was bad and whether it had much to do with the skepticism in his philosophy, and whether Kant’s philosophy itself undermined his substantial liberalism and treasured Enlightenment as opposed to the twisting of his philosophy by subsequent fideists, romantics, and fans of Plato and Spinoza. I almost violated the rule of having at least two sentences in a paragraph, but as you see, I have the remedy.


Stephen



#6 Kyrel Zantonavitch

Kyrel Zantonavitch

    $$$

  • Members
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gotham City
  • Interests:Broad general world culture, history, philosophy, politics, controversalia, etc.

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:39 PM

Many thanks for your compliments, and the thoughtful detailed critique, Stephen! There certainly needs to be far more elaboration in that essay as well as a citation of sources. Hopefully I'll do that eventually. But if yourself or anyone else thinks I'm flat-wrong about the various other claims, I'd love to hear it. I'll also try to answer one or two of the points mentioned above in the next few days.


'Pure Liberal Fire' -- a radical and challenging new book which contains at least ten important new ideas not found in any other Objectivist writer: www.Amazon.com/Pure-Liberal-Fire-Philosophy-Liberalism/dp/1484872681

#7 Kyrel Zantonavitch

Kyrel Zantonavitch

    $$$

  • Members
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gotham City
  • Interests:Broad general world culture, history, philosophy, politics, controversalia, etc.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:57 AM

Stephen -- The books by Fred Miller and John Lewis seem promising, and probably George Smith's upcoming book too. I certainly appreciate your suggested references!

 

One reason why I think the Romans were massively liberal in philsophy and culture is that their best thinkers -- maybe Cicero, Lucretius, Virgil, Horace, and Aurelius -- all seemed to favor the Greek liberal trio of Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno the Stoic, while mostly disfavoring the principal illiberals, mainly: the Platonists, Cynics, Skeptics, and emerging monotheists.

 

Hume seems like an illiberal disaster and destroyer to me based on such ethical beliefs as: "Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason." And:"Actions may be laudable or blameable; but they cannot be reasonable: Laudable or blameable, therefore, are not the same with reasonable or unreasonable. The merit and demerit of actions frequently contradict, and sometimes controle, our natural propensities. But reason has no such influence. Moral distinctions, therefore, are not the offspring of reason."


'Pure Liberal Fire' -- a radical and challenging new book which contains at least ten important new ideas not found in any other Objectivist writer: www.Amazon.com/Pure-Liberal-Fire-Philosophy-Liberalism/dp/1484872681

#8 Stephen Boydstun

Stephen Boydstun

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Metaphysics; Theory of Concepts and Predication; Philosophy of Science and Mathematics; Philosophy of Mind; Foundations of Ethics; Physics; Mathematics; Biology; Cognitive Science

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:45 AM

Kyrel, thank you for #7, especially for the quote from Hume. This note is prepared mainly from Copleston.

 

Hume surely did minimize the power of practical reason. At least in name.

 

Although he thought reason issues no emotions, he thought there are calm desires and tendencies that are often confused with operations of reason, which latter really only judges truth and falsehood. The desire for good as such and aversion to evil as such are passions even if they occur calmly. Passions that can take a calm form include benevolence, resentment, love of life, and kindness to children, which are implanted in humans by nature. Individuals in which calm passions prevail are said to possess strength of mind.

 

Reason and sentiment concur in almost all moral determinations and conclusions. The final sentence, it is probable, which pronounces characters and actions amiable or odious, praiseworthy or blameable; that which stamps on them the mark of honour or infamy, approbation or censure; that which renders morality an active principle and constitutes virtue our happiness and vice our misery: it is probable, I say, that this final sentence depends on some internal sense or feeling, which nature has made universal in the whole species. For what else can have an influence of this nature? But in order to pave the way for such a sentiment, and give a proper discernment of its object, it is often necessary, we find, that much reasoning should precede, that nice distinctions be made, just conclusions drawn, distant comparisons formed, complicated relations examined, and general facts fixed and ascertained. – Essays, Moral and Political (1741)

 

Hume held we are able to reflect on the self-interested utility of benevolence, though that sum is not the only reason we approve of it morally. Justice, however, is entirely a matter of the self-interested association and the need for conventions in establishing and regulating the right of property. This idea of Hume’s has inspired contemporary game-theoretic investigations of the emergence of rights from self-interest, which I have surveyed here.

 

Hume did not rest the duty of allegiance to one’s present legal system on promises or contracts, written or implicit (cf.). He founded that duty on utility and self-interest. Good plan.



#9 Stephen Boydstun

Stephen Boydstun

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Metaphysics; Theory of Concepts and Predication; Philosophy of Science and Mathematics; Philosophy of Mind; Foundations of Ethics; Physics; Mathematics; Biology; Cognitive Science

Posted 21 May 2013 - 07:33 AM

Sources to add to those in #5:

 

Greece, Rome, and the Bill of Rights

Susan Ford Wiltshire (1992)

 

Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate

C. H. Wirszubski (1950; available at abe for about $40)



#10 Kyrel Zantonavitch

Kyrel Zantonavitch

    $$$

  • Members
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gotham City
  • Interests:Broad general world culture, history, philosophy, politics, controversalia, etc.

Posted 29 May 2013 - 11:33 AM

Thanks, Stephen! That book Greece, Rome, and the Bill of Rights seems especially promising.


'Pure Liberal Fire' -- a radical and challenging new book which contains at least ten important new ideas not found in any other Objectivist writer: www.Amazon.com/Pure-Liberal-Fire-Philosophy-Liberalism/dp/1484872681

#11 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,478 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 29 May 2013 - 02:23 PM

 

Hume held we are able to reflect on the self-interested utility of benevolence, though that sum is not the only reason we approve of it morally. Justice, however, is entirely a matter of the self-interested association and the need for conventions in establishing and regulating the right of property. This idea of Hume’s has inspired contemporary game-theoretic investigations of the emergence of rights from self-interest, which I have surveyed here.

 

After reading this I Nashed my teeth.

 

Ba'al Chatzaf 


אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: classical liberalism, neoliberalism, The Enlightenment, The Age of Reason, The Classical Era, Objectivism, libertarianism, Austrianism, progress, history

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users