>if Deneen (author of Why Liberalism Failed), MacIntyre, Taylor, and others drawing on thicker anthropologies from the ancient and medieval (or even continental) tradition don't like liberalism and care so much about a "common good" that isn't just the sum of individual utility functions they can just atomize and go live off by themselves. Liberalism gives them that option (after they have paid full taxes for liberalism, let it have total legal authority and final say over their communities, and they have paid for liberal education that involves indoctrination in its views). Just atomize and pursue your own view of the human good bro.

He really missed the point, huh?

>>24537192 (OP)
how is he wrong?

liberalism is just totalitarianism for amerimutts

>>24537225
He doesn't take up their point that self-governance and self-determination require cultivation and virtue, as well as the pursuit of arduous goods. So he brings up that Rawls and Nozick have anthropologies that are way too thin, which reduce man to homo oecononimicus, but then doesn't actually respond to any of the critiques that put forth this insight.

Also, he totally misses all the many critiques about how secularism in its current form isn't "just what you get when you remove superstition," but is rather a positive philosophical framework based on discredited anthropology, discredited corpuscular materialist metaphysics, questionable nominalism and psychology, and which largely developed out of a very particular and highly questionable Protestant volanturist theology. That's the biggest thing, is that secular athiests really miss how much of their thought is derived from assumptions from a particular theology, a relationship guys like Charles Taylor and John Millbank have plumbed in great depth. And once one sees how one gets these assumptions (man as the selfish utility maximizer, privatization of any discussion of human ends, etc.), one is less likely to think it should be the foundation for civilization a priori, with any counter debate being shut out as necessarily "private' because "not properly secular." This doesn't just exclude "Christian nationalism," but excludes most of the insights of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Confucius, etc.

>>24537192 (OP)
I became a Fukuyama believer after that joke of a “war” with Israel and Iran. When Turkey and Iran become fully globohomo atheist in the future everyone will know he won

>>24537583
you are going to flip flop again the next time it rains

>>24537586
Nothing. Ever. Happens. Get it through your head. We'll be back to 2020 end-of-history wokeshit in 4 years.

>>24537192 (OP)
>>24537424
Anon you have this thread every week. What point are you trying to get through ?

>Also, he totally misses all the many critiques about how secularism in its current form isn't "just what you get when you remove superstition," but is rather a positive philosophical framework based on discredited anthropology, discredited corpuscular materialist metaphysics, questionable nominalism and psychology, and which largely developed out of a very particular and highly questionable Protestant volanturist theology
This is indeed what you get once you remove superstition

>>24537192 (OP)
Being a center-liberal in 2025 is what it must've felt like being a French Royalist on the eve of the Revolution. There was still some juice left despite all the impending changes in the world, the Bourbons eventually were restored briefly, and it might've looked like past all the trials ahead your way of life would've ended up victorious and the eternal stewards of God would reign. Can any word describe these people other than pathetic?