Liberal Outlook

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." -Bertrand Russell[/quote]

reactions?

[Budge]

You do realize Betrand Russell was considered a "Freethinker" right? Atheist, agnostic, and well known HUMANIST who wrote a book...[i]"WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN"[/i]?

I read his writings while UU.

[Didacus]

I would tend to agree to the quoted statement.

The liberals will follow whatever 'makes sense' for them rather than seek the firm truth within creation and God.

"Whoever does not believe in God will believe anything else."
Anyone know who said this? I'll have to double check my files.

[cmotherofpirl]

I disagree, most liberals are very dogmatic and intolerant in their thinking, not tentative at all. THey just assume all "normal" people agree with them and can't imagine they could be wrong.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1373629' date='Aug 29 2007, 02:17 PM']reactions?[/quote]
The liberalism Bertrand Russell is advocating is a kind of "freethinking" atheism, but most self-proclaimed free-thinkers are quite dogmatic in their own way, and will usually refuse to consider anything related to traditional religion.

I'd say it's accurate to a certain extend, as liberals (especially in the religious sense) believe in endless change and "progress" for its own sake, rejecting unchanging moral laws, unchanging religious beliefs, etc.

However, while most liberals pride themselves on being free-thinking and open-minded, in practice most liberals are at least as dogmatic in their positions as any conservative.
For instance, no matter how many scientific facts you give the typical "pro-choice" liberal proving that the unborn child is a living human being, he will blindly reject them and dogmatically insist that the fetus is "just a blob of cells" and that abortion is a "woman's right."

The opinions of the typical modern liberal concerning abortion, "gay rights," role of religion, and the welfare state, tend to not be tentative and subject to change at all, but quite dogmatic and predictable.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

no one is agreeing that it's a laudable position to hold? of course, while disclaiming that some positions cannot be compromised. ie not so openminded that your brains fell out. and you can even note what you're noting about how dogmatic many liberals are. it seems a very laudable position to me, as a general rule of thumb.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what's even more telling i think than my last post, is that no one is claiming conservatives embrace that ideology.
if i were a psychologist, i'd be having a field day with your responses. you have any response to give, yet you choose the ones you do. (i thikn that's the key to psychology btw, just a theory of mine, to begin assessing people)

[Anomaly]

LOL. I don't think that is a true description of liberalism, but I think it's a poor perspective to have. I understand it as saying that liberals do not hold philosophical principles that are a foundation for their world views, dismissing them as unwanted 'dogma'. Without fundamental principles, your day to day evaluation of choices you face in live are relative. Example, it's a principle to say everyone has a right to live today, but then tomorrow, say it's a liberal principle that everyone has a right to live except the person who stole your TV today. Yesterday, the liberal wasn't confronted with evaluating the right to life of someone who stole from them, but today, based on the new evidence of experiencing theft, you decide that everyone can live, except the theif.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not going to defend the far flung idea that all positions are liquid.
some positions hold the test of time others don't. almost all of them are open to change, or should be, no matter how fundamental. almost.
again, instead of taking what's good about the quote, you're showing all the bad. i think it's again very telling. there's always a balance with abstract notions, two sides of the same coin, and it's not being projected by anyone.
but i'm not accusing you as conservatives as being bad. it's a human flaw. i'm accusing you as rational thinkers as being skewed.

[MichaelFilo]

Mr. Russell's quote is fairly accurate, a historical look at liberalism will show how much it does change, even on things like abortion, gay rights, etc. A group of "freethinkers" tend to establish some principle or belief as being a conclusion of their free thought, young liberals take hold of the idea, and then they stick with it. Mr. Russell refrences the freethinkers, but not on the individual basis but overtime as he mentions the "liberal outlook" rather than any individual liberal. The sheep behind these freethinkers are rabidly dogmatic, as will be noted by different generations of New Yorkers sticking like glue to their patterns of thought and often not accepting new liberalism as ludicrous.

For instance the liberals of the World War II era came back and gave birth to the "baby boom generation" whose liberalism was entirely offensive to their parents. These strung out hippies and commies and often feminists and contraceptive users and of course anarchists gave birth to today's big government liberals who probably could care less for communism or hippy lifestyles.

[beatty07]

What a remarkably silly thing for Mr. Russell to say. "Hey, like, I'm pretty sure that rape isn't cool, but I'm open to the possibility. What do you think Mr. Dahmer?" Then we can have a symposium, "whither genocide?"

Looking through this thread, though, reinforces my opinion that actual communication is almost impossible to acheive after the words "liberal" and "conservative" come into play.

[dairygirl4u2c]

granted it would have been good if he said... "for the most part" it's good to be flexible.

the flipside of course to what most of you are saying is.. my positions are right. i refuse to change them. or even consider it.
that's a very big problem in the world. as christians, you should expect people who want to convert to be open. doesn't that mean that everyone should be open to new ideas? muslims won't change if they did what you seem to suggest. democrats won't convert. a dude who's a pedophile won't. etc etc etc
even political positions. take minimum wage. i don't understand how you'd be against it even though i try my hardest to get you to explain it in a way that makes sense and answers my concerns. but, even though you fail me, i am open to the idea that i'm missing something. a wage would end up being more bad than good. my fundamental ideas are wrong. i now i didn't always have those theroies about the giant, and everyone's entitlement to something minimal if they are willing to work something substantial. ya gotta be open to change.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1374109' date='Aug 30 2007, 11:52 AM']granted it would have been good if he said... "for the most part" it's good to be flexible.

the flipside of course to what most of you are saying is.. my positions are right. i refuse to change them. or even consider it.
that's a very big problem in the world. as christians, you should expect people who want to convert to be open. doesn't that mean that everyone should be open to new ideas? muslims won't change if they did what you seem to suggest. democrats won't convert. a dude who's a pedophile won't. etc etc etc
even political positions. take minimum wage. i don't understand how you'd be against it even though i try my hardest to get you to explain it in a way that makes sense and answers my concerns. but, even though you fail me, i am open to the idea that i'm missing something. a wage would end up being more bad than good. my fundamental ideas are wrong. i now i didn't always have those theroies about the giant, and everyone's entitlement to something minimal if they are willing to work something substantial. ya gotta be open to change.[/quote]Maybe you just need to drink less coffee and we'd communicate better.

The basic problem is that people fail to recognize we almost all share very common fundamental principles. Then we confuse the issue and start calling optional principles as needing to be fundamental. Then we start accusing each other of being un-prinicipled or dogmatic.

Most people agree that most people should be able to live a peaceful, autonomous life, with enough to eat and able to get out of the weather and live a normal lifespan. Wouldn't you agree that is a fundamental principle of most people, whether you live in Borneo, China, Iraq, Brazil, or Canada, regardless of whether you're involed in any sort of politics or any religion?

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's an irony in that i just finished coffee as i read your post. but, ironically i only drink a couple cups a month at most.


[url="http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/41619/"]http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/41619/[/url]

i'm sure this has some relevance somehow.

Edited August 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

Everyone has dogmas. Even if it is only to have no dogmas.