Liberalism, no less than socialism, -indeed, perhaps much more so than socialism- is defined by praxis.  And liberalism might be considered dialectical, in that it offers no positive doctrine, but proceeds by a kind of via negativa.  The practice of liberalism is tolerance; the positive program of liberalism is the establishment of social institutions that promote and defend tolerance.  Liberalism does not tell you what to believe.  At most, it tells you what not to believe - that is, not to believe any belief that would cause you to be intolerant towards other people and their beliefs - presumably, "absolute," "dogmatic," "totalitarian" beliefs.  It may not even tell you that much.  It may allow you to believe intolerant beliefs (that is, it may tolerate intolerant beliefs) so long as you do not act on those intolerant beliefs.  Indeed, liberalism developed within the context of the wars between and among Catholics and Protestants.  The people who developed liberalism were people who were not only convinced that they and only they had the absolute correct dogmas concerning Jesus and their own souls, beliefs that transform the totality of a person's life, leaving nothing untouched, but also that the penalty for having incorrect beliefs was not only death but infinity years of unimaginable torment.  They believed that if they failed to convince their friends and family of their own beliefs, this is what would happen to them.  Yet somehow these religions learned to co-exist.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Against Curtis Yarvin, a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug

Why Capitalism is Ending

Why Sam Harris is Wrong About Free Will