最高相似度示例 · 非人工确认结果
目标片段按照这个原则，公共理性只能诉诸，这是在政治自由主义这本书的第224他写道，公共理性只能诉诸当前被广泛接受的一般信念与成理的推理形式以及不受争议的科学方法和结论。我希望听到这里，你的眉头紧奏，我心里有很多问题，我来试图帮你提出这些问题。那我再重复一遍。我们现在似乎终于听到了所谓公共理性是个什么东东公共理性只能诉诸当前被广泛接受的一般信念与常识推理形式以及不受争议的科学方法和结论。那么受到争议怎么办呢？什么叫做广泛接受呢？万一广泛接受的是错误的理念怎么办呢？一个社会中真的存在普遍被接受的信念和推理形式吗？
来源片段But actually, I just want to focus on the general principle side of things. Because to say you're conflicted is to acknowledge that there's sort of two different things happening there, right? I want to focus on norms. What's going on? What are the arguments that we could look at that would help us make sense of what's the best justification for what liberals are really saying here? And to do this, I thought this up and I'm quite pleased with the analogy, but I suspect a lot of you are going to hate it. I'm going to draw an analogy for a set of arguments in microeconomic theory that create the theoretical justification for certain forms of free markets, and the arguments in liberalism that create the justification for a certain set of rules and norms and procedures that justify liberalism in the political sense.
查看片段位置
10 个展示片段 · 共 11 个展示片段（含上方示例）— 点击展开
S1：5 个窗口回退
来源片段
And like a lot of the conversations we have about like norms, and like, you know, is it a norm that protest must always be nonviolent? And I was sort of thinking about violence and liberalism, which is what I start the episode with. And I kind of like stumbled into a bigger theory of like, how to make normative sense of contemporary American governance. So I'm making some quite big, big claims for myself here. And I just want to sort of put this out there, that this is sort of like a framework I've come up with. I'm sure other people have done something like this, but I think the exact formulation as I put it here is something that's original to me. I'm happy to be corrected if there's someone I'm forgetting.
目标片段
我避免评判任何总体性学说，这是我的新起点。这下我看你还拿什么来骂我。社群主义，让我们回到罗尔斯的政治自由主义本身。我在一开始说过，政治自由主义本身从他自己的角度来说，意味着非形而上学的自由主义。他宣称自己不惦记于任何永恒且普遍有效的原则。那他要如何去解决这个他想要面对的当下社会里必然会存在的那些争锋相对的，而且没有办法彼此容纳的激烈的信念呢？
来源片段
With all that said, yeah, I do arrive from a very, very conventional starting point. My starting point in this argument is the fundamental principles of like economic theory, and a very classical liberalism. From like a very conventional starting point, I end up at something a bit different and maybe unique, I'm not sure I'm not as widely read as some of the political theorists who listen to this. So please do give me your feedback on that one. So yeah, that's sort of what I'm trying to do in this one is sort of think generally about norms. And in doing so, I think I come to a conclusion about how my variant of liberalism and my variant of republicanism click together in a way that's much more theoretically elegant than just sort of all their two different lenses type of approach.
目标片段
这意味着，在政治思考里，人们必须要停止从政治的角度去思考什么是好，他把公共理性视为一种基本的正义原则，就是自由主义的合法性原则。按照这个原则，公共理性只能诉诸，这是在政治自由主义这本书的第224他写道，公共理性只能诉诸当前被广泛接受的一般信念与成理的推理形式以及不受争议的科学方法和结论。我希望听到这里，你的眉头紧奏，我心里有很多问题，我来试图帮你提出这些问题。那我再重复一遍。我们现在似乎终于听到了所谓公共理性是个什么东东公共理性只能诉诸当前被广泛接受的一般信念与常识推理形式以及不受争议的科学方法和结论。
来源片段
And to some sense, they do, like I say, with these protests we see there seems to be a script and everyone seems to understand when we've gone off script. Now, it's not the only set of norms. Like fundamental norms in a society are just as contested as policies are, right? So I think there is this vague, like implicit awareness of this, like, let's just call it Republican set of norms, set of norms adapted in response to quasi-liberalism. There's a sort of liberal set of norms that's often sort of just getting in its own way and like acting as if this is a liberal state when it isn't. And then there's this more traditional set of norms based on a sort of nostalgia for a past utopia that probably never existed, but a utopia significantly structured by forms of, you know, gender and race and class domination.
目标片段
我们现在似乎终于听到了所谓公共理性是个什么东东公共理性只能诉诸当前被广泛接受的一般信念与常识推理形式以及不受争议的科学方法和结论。那么受到争议怎么办呢？什么叫做广泛接受呢？万一广泛接受的是错误的理念怎么办呢？一个社会中真的存在普遍被接受的信念和推理形式吗？这些普遍被接受的信念和推理形式，足以支撑一个国家的根本政治共识吗？换句话说，难道你不觉得罗尔斯作为一个在学院派被自由派或者是学术界认为是什么？
来源片段
So liberals can fight for liberalism quite easily as an ultimate destination, right? And in doing so, we'll find a lot of allies. And that's where I think we should be. Is there a contradiction, though, between saying, well, you know, I'm a liberal, but like, you know, I still feel a bit conflicted by like, some of the much more messier forms of political engagement that we see. I don't think you should. I'm not actually saying you have to engage in it personally. Indeed, if you're like a white middle class college professor, the most useful thing for you to be doing right now is not going out and burning down the target, clearly, right?
目标片段
根本就不想参与根本性的政治问题。那在实际层面，他们怎么样才能够到达这一点呢？就是只跟已经同意你观点的人对话嘛，这就是学术界向阳塔的通病，或者说美国的学术界向阳塔的通病，他甚至不承认自己有敌人，因为我的敌人都不合理，这也是我自己在学姐的经验和信奉罗尔斯主义的主流，当代政治哲学学者聊天，对我来说，甚至还不如跟一些最危险的狂热分子聊天。因为起码这些所谓最危险的狂热分子，他们是愿意辩护自己立场的，只要你能够产生辩论和冲突，
来源片段
There's all sorts of areas of our lives where liberalism is personal as much as it's political. What I've said doesn't demand that we give up that. It doesn't demand that we think that ultimately the place we want to get to is full liberalism. However, it does demand that we give up this conception of ourselves at the centre of the overlapping consensus. Rather, we're a part outside of the current overlapping consensus that needs to accommodate within our comprehensive worldviews the norms that are actually optimal for that society in its current quasi-liberal step state of historical development.
目标片段
相信这些前提的人能够全心全意的在根本问题上虽然保持分歧，但是达到共识。我们需要的不是妥协。罗尔斯明确拒绝妥协。他要的是全心全意认同民主社会内在政治理想与价值的成员，而不仅仅是顺从社会政治力量均衡的人，这是他的原话。来自我刚才引用的这篇发在知大法学院评论中的重访公共理性论文的第781页。换句话说，人人都必须同意。
来源片段
So thank you for that. If you say that the liberal goal is to maximize autonomy, it would be good to know what liberal thinkers said something like that, and then to explain why that's the appropriate conception of liberalism.
目标片段
看看罗尔斯究竟想开创一个怎样的自由主义，或者说给自由主义奠定一个怎样的新方向。这种导向之所以重要，是因为你读懂了，这个就可以差不多理解。
S2：4 个窗口回退
来源片段
I was struck reading your book, remembering the time I had Sohrab Ahmari, who I think is a very interesting thinker on the podcast, to have a discussion and debate about liberalism. And Sohrab kept insisting that the definition of liberalism is maximizing autonomy and maximizing self-expression. And we had an interesting back and forth. I tried to explain to him why, as a liberal thinker, I think that that is not a helpful definition of what liberalism is, precisely because it implies that liberalism is opposed to any lifestyle or any set of life goals, any conception of what makes your life worthwhile and important, that doesn't encourage the individual to maximize autonomy and self-expression in those kinds of ways.
目标片段
什么叫做把真理问题括号化在暂时不处理这些行而上学的基础上，建立一个自由派政治秩序。我们再进一步把政治自由主义和启蒙自由主义区别开来。罗尔斯的政治自由主义不再深称自己代表一种理性或者是启蒙的政治秩序，不再主张一种独一无二的理性或启蒙的生活方式。在导论第40页。他说，政治自由主义并不是启蒙自由主义，这意味着什么？我用一个非常网络用语的话来形容罗尔斯的企图。其实罗尔斯早在91年92年就试图让自由主义去掉他的爹位，对吧？
来源片段
If you say that the liberal goal is to maximize autonomy, it would be good to know what liberal thinkers said something like that, and then to explain why that's the appropriate conception of liberalism. It isn't John Stuart Mill's conception of liberalism. It isn't Benjamin Constant's conception of liberalism. It certainly isn't Rawls' conception of liberalism. It isn't Philip Pettit's conception of liberalism. It isn't Joseph Rask's conception of liberalism. So it's fair to say that autonomy is important to the liberal tradition understood as freedom. The idea of maximizing autonomy, it's not even clear what that means.
目标片段
你让那个子君接受新文化、新道德新观念，这个是启蒙自由主义，用理性之名来教教你这政治自由主义从一开始就不打算做这个事情，或者说号称自己不打算做这个事情。我们在导论第40节看到罗尔斯一开始就承认宗教教义本身可能是非自由主义的。他指出，政治自由主义要处理的哲学问题，是那些承认宗教权威，比如说教会或者是圣经或者是传统为基础的宗教教义的人。这些人有没有可能同时坚持一种合理的政治观念，从而支持一个公正的民主政题。我们可以说这是政治自由主义的核心问题，或者说这是他认为自己这套理论能够解决的核心问题，
来源片段
There are probably more mid-level or intermediate social forces that lead to the various things that people are rightly troubled by and to blame liberalism is the cautious way to put it is it's not proven, the Scottish verdict. I think the more accurate answer is it's a speculation which is no more plausible than a range of other speculations, which would take some abstraction ending in ism and say that the fact that, you know, there's divorce or there's young boys and girls are struggling is it's a product of that ism, social media ism, or, you know, individualism, which is a localist.
目标片段
这个问题人们必然会给出不同答案，并且我们不应该试图去解决这个问题。因为政治自由主义拒绝回答任何总体性问题。我们可以说政治自由主义拒绝回答什么是正义这个问题，他试图把自己凌驾在这个问题之上，他认为自己可以凌驾在拥有以下，对于什么是正义的，回答的人之上，有人可以认为打倒父权制社会是正义的，有人可以认为建造一个被伊斯兰法统治的社会是正义的，有人可以认为消灭所有私人财产是正义的，有人可以认为给亿万富翁征收百分之一百的税是正义的，
来源片段
But to start more broadly, you know, now that we've defined the negative space, now we've seen what liberalism isn't and where some of the boundaries are, why some of the critiques of liberalism are wrong, what is the affirmative sort of description of what this proud tradition actually consists in? Well, if we want two words, we'd say freedom and pluralism. So a liberal tradition is enthusiastic about freedom of speech. It's enthusiastic about careers open to talents. It's enthusiastic about freedom of religion. The idea of property rights is congenial to the liberal tradition, I think, built into it for the reason you gave, that if your property isn't yours, then you're dependent on the government.
目标片段
我相信上面这一系列问题可以帮助你理解为什么今天美国研究当代政治哲学的这些民主理论的人，能够产生出如此和谐，如此相互尊重。如此友好，如此相互掳管的满足和高潮。因为你只要能够进入这套逻辑来使用他的术语论证，你肯定能够达到他所谓的一致。但是这套逻辑本身是否自明，是罗尔斯没有论证过的。我为什么要进入这套逻辑，是罗尔斯没有论证过的。换句话说，罗尔斯的政治自由主义也需要一种信念，他也建立在一种神学基础之上，你得先信他，然后你就能够在这个逻辑中自洽了。