> On Saturday, February 17, 2001 7:54 PM Michael M. Butler firstname.lastname@example.org
> [quoting himself:)]
> > > Though the blurb at this page (and to some degree, Sowell himself)
> > > frames it as conservative vs. liberal, it's really more about
> > > zetetic-pragmatist vs. idealist (yes, Virginia, there are
> > > Objectivist/conservative/materialist idealists).
> > To clarify, since it seems I sometimes go too fast for some people:
> > "it's really more about..." refers to the conflict of visions itself,
> > not the book. And government involvement is a side effect, not an
> > intrinsic, of said conflict.
> Well, the subtitle of the book is "Ideological Origins of Political
> Struggles." This kind of gives the idea that it's about ideologies and not
> purely governmental stuff.:)
Yeah, but then you read the blurbs and the book and see how much people
grind the governmental axe. Sowell makes the point early that even he
has unconstrained visionary tendencies. THen he tears into central
planners for the rest of the book. :)
> Adopting a morality that is more this-worldly, such as that of
> neoAristoteleans (e.g., Douglas Den Uyl, Eric Mack), neoStoics (e.g.,
> Lawrence Becker), and Objectivists (you know who:) would lead to no conflict
> between morality and prudence -- or between being moral and living in real
> world societies.
>From your lips to reality's ears. :)
Another tough thing about Sowell's stuff is that one can always adopt
the cynical view that expecting to change anyone's firm opinion is an
example of "unconstrained vision". 'Round and 'round we go...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:45 MDT