Thank you Mr. Connelly, It is difficult to determine what post-liberals mean because their language lacks precision. Is there any chance they can be allies in the struggle for freedom? It is depressing that we are losing those that should be with us. Take care.
1. The lack of precision is often intentional. Not everyone on the New Right is a sophist, but there are some sophists there. And even for those who aren't being intentionally vague and misleading, obscurity is often a feature, not a bug. There is an academic quality to some of their writing in the way that critical theory is academic (i.e., it becomes bogged down in esotericism and over-relies on jargon and arcane allusions). I like big words, too, but I generally think arguments should be clear and precise. Some post-liberals find it intellectually satisfying, or useful to their careers, to be unclear and imprecise. In a few cases, their vision of a good society is so radically unpleasant to the vast majority of people that they avoid coming right out and saying what they think. But mostly they are largely uncertain themselves of what their preferred policies and desired outcomes are. They are heavy on criticism and light on solutions, because they don't actually know how to get from where we are today to where they wish to go.
2. Unfortunately, I don't know that the majority of them can be allies in the struggle for freedom. And I say that with all due respect - I have friends who are sympathetic to post-liberalism and close with at least a few of them. But to them, "freedom" is a bad word. They really do see themselves in many cases as enemies of freedom. Many will say as much. Others will say they are for freedom and give a definition of freedom straight out of Marx and Engels.
Thank you Mr. Connelly, It is difficult to determine what post-liberals mean because their language lacks precision. Is there any chance they can be allies in the struggle for freedom? It is depressing that we are losing those that should be with us. Take care.
1. The lack of precision is often intentional. Not everyone on the New Right is a sophist, but there are some sophists there. And even for those who aren't being intentionally vague and misleading, obscurity is often a feature, not a bug. There is an academic quality to some of their writing in the way that critical theory is academic (i.e., it becomes bogged down in esotericism and over-relies on jargon and arcane allusions). I like big words, too, but I generally think arguments should be clear and precise. Some post-liberals find it intellectually satisfying, or useful to their careers, to be unclear and imprecise. In a few cases, their vision of a good society is so radically unpleasant to the vast majority of people that they avoid coming right out and saying what they think. But mostly they are largely uncertain themselves of what their preferred policies and desired outcomes are. They are heavy on criticism and light on solutions, because they don't actually know how to get from where we are today to where they wish to go.
2. Unfortunately, I don't know that the majority of them can be allies in the struggle for freedom. And I say that with all due respect - I have friends who are sympathetic to post-liberalism and close with at least a few of them. But to them, "freedom" is a bad word. They really do see themselves in many cases as enemies of freedom. Many will say as much. Others will say they are for freedom and give a definition of freedom straight out of Marx and Engels.