OK then...jump in wheneverThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 4:03 amI don't think Hobbes was a disestablishmentarian, and I would relish more churches being turned into trendy coffee bars, so yes.Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 3:58 am
Good morning, Hobbsy.
So can I rely on you in your creative, disestablishmentarianism to help me out ?
Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
Actually antidisestablishmentarianism and disestablishmentarianism are interesting topics in a history of politics thread.Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 4:10 amOK then...jump in wheneverThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 4:03 am
I don't think Hobbes was a disestablishmentarian, and I would relish more churches being turned into trendy coffee bars, so yes.
The US decided to go down the route of disestablishing the church from the state. The so-called 'founding fathers' being natural atheists or deists, and having been witness to religious bigotry in their fledgling nation thought religious freedom would be a good idea.
The British Empire steadfastly resisted all attempts to separate church and state.
As time passed we have a slightly paradoxical result. In the US it is political suicide to claim you are an atheist. Whereas in the UK where the church is supposedly at one with the state it is political suicide to claim any allegiance to God.
It seems that the intervening 200 years since the US split religion has grow and thrived on ignorance. In the UK most people seem to regard the church/state with suspicion and have largely rejected participation in religion.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
As I read it, this is not a hope that he shares. I didn't mean to imply that it was not possible but that as you quote, it would no longer be a political world ...politics only takes place within the particular, within the structure of the Regime itself'.Smith acknowledges that there is a hope we might overcome the basic structures of Regime Politics. The world organized around global norms of justice and international law. He says it can't be ruled out. So, I disagree with you here.
He says:I don't agree with Smith here. Even if such a happy, clappy world existed, there would still be politics.
What I take this is mean is that the particular refers to a particular regime with its own distinctive traits and qualities. A world government would be one where there would not be the distinctive ways of life we find in different, that is, particular regimes. It would be universal and homogeneous, a mono-culture. There would be only one way of life according to which everyone would live.But a regime is more than simply a set of formal structures and institutions, okay? It consists of the entire way of life, the moral and religious practices, the habits, customs, and sentiments that make a people what they are. The regime constitutes an ethos, that is to say a distinctive character, that nurtures distinctive human types. Every regime shapes a common character, a common character type with distinctive traits and qualities. So the study of regime politics is in part a study of the distinctive national character types that constitutes a citizen body.
The U.S. gives us some sense of this would be like. It has no distinctive national character. A national character is the product of history and culture, and the citizens of the U.S. come from diverse cultures with different practices and beliefs. There is a struggle to retain an ethnic or cultural identity while at the same time the need and desire for assimilation. Second generation children often do not speak the language of their parents. Other countries are now facing a similar problem with large numbers of immigrants. To what extent can differences be preserved while living together under the same laws?
What it means to be a people today has become problematic. It is a time of crisis. We struggle with both personal and social identity. Life has become a social and political experiment. We cannot return to a golden age that never existed, but we do not know the way forward even as we move.I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't think you can equate a Regime with a whole cohort of people, given that there is seldom agreement as to what they stand for.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
However, I think I've bitten off more than I can chew by starting this discussion thread.
If I continue with the Open Yale course, then I feel it would be better to take my own time over it; and do it in my own space.
There are so many areas of interest which deserve threads of their own. For example, the role of religion in politics...comparing UK and USA...
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
These topics do sound fascinating and would probably benefit from a separate thread.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 4:43 amActually antidisestablishmentarianism and disestablishmentarianism are interesting topics in a history of politics thread.
The US decided to go down the route of disestablishing the church from the state. The so-called 'founding fathers' being natural atheists or deists, and having been witness to religious bigotry in their fledgling nation thought religious freedom would be a good idea.
The British Empire steadfastly resisted all attempts to separate church and state.
As time passed we have a slightly paradoxical result. In the US it is political suicide to claim you are an atheist. Whereas in the UK where the church is supposedly at one with the state it is political suicide to claim any allegiance to God.
It seems that the intervening 200 years since the US split religion has grow and thrived on ignorance. In the UK most people seem to regard the church/state with suspicion and have largely rejected participation in religion.
I have decided that I will focus on learning the basics as per course or similar, at my own pace and time.
I am so easily distracted by my own thoughts and others - I need to get a grip.
It's good to know I can ask questions, as and when, and that there are some very knowledgeable people on here who are willing to help.
Thanks all.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
No way! All you need to do is to ask "what did you guys think of lecture 7, lecture 8, etc." whenever it suits you, to re-start the conversation. Nobody is expecting a p.h.d. dissertation...Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 10:14 am However, I think I've bitten off more than I can chew by starting this discussion thread.
I went through the text of lecture 2+3. Why even ask if Socrates was guilty? I had to continue to remind myself that Smith was doing his job to force the students to think critically and examine competing views before forming judgments. He's reminding the students not to judge everything through the lens of their own society and its traditions and rules. Asking if Socrates was guilty feels, to me, like asking if MLK was guilty. Both were morally correct, yet willing to take their unjust punishment, hoping that justice would win out in the end, even if they did not live to see the victory. Did Kierkegaard's charges against the state run church amount to impiety, when he only challenged them to live by their own code? Did Socrates do any different?
I don't see the paradox Smith seems to lay out between the Apology and Crito. Socrates remains the same all the way through, seeking the virtue of wisdom and justice without regard to the risk, indifferent even to death. He is indifferent when he challenges the state in the trial, and indifferent when he accepts the sentence, and seeking justice in both cases. Justice requires that he have the right to make his case, and also that he has the obligation to accept the sentence.
Then, it got worse. Smith begins to challenge the notion of free speech, ultimately asking if it leads to diminishing the value of morally correct opinion by allowing all opinion to be considered. Of course a good society would tolerate Socrates! Government is only just with the consent of the governed, which can never be given without freedom of speech. How is informed opinion to be formed in an environment of self-reinforcing propaganda? I actually found his implication that we should limit free speech more dangerous than the worry of a 'nihilistic wasteland' forming by allowing ideas to compete and, perhaps, seeing them gain equal footing in people's eyes. Is anyone here (U.S.A.) worried that the KKK or Nazi party will gain strength because we allow them to speak their 'minds'?
The propaganda of the individual preys on weak minds, and here we all have our own right to speak up against it. There are almost always many more counter-demonstrators than Nazis, aren't there? But, the power of state propaganda, whether overtly stated or implicitly stated by way of what may not be said, is miles more dangerous. I'll have to give Smith the benefit of the doubt right now, as I think he's only trying to make the students think critically. You could fairly say it's his job to make the best case possible for all forms of government. Real justice can stand up to free speech, and arguably it must, and I'll assume most people (who want justice), including Smith, can see that.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
I understand the benefits of discussion after listening or reading a specific Lecture. Reflecting on a subject or text can clear up misperceptions, clarify and reinforce learning.
This might best be served on a distinct thread - separate from my own OP asking for advice.
Right now, my approach is not to dwell on intricacies of each lecture but to zoom through to get an overview of the material - perhaps not all the lectures at once but as they are batched together, according to topic.
I haven't read the originals as some might have - however, Smith does seem to give sufficient information, also engaging students from outset.
Do you think it would be an idea to separate the Lecture discussion from this thread, or would that break up the flow ?
It all just seems a bit bitty and distracting...
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
[ see youtube - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... A9B7DFE825 ]
Lectures
1-6 Plato
7-9 Aristotle
10-11 Machiavelli
12-14 Hobbes
15-17 Locke
18- 20 Rousseau
21- 23 Tocqueville
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
Why even ask if Socrates was guilty?
I think there is a sense in which Socrates is guilty.
Based on the works of Plato Socrates demonstrates that he does not believe in the gods of the city. Even in his defense he demonstrates that he does not simply accept the oracle but questions it. One bit of irony that may escape the reader is that he also changes what the oracle says. The oracle says that no man is wiser than Socrates, but Socrates changes this to Socrates is wiser than all others. This leaves out the option that there are others as wise as Socrates. A real wise-guy.
He is also guilty of corrupting the youth if one holds to conservative views of the tradition. Socrates, by urging his friends to think for themselves, undermines the authority of the city and its traditions. It should be kept in mind that Critias, a student of Socrates, was one of the thirty tyrants. Alcibiades was also a student of Socrates and a great admirer, who appears in several dialogues. He was accused of religious desecration and fled to Sparta, Athens’ enemy. It has been suggested that in the Charmides (Plato's uncle and Critias' cousin, one of the thirty tyrants along with Critias, how was Socrates student), Socrates having returned from war learns the consequences of his free speech, his open atheism, and thus learns the importance of concealing his teachings from those who are not suited by character and disposition.
Of course, from another point of view he is not guilty of corrupting the youth but rather of making them better democratic citizens - more just and reasonable.
This illustrates the problem of the tension between the city and philosophy. In the just city, that is, the city is speech, the Republic, the philosopher rules, but in actual cities the philosopher’s concern with justice put him at odds with the city, because the city is less than just. We see this kind of problem arise with the decision of American football players deciding to take a knee during the national anthem. They do so to protest injustice but are perceived by many as unpatriotic, as if allegiance to country means the demonstration of unquestioned obedience.
Socrates strikes a balance between questioning the law and questioning unjust laws, between being above the law and obedience to it. Recalling the discussion of regimes, to question the way of life of the city, including the gods of the city, is to question both the authority and justice of the city. If its citizens are convinced that the city has no rightful authority and is not just, then they are under no obligation to obey its rules or act justly.
As Smith suggests, what Socrates does, he does not for his own sake but for the sake of others. He wishes to make the city more just but also to demonstrate that he is not above the laws of the city. And as a philosophical martyr he dies for the sake of those who would be philosophers.
In the former he challenges the authority of the city but in the latter he obeys it. It should be kept in mind that these were politically unstable times. Anytus, one of those who brought changes against Socrates, and generally thought to be the leading force, had overthrown the thirty tyrants (one of whom, Critias, was a student of Socrates), who had ruled for eight months. The question of the legitimacy of rulers was not an academic issue.I don't see the paradox Smith seems to lay out between the Apology and Crito.
I think you are right though regarding his concern for justice which guided him in both cases. Smith points to this as the answer to the apparent paradox.
I don’t think Smith is challenging free speech in order to do away with it, but to show that there are risks associated with it. It is not an unalloyed good. Trump is a case in point. He calls the truth lies and lies the truth. Facts become a matter of opinion. This is exactly what Socrates struggled against with the sophists and demagogues. Should freedom of speech be in the service of truth or an end and good in itself? Should one be allowed to lie with impunity? We may choose freedom of speech despite the dangers but we should be aware of those dangers.Smith begins to challenge the notion of free speech, ultimately asking if it leads to diminishing the value of morally correct opinion by allowing all opinion to be considered.
I think Smith would agree. I am not sure that our society, or at least a significant part of it led by Trump or other societies that have come out if favor of an autocratic government would. Trump would no doubt label him and enemy of the people. The American Founders attempted to guard against the dangers of democracy. Plato warns us that demagogue arises out of democracy, from the people (demos). Despite their best efforts of the founders the danger is real and present.Of course a good society would tolerate Socrates!
I take Smith’s point to be that freedom of speech is not enough. It must be accompanied by discernment. Otherwise we have the situation in which we are in. What is needed is not simply free speech but reasoned speech.Government is only just with the consent of the governed, which can never be given without freedom of speech.
We will have to wait to see what limits he would put on free speech. Raising the problem is not to endorse a solution to the problem.I actually found his implication that we should limit free speech …
I do not yet know what his position is. It may be that he will allow the students to work out their own views in free and open discussion. Some think that free speech means expressing an opinion and being free from criticism of that opinion. As Socrates might say: the unexamined speech is not worth speaking.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
However, I will ask you this - is there no other place in this forum where any Lectures discussion can take place ?
I feel that my thread, asking for advice, is an inappropriate container.
Given the time, knowledge and energy taken up by a substantial amount of reading, any ensuing exchange is more than a lounge chat !
If there is light to be had, then let it shine and rise in the high spots.
I know there is an argument that it might break up the flow of conversation - but weighing up costs and benefits, I think it would be of more value to the forum to have a distinct place for such activities. And where contributions can be made at any time...
Thoughts welcome.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
Of course. I understand why Smith makes the case against Socrates, but I also doubt he would have voted guilty. Neither does he want or expect the students to form that opinion, but only to construct an informed opinion by considering views outside their own culture.
I know what you say is true for some (unquestioned obedience), but I don't think this is the reason for most of the blow back. It's not about unquestioned patriotism but about respect for the people and the principles being honored with the anthem. I take the national anthem to be a moment of remembrance for those who fought for the country, and reflection on the blessings of liberty. Even if the charge of injustice is true, it can not be fairly leveled at the entire system, nor is it fair to deny those other folks their moment of remembrance and reflection.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 7:41 pmThis illustrates the problem of the tension between the city and philosophy. In the just city, that is, the city is speech, the Republic, the philosopher rules, but in actual cities the philosopher’s concern with justice put him at odds with the city, because the city is less than just. We see this kind of problem arise with the decision of American football players deciding to take a knee during the national anthem. They do so to protest injustice but are perceived by many as unpatriotic, as if allegiance to country means the demonstration of unquestioned obedience.
The message is not offensive, but the choice of vehicle for delivering it is. It's like that church that protests at funerals. I don't care what their message is if they can't allow mourners that moment to themselves. If the players simply wore an armband, took their fines, and made their case through the media, then the NFL would not have lost 20% of their viewers, and the message could have been received instead of being lost or having any opposing views hardened against it. Many fans would have shown up at the game wearing armbands in support, rather than tuning out in protest of the method of the protest. I think their tactics backfired on the players, as all the talk has been about whether or not they should be having the protest during the anthem, not about the message. Many people still don't even know what they are protesting, and many of those that do are so offended by the tactic that they ignore or even come to disagree with the message.
I think Trump may be coincidentally, or accidentally correct once in a while, but truth is certainly not his mission. But, that comes from all sides in politics, and we are to blame. We want what we want, and we don't care as much as we should about the means for getting it. We are willing to accept any tortured logic that leads to us getting what we want. Each of us, individually, should be calling BS from the start, such that someone who plays by Trump's rules, which is almost all of them, could never rise through the ranks of the party. The system would work just fine if so many of us were not greedy, selfish and weak-minded.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 7:41 pmI don’t think Smith is challenging free speech in order to do away with it, but to show that there are risks associated with it. It is not an unalloyed good. Trump is a case in point. He calls the truth lies and lies the truth. Facts become a matter of opinion. This is exactly what Socrates struggled against with the sophists and demagogues. Should freedom of speech be in the service of truth or an end and good in itself? Should one be allowed to lie with impunity? We may choose freedom of speech despite the dangers but we should be aware of those dangers.
We just need more people like Socrates who want to do the right thing no matter the personal cost. Fortunately, we do tolerate them. Of course, that offers no guarantee of success when there are so many more who just want what they want, and there is always someone like Trump willing to promise it to them with tortured logic, pretending to do it for the right reasons.
I am also giving Smith the benefit of the doubt, and trying to understand he is doing his job to open their minds. I don't especially like having my views challenged, but it important that they can survive such challenges (without blocking your opponent's logic out of your mind). I try to be open to being talked out of my opinions by hard facts, but it takes effort to listen honestly and openly.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 7:41 pmWe will have to wait to see what limits he would put on free speech. Raising the problem is not to endorse a solution to the problem.
I do not yet know what his position is. It may be that he will allow the students to work out their own views in free and open discussion. Some think that free speech means expressing an opinion and being free from criticism of that opinion. As Socrates might say: the unexamined speech is not worth speaking.
Ironically, the only thing I found hard to think about honestly was the argument against free speech. But, freedom of speech also includes the right to say that freedom of speech is risky, or even that, perhaps, it should not be allowed. That 'nihilistic wasteland' is pretty weak sauce against the potential benefits of free speech though isn't it? The very idea that 'someone' should limit free speech to right speech leads to a slippery slope of what speech is right and who decides this, and the dangers of limiting speech are evident throughout history, but especially in the last century.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
I think the bulletin board format is always clumsy, and takes some effort to sift through. There is inevitably more than one conversation going on in most threads, and you may not be looking to join in each conversation. Unlike in Seinfeld, the sub-plots don't come together in the end in a clever way, though. So, I'm not sure it matters too much if you re-tool this discussion, but only that you have it either way.Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 11:49 am chewybrian - thanks for encouragement and your comments.
...
Do you think it would be an idea to separate the Lecture discussion from this thread, or would that break up the flow ?
It all just seems a bit bitty and distracting...
I don't know if you need a new forum, but it would be a great thing to have such discussions with defined regularity. I was going to suggest this based on this thread. We don't have many interesting thread topics coming along every day, and sometimes it's the same old arguments about Muslim immigration and the nature of consciousness for days or weeks at a time. How cool would it be to have some focus and direction on real works of philosophy every week?Georgeanna wrote: ↑August 14th, 2018, 4:27 am Fooloso4 - thanks again for excellent contribution.
However, I will ask you this - is there no other place in this forum where any Lectures discussion can take place ?
I feel that my thread, asking for advice, is an inappropriate container.
Given the time, knowledge and energy taken up by a substantial amount of reading, any ensuing exchange is more than a lounge chat !
If there is light to be had, then let it shine and rise in the high spots.
I know there is an argument that it might break up the flow of conversation - but weighing up costs and benefits, I think it would be of more value to the forum to have a distinct place for such activities. And where contributions can be made at any time...
Thoughts welcome.
I see there was a forum for discussion of books which seems to have withered away from lack of interest. As I see it, the problem is that a book is just too much ground to cover. Even if people are willing to make the effort, how can you discuss the Myth of Sisyphus in a couple paragraphs? We might get a lot more participation if such discussions were limited in scope. It could be a single idea, or possibly a short essay or short story to be discussed, perhaps one a week (a month implies a big commitment, and is easily forgotten; once a week would keep it fresher, I think). Any such discussions are bound to soar above much of what's going on now, no matter the exact format.
Here are a few sample ideas:
The stoic dichotomy of control
"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin
Sartre's idea of Authenticity
"The Library of Babel" by Jorge Luis Borges
The cave in Plato's Republic
Some larger works are readily cut into bite size bits. We could start huge threads simply by deciding to analyze each very short chapter of Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius or 'The Discourses' by Epictetus, for example.
Of course, I don't think anyone wants moderation in the form of telling us what to discuss or not discuss. But, a starting point such as these would probably improve the overall quantity and quality of discussion by prompting some of us to join in.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
If there is a specific course or resource which is substantial and would help in understanding any part of Philosophy, it would be grand to be able to find it quickly and for others to add to it, as and when they felt like. Even if current forums have to be used.
You will have noted that following each lecture that students have the opportunity to discuss certain points raised. They also have assignments - shame we don't know what they are. As an academic exercise which also applies to modern day events - I am sure this is a valuable part of learning.
There are different ways in which this could be made 1. formal, as in Foolos4's academic direction - or 2. simply to ask questions - as in 'I don't get it, what's going on here ?' Without the need for a specific weekly regime...
Anyway, I am pretty sure that things won't change much...if my experience in another philosophy forum is anything to go by.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
What people and what principles are being honored in the song? It is about the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812.… respect for the people and the principles being honored with the anthem.
You can take it any way you want, but what it means for you may not be what it means for others. It is a celebration of a military victory and is seen by many as crass given the number of people being killed in protracted wars since the Korean War that have little or nothing to do with our freedom or safety, and have not ended in victory.I take the national anthem to be a moment of remembrance for those who fought for the country, and reflection on the blessings of liberty.
In the land of the free, the free should be able to protest against injustice.
The basis of the protest is that racism is systemic. The “blessings of liberty” are not shared by all.Even if the charge of injustice is true, it can not be fairly leveled at the entire system …
No one is denying other folks anything. Taking a knee in no way interferes with your taking a moment of remembrance and reflection. The song is still playing, stand, sing along … but take a look at what is going on around you in the stands. In my opinion, silently taking a knee is dignified and respectful, and courageous. Bravery does not begin and end on the battlefield. Taking a knee does not stop anyone from doing whatever it is they are doing, and what they are doing includes talking, joking, eating, walking around, going to the bathroom. In many stadiums the concession stands continue operating. But it’s different for the players. The fans demand a show and the players must perform as expected.… nor is it fair to deny those other folks their moment of remembrance and reflection.
It’s a sporting event! I realize that for many sports is their religion but ...The message is not offensive, but the choice of vehicle for delivering it is. It's like that church that protests at funerals.
So, free speech is good except when it costs money? Since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling money is free speech. Money talks. Why should players be fined for expressing their views in a peaceful and unobstructive manner? Trump played political football with football, whipping up his fan base. Compulsory displays of patriotism is, or was, fundamentally un-American.If the players simply wore an armband, took their fines, and made their case through the media, then the NFL would not have lost 20% of their viewers, and the message could have been received instead of being lost or having any opposing views hardened against it.
I do not want to derail the topic by further discussion of this issue.
I don’t think this was an argument against free speech or a denial of its benefits, but rather a part of his examination of what free speech is. He says:That 'nihilistic wasteland' is pretty weak sauce against the potential benefits of free speech though isn't it?
He is arguing against the opinion that all opinions should be treated as equal. You demonstrate your agreement with him since you do critically address points of view different than your own. It is not enough to say that everyone has their opinion and should be free to express it. That is a condition for not the end for which we have free speech.And by nihilism, I mean the view that every preference, however squalid, base or sordid, must be regarded as the legitimate equal of every other. Is this really tolerance or is it rather a form of moral decay that has simply decided to abandon the search for truth and standards of judgment? There’s a danger, I think, that endless tolerance leads to intellectual passivity and the kind of uncritical acceptance of all points of view. (Lecture 3, part 5, end)
What would be the potential benefit of every point of view being treated as equal to every other? Would it promote free speech or the opposite? Once everyone has expressed their view there would be nothing more to say. No opinion would be right or wrong, true or false, better or worse; it would just be an opinion, end of story.
It is not a matter of ‘someone’ limiting free speech to right speech but of the use of free speech to attempt to determine what is right speech. There is no right or wrong speech if there is only free speech in a non-critical sense. Taken to its logical conclusion we could not even say whether or not there should even be free speech, all we could say is that some people are in favor and others are not, a matter of personal preference and nothing more.The very idea that 'someone' should limit free speech to right speech leads to a slippery slope of what speech is right and who decides this, and the dangers of limiting speech are evident throughout history, but especially in the last century.
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: Politics, history of... or philosophy of... ?
Getting started with political philosophy
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15777
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023