Share this comment
Perhaps one could defend Shklar's consistency by saying that, because no one has definitive knowledge of the ultimate ends of life, the best political order is a liberalism that leaves everyone free to choose their own ends without interference from the state or others. I suppose you could call this a "normative" claim, but only in a ne…
Perhaps one could defend Shklar's consistency by saying that, because no one has definitive knowledge of the ultimate ends of life, the best political order is a liberalism that leaves everyone free to choose their own ends without interference from the state or others. I suppose you could call this a "normative" claim, but only in a negative sense: it is based on our ignorance of ultimate ends. By the way, I don't agree with the liberal position, but I think we need to recognize and meet the strongest arguments in its favor.
To be contrarian: maybe it is simple, maybe we know the ultimate end - we die and our consciousness ends - we just don’t like that answer, lotsa obfuscation on that one.
I think the point is that liberalism is running a bad show: greed on the right and absurd philistinism of wokeness on the left. I think it, liberalism, is mostly a practical failure and we should beware, the pitiless crowbar of events is our history. Liberalism is a primrose path.
The 95% of the human species that believe in some kind of a supreme being would argue with your "ultimate end".
Liberalism was birthed in an attempt to pacify disputes about ultimate ends. Maybe that was the problem? Is a society without an "ultimate end" of some kind (some sense of the common good) destined to eat itself in an orgy of hedonistic futility? Never thought I would quote Nietzsche, but he's correct that "he who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." Maybe what's true for a man is true for a mass of men as well. I don't really know; it's late and I'm just kind of thinking out load.
Hi Sir Brian, TYTY. I'm joining this conversation late. And I really hate to "say" something You're not likely to like, but here goes:
I can assure You that people can have a very *strong* sense of the common good without reference to a Supreme Being. Dunno, but might be a purer form of it, because it's not based on a really bad, eternal, punishment coming if You don't love Your neighbor as Yourself. Good just based on goodness. Dunno. A goodness that doesn't *depend* on pain/reward as the motivation?
Ultimate ends? *Real* contrarian view. Don't know much philosophy. But how, on Earth, *can* ultimate ends be knowable? Yeah, I get it. On Faith. And I agree that even Atheistic Scientists rely on Faith.
I guess "Faith" isn't the kind of *knowing* I"m looking for. Or, rather, gave up looking for. That's just me, just thinkin' out loud.
TY again, and Sir RJF as well!
JT, I didn't mean to suggest that an atheist can't have an understanding of the common good. I see how you read it that way, but it wasn't my intention. Here's another attempt at same:
An atheist's ultimate ends will always be in this world. If this world is all there is (fade to black), it falls on man (each man) to define and create his own purpose, as Justice Kennedy put it in Casey, "to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
In such a society (which we have today), each person defines his own concept of existence and ultimate purpose of life. If yours and mine are incompatible, one of us must surrender our liberty to our own concept of existence in order to have a shared sense of "what is good." We often do this, so there may be a broad agreement about most issues, but over time, as more and more people "define their own concept of existence", we would expect agreement to become less common, and hence "the common good" more elusive.
There is a mirror of this in what happened after the Protestant Reformation: early broad agreement about doctrine, then division into a few major camps, and gradual divergence of views until we have thousands of denominations today. Luther made every man responsible for interpreting Scripture ("defining his own concept of existence") and there's been a gradually increasing divergence of views ever since. I would expect something similar among atheists engaged in the same process, and I think the rise of atheism since the 16th century demonstrates a similar pattern of gradual divergence.
I'm not saying that theists have it any easier. History is not kind to anyone who claims the world's religions don't create conflict. Only that since essentially all major religions assert a cosmic moral order of some kind, such societies are more likely to have agreement about the question "what is good?" (They will likely conflict with each other, but I'm talking about internal cohesion here.) That's why I quoted Neitzsche's point that in terms of importance, the question "how well do I live?" pales next do "what do I live for?".
My point was that the same may be true for a society: agreement on what to live for (the common good) is more important than how well you live. Modern America has among the highest standards of living in the world, but we are lonelier and more spiritually adrift than ever. Our rising disagreement about "why to live" has paralleled rising prosperity in "how we live", but at some point, we will realize that the old bumper sticker, "he who dies with the most toys wins" isn't actually true. In fact, he who dies with the most toys, still dies. We've been so focused on the toys (the how) that we forgot about the why.
I hope that clarifies a little. This topic is near to my heart, since I have had quite a long spiritual (and political and philosophical) journey thus far and it is by no means at its end: Marxist atheist, to libertarian Buddhist, to Christian, to conservative Evangelical, and now find myself drawn to Eastern Orthodox mysticism. The question of ends has occupied my entire 50 years of life, but that by no means implies I understand the answers any better than you or anyone else. Personally, I think this sort of quest is universal to the human experience, and gets derailed mostly by the shiny baubles that modern industrial capitalism is so good at producing.
Don't sell yourself short. By even engaging with those questions like "what is the common good and how can we know it?", you're ahead of 90% of all Americans. You ARE focused on the "why" instead of the "how".
I always enjoy "talking" with You, Sir Brian. You suffer me kindly, as what I lack in education I make up with a combination of occasionally thinking and having a big "mouth." I put ">>>" in front of Your quotes:
>>> JT, I didn't mean to suggest that an atheist can't have an understanding of the common good. I see how you read it that way, but it wasn't my intention. Here's another attempt at same:
Ah. I misread it then.
>>> An atheist's ultimate ends will always be in this world.
That's true of Agnostics, as well. Not because there's no possibility of life after death, but because the only thing anyone can actually *do* anything about and change is the present moment of time, right? Religio-Spiritual people think what we do will effect what comes after death. Agnostics say, yeah, it might. (So best to play it safe. ;-)
>>> In such a society (which we have today), each person defines his own concept of existence and ultimate purpose of life. If yours and mine are incompatible, one of us must surrender our liberty to our own concept of existence in order to have a shared sense of "what is good." We often do this, so there may be a broad agreement about most issues, but over time, as more and more people "define their own concept of existence", we would expect agreement to become less common, and hence "the common good" more elusive.
I'm not sure if I'd disagree with this or not. Not sure. My own view is that no matter what structure You pin Your hopes on, still each person's ultimate definitions are unique to that person. Right? Or not? I understand having Religions largely determine their people's worldviews are helpful to tons of people. But still seems like each has to find their own Way. So that's where I'm having trouble with even the concept that some might be incompatible. Oh... I'm guessing You might mean that people's lifestyles and judgements will be so deeply effected by their world-concepts that they can't get along. Yeah, that could happen. (And is happening.)
Still I wonder if there's so much trouble about finding a common good. Truth. Honesty. Kindness (to kin, countrymen, and strangers as well). That's pretty feeble but a place to start. And, thusly, we have hypocrites, liars, and cruel people. Some-a that mixed up in all of us in different measures. Some, especially these days, valuing their selves above all other people. Some devaluing themselves needlessly. The rest doing the best they can.
>>> Only that since essentially all major religions assert a cosmic moral order of some kind, such societies are more likely to have agreement about the question "what is good?"
I haven't studied much, but if You added in the Ancient Greek/Roman philosophers (some-a whom were Atheists, right?).. Well, You'd have a pretty good mix. Yeah, there might be discrepancies around the edges. But I think enough overlap to get along with.
>>> My point was that the same may be true for a society: agreement on what to live for (the common good) is more important than how well you live.
I think that was true, in the "before-times." Wasn't it You and me who had some dialogue about Dr. McGilchrist over at Paul North's place? No matter. It seems that more and more, *especially* lately, everything is *quantified.* Quantity over quality. Like You say, "how much" over "how good." Look at who the modern-day heroes are. Or, from what I "hear," the stars of the social media and politics and just about everything in between are the rich and the famous. The powerful. It used-ta be that "beauty is only skin deep." Now, "beauty is the only thing that matters" has become ascendent. Seems in the back (or front) of just about everybody's mind is "how can I become a BILLIONAIRE." Gotta admit that *I* played the lottery for a few months, even knowing the odds. Ah well...
>>> Modern America has among the highest standards of living in the world, but we are lonelier and more spiritually adrift than ever.
This is a crude way of putting Dr. McGilchrist's views, but it seems people are becoming more and more like computers and less and less like human beings. The kids who grew up with the internet? Those who grew up tethered to their iPhone? Those born on top of social media? I'm having a hard time, myself, seeing that they've gained more than they've surely lost by those "advances." The Alphas are said to be more comfortable "dealing" with people through their computers than *being* with people face-to-face. I'm afraid these generations will be further removed from reality through the Metaverse. And likely to be the first to say, "Transhumanism? Great! What could be better!?!"
That's getting a little off-topic, I guess.
I was interested in Your progress to Eastern Orthodox Mysticism. I dunno You ever heard me “say:” I’m exactly 50% Fundamentalist Atheist. I was raised that Way, and You don’t lose that. Which means I’m 50% Religio-Spiritual. I “got Religion” from Ram Dass when I was 22. (AKA “Rum Dum” and Richard Alpert.) I’ve never asked G-d for anything, but I’ve meditated some which is similar to prayer. I practiced Zen, but never had any Teachers so can’t claim any fame. (That was before I found out that Zen was totally corrupted Religion. From their actions during WWII.)
I’d go through phases of Spirituality. When I was 22 I thought it’d be nice to be a mystic, in a romantic sort-a idea of it. But mostly struggled a lot just to making a living. Really, until I get to pontificating on the mysteries I’m too lazy to think on the “why”s. I’m pretty-much retired, which has helped a lot. Since I was never set on making the most money and having the most toys, so I can get by on Social Security. So I agree with Ya.
(I’ve been really lucky through some great times and some bad ones.)
That’s more ‘n enough about me. Sorry. That’s a long-winded way of saying that in the past year I’ve gone through some pretty *drastic* changes. Becoming more Conservative in a way. But, really, more coming to see what Liberalism is about from Sowell and others, and realizing it really didn’t represent the policies and values that I believe would do much good. Individually or for the country either one. Liberalism as a *political* philosophy, itself, is something I haven’t delved into much.
I think You and I would agree on a lot. Well, we’ve commented different places saying we do. My understanding is that The Greatest Generation let Boomers (like me) get away with murder. Murder of morals, to a large extent, for one thing. And it’s been a long downhill slide since. We probably agree that changes are in order, but that going back to the past is infeasible. That’s a long discussion and a lotta thinkin’.
Only problem is I got a thousand books I’d like to read, and bought another one this morning. Only read a few pages of The Federalist Papers, so didn’t ponder much. (Spend too much time writing comments to educate myself properly. ;-) My day actually ends in about an hour, so another one down the drain. Ah well… ;-)
TY for writing, Sir! And if You or anybody read this, thank You for Your time. I was just in a fey mood, I guess.
"people are becoming more and more like computers and less and less like human beings"
I think this is a great summary not only of McGilchrist, but of the modern Western mind. This is part of the reason I am exploring Eastern Orthodox theology. The other is my rising certainty that Protestantism provides no facility for delineating heresy, and as such, effectively has no meaning. That is actually the subject I write on myself occasionally, mostly just to solidify my own thoughts.
Since you have a Protestant background, there are 2 books I would recommend if you want to dip into Eastern Christian thinking:
The Mountain of Silence - A westerner writing about his experience with monastic mystics of Mount Athos.
Becoming Orthodox - Peter Gilquist's autobiographical account of his journey from Protestant pastor to Orthodox priest.
Of the two, I think you would like the first one better. Just to add to your thousand books to read. :-)
And yes, you and I have discussed similar things with Paul Kingsnorth. He would likely be a better source than I for Eastern mysticism.
BV, well done, yes devoid of meaning it seems society is Babylon, so we need a supernatural saviour. What does that say about us?
The crux for Shklar, as it was for Montesquieu and Locke in certain moods (see the Letter Concerning Toleration) is less about pacifying disputes in any absolute sense and more about merely ensuring that such disputes do not result in coercion and cruelty. Oh the other hand, she would, I think, be relatively happy for a society with complete agreement about ultimate ends to be called 'liberal', if it could reach that point without coercion and cruelty.