>Gordon:
> > >In the universe as I observe it, theory and
> > >practice are two sides of willful activity which continually
> > >feed into one another.
>
>Justin Schwartz:
> > Who denied this? This is theABC of pragmatism and Marxism too.
>
>You did: "Democracy is prior to philosophy and other sorts
>of theory."
>
You misunderstand me, wilfully, I think. I do not deny that theorizing about democracy is valuable and worthwhile, and may help us elaborate and improve the practice of democracy. What I deny--you might read the excerpt from the paper that I poste recently on this topic--is that there any argiments that would make us give up democracy for something else, or that the failure of any professred arguments fordemocracyw ould make us rethink our commitment to it. I expreslly, explicitly, formally, am on record as sayingt that we may revise our conceptions of democracy in response to theoretical arguments. You know perfectly well that this is what I mean.
>I'm giving up on the definition of _liberal_. I'm mystified
>by any notion of liberalism which excludes Locke and his
>followers. It seems contrary to both the discursive history
>normally associated with the term and observation of the world
>as well; but after all, it's just a word.
Take it from someone who used to be a professional political philosopher, my usage is totally standard. It wouldn'y confusea nyone in the biz. In fact, for someone to say that she's a liberal is more likely these days to evoke Rawls than Locke.
Btw I don't totally exclude Locke, if that makes you feel; better. I like Locke on limited govt, toleration, the right of revolution, etc. I reject natural rights talk and the labor theory of property. Of course, I'm also in the Marxian tradition, and I reject central planning, the labor theory of value, historical stagism and inevitablism, etc.
>
>-- Gordon
>
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com