I'm a new subscriber so I'm curious what you mean when you say "Strong Citizenship and the rule of rational and able men." Are you advocating for a return to the original U.S. definition of citizenship and republicanism? Or something even farther like a Roman Republic style of rule e.g less representation of the masses? Or get rid of any sort of democratic institutions?
I often talk about how liberalism sought to compensate men for their lack of genuine citizenship, meaning especially authority in the state, with a wide array of freedoms. If you want to do some reading on your own, take a look at Benjamin Constant's essay: The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/constant-the-liberty-of-ancients-compared-with-that-of-moderns-1819
Nicely done. In the common good tradition, that also includes a strictly philosophical, a Jewish, and an Islamic form-and may well include Confucian thought (I have work to do), the issue is with ‘the good’ not necessarily a ‘good person’ -a good person will necessarily participate in the Good to a greater or lesser manner- and cannot name themselves as ‘good.’ As you note, Marxism is postliberal. It is not a mistake that McIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Iris Murdoch, will all Marxists at a certain time on their life. I happen to place, as found in Richard Hooker, the Lockean political theory in a wider ontological frame of the good. One has to go through a process of renaming, that I would argue is more truthful.
I appreciate your approach. May our differences be productive!
I'm a new subscriber so I'm curious what you mean when you say "Strong Citizenship and the rule of rational and able men." Are you advocating for a return to the original U.S. definition of citizenship and republicanism? Or something even farther like a Roman Republic style of rule e.g less representation of the masses? Or get rid of any sort of democratic institutions?
That would be a good essay topic.
I often talk about how liberalism sought to compensate men for their lack of genuine citizenship, meaning especially authority in the state, with a wide array of freedoms. If you want to do some reading on your own, take a look at Benjamin Constant's essay: The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/constant-the-liberty-of-ancients-compared-with-that-of-moderns-1819
My friend Cerberus and I have discussed that essay and the concept of citizenship here: https://montanaclassicalcollege.substack.com/p/pol-205-constant-on-ancient-vs-modern?s=w#details
Nicely done. In the common good tradition, that also includes a strictly philosophical, a Jewish, and an Islamic form-and may well include Confucian thought (I have work to do), the issue is with ‘the good’ not necessarily a ‘good person’ -a good person will necessarily participate in the Good to a greater or lesser manner- and cannot name themselves as ‘good.’ As you note, Marxism is postliberal. It is not a mistake that McIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Iris Murdoch, will all Marxists at a certain time on their life. I happen to place, as found in Richard Hooker, the Lockean political theory in a wider ontological frame of the good. One has to go through a process of renaming, that I would argue is more truthful.
I appreciate your approach. May our differences be productive!