Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
·
September 28, 2012 at 7:37pm
Who do the Ricochetti consider to be the 20th-century intellectual giants of liberalism? I'm talking non-politicians. In other words, who are the liberal versions of Kirk, Hayek, Strauss, etc.? And what are the liberal versions of such works as "The Road To Serfdom" and "Witness"?
Please don't mention the name "Chomsky." No nut jobs. Serious thinkers only.
- Comment (62)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
I guess John Maynard Keynes (Keynes was so brilliant he made Bertrand Russell feel self-conscious about his intellect, which is really saying something). But I don't know if that even qualifies as "liberalism" in the sense that you mean...
Apr '11
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Chomsky is a genius, but in his actual field of linguistics. Politically, a nutcase indeed.
May '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Without irony, I think you would have to include Karl Marx on the list.
Jul '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
John Rawls.
Jul '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Howard Zinn?
Jun '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
The liberals, of course, would deny it, but the spirits of Rousseau and Marx live on in all collectivist, utopian schemes. The great Polish chronicler of Communism, Leszek Kolakowski, was quite clear that the end of the Soviet Union did not represent the end of Marxist thought as a force in the world. It comes in many flavors, all of them bad.
Kolakowski died recently, but he argued that the fight against leftist thought never ends.
That said, I would argue that there are no liberal intellectual giants, a status that comes only when a philosophy is based on premises that reflect the reality of mankind. Leftism is based on several false premises: the perfectibility of man, that bureaucracy works, that increasing taxes always increases revenues, that people are incapable of making their own decisions, that society can and should be managed by an elite, and on and on. No one who builds a philosophy based on such transparent nonsense can be called an "intellectual giant."
Edited on September 28, 2012 at 5:37pmJul '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
John Dewey. I'm developing a "John" theme it seems.
Aug '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Kevin Walker:
No nut jobs. Serious thinkers only.
That restriction eliminates pretty much every prominent liberal "intellectual giant".
As far as I'm concerned, there are very few names you need to know to understand the core of "liberal thought":
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
- Karl Marx
- Jean-Paul Sarte
- Simone de Beauvoir
- Antonio Gramsci
- Emma Goldman
- Erich Fromm
- Herbert Marcuse
- John Maynard Keynes
Edited on September 28, 2012 at 5:40pmJun '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
I think I've found the holy grail of liberal thought:
Promises to Keep
O0ps! Didn't notice the "no nut jobs" restriction. Never mind.
Jul '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Herbert David John Croly.
Ok, I made up the John bit.
May '12
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Actually, I disagree with that. But I won't get into that here, for another post.
Yes, Theory of Justice is an important book for Liberals.
They certainly use Keynes to justify what they like to do when the economy is bad, yet they seem to ignore his advice to follow a tighter fiscal policy when we have good economic times. I'm not sure Keynes would be a modern Liberal if he were alive.
May '12
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
For the enviro-left, Rachel Carson, her most famous book, Silent Spring, just turned 50.
Apr '11
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Richard
Actually, I disagree with that. But I won't get into that here, for another post.
They certainly use Keynes to justify what they like to do when the economy is bad, yet they seem to ignore his advice to follow a tighter fiscal policy when we have good economic times. I'm not sure Keynes would be a modern Liberal if he were alive. · 14 minutes ago
Chomsky's problem, to me, is that he seems resistant to Darwinian explanations for language. I think Pinker has surpassed him clearly. But linguistics is definitely not my area.
I agree that classifying Keynes as a modern liberal would be very difficult.
Jun '12
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Setting aside "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" for a moment, Chomsky is not a liberal, he is by his own defintion an anarcho-syndicalist. I would agree that Rousseau and Keynes have to be in the mix.
Oct '11
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Georg Hegel, John Rawls (as noted several times), Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Ronald Dworkin, EM Forster, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Richard Dawkins, many others that I have omitted.
Keynes is frequently expropriated by liberals but was not really a liberal in the modern sense, nor does modern liberal economic theory match anything that Keynes postulated. His policies are oddly similar to those of Bush and Bernanke.
Jul '12
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Paul Goodman? Puts me to sleep, but some people my age or older say they found him eye-opening.
+1 on Keynes being misplaced and Chomsky not being subpar in linguistics or automata theory.
Sep '12
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
John Kenneth Galbraith and his son, James, who teaches at UT Austin. They actually take Paul Krugman seriously as an intellectual. Brad DeLong.
They really take their feminist thinkers seriously, even if you think that violates your "no nutjobs" rule.
Not applicable to the "new left" that now dominates, but George F. Kennan was a respectable mind, though I read Around The Cragged Hill and found no brilliant insights.
Jan '12
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
Are we talking about classical liberalism or west of the Atlantic liberalism?
Edited on September 28, 2012 at 7:56pmAug '10
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
The second one.
Dec '11
Re: Intellectual Giants of Liberalism
I'd add Vladimir Lenin to the list. Whenever someone argues that poor countries are poor because of Western economic imperialism, they're paraphrasing arguments originally made by Lenin.