Sep 26, 2023·edited Sep 26, 2023Liked by Damir Marusic
Enlightenment Rationalism can perhaps be best viewed, three centuries on, as an experiment - one that resulted in the greatest civilisation ever. But one that bore the seeds of its own destruction - Narcissism, atomisation, communal fragmentation - and above all the fact that humankind typically is only selectively rational ie when it serves a particular design.
There is an argument that all secular institutions fundamentally borrow their legitimacy from theological institutions. I do sometimes wonder if the decline of faith in western democracies has something to do with the crisis of legitimacy many such countries parliaments and such face. If the secular institutions cannot create strongly bounded reasons for their existence outside of traditional theological categories, perhaps the political waters will become more turbulent not less in future.
I think an important question for me to understand what this article is getting at: what sort of "liberal" are you talking about here? I wonder sometimes as though the caricatures of modern liberalism can be conflated in different ways by different groups.
Enlightenment Rationalism can perhaps be best viewed, three centuries on, as an experiment - one that resulted in the greatest civilisation ever. But one that bore the seeds of its own destruction - Narcissism, atomisation, communal fragmentation - and above all the fact that humankind typically is only selectively rational ie when it serves a particular design.
Religion however (broadly defined) is hard-wired into the human condition. It will always be there. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
"No, it’s not. Or, rather, no less of a metaphor than the comforting idea that “the people” actually “decide” anything in a modern democracy."
Modern democracies are not true democracies at all. To think otherwise is to lie to oneself. They are better defined as "elected oligarchies."
There is an argument that all secular institutions fundamentally borrow their legitimacy from theological institutions. I do sometimes wonder if the decline of faith in western democracies has something to do with the crisis of legitimacy many such countries parliaments and such face. If the secular institutions cannot create strongly bounded reasons for their existence outside of traditional theological categories, perhaps the political waters will become more turbulent not less in future.
I think an important question for me to understand what this article is getting at: what sort of "liberal" are you talking about here? I wonder sometimes as though the caricatures of modern liberalism can be conflated in different ways by different groups.
Modern secularly-minded rationalists who believe that Rawls was a transformational figure.