最高相似度示例 · 非人工确认结果
目标片段我认为，如果你是一个古典自由主义者，如果你拥顿公共空间和私人空间明确的划分。你认为公民的自由包括了在私人空间不可侵犯的自由。公民在私人空间做的事情，不应该被任何人干涉。如果你持有这个观点，那你可能会说企业在政治问题上的态度关我屁事，我根本就不想听到一个冰淇淋品牌来教育我巴以问题如何解决？这不是一个冰淇淋品牌该做的事。但是如果你认为这个古典自由主义本来就是有问题的。不管你是出于左派的角度，认为古典自由主义是一种制度性的压迫，或者说你是出于一个右派的角度，
来源片段reason liberalism itself, because its concepts are contestable, or whether public reason is committed in a special way to nailing down what certain ideas mean so that they can be used in politics. So I mean, if it's a worry about public reason liberalism as such, then what you just say is, look, yes, all these terms on political theory are contestable. And then you just make the case that the public reason view captures in the best. But if it's within the view that this things get pretty interesting. So if you say, oh, look, well, public reasons trying to establish a common framework among people who do disagree. So it's like committed as DNA. Yeah, that's what I'm saying
查看片段位置
2 个展示片段 · 共 3 个展示片段（含上方示例）— 点击展开
S1：2 个窗口回退
来源片段
If you've listened to some of my solo episodes, you'll know that this is an approach to justifying liberalism and thinking about what liberalism is that I've argued against, preferring an older sort of liberalism that appeals to human goods and human needs as its justification. So it was really great to be able to explore these issues in conversation and put some of my challenges and concerns to an expert on this type of liberalism and a defender of it in real time. I'm not going to do an extended introduction to this one, because firstly, I don't want to
目标片段
我觉得我这一期播客并没有解释它为什么会变成这个样子？我更多的是在描述它怎么变成了这个社会？关于为什么会变成这种自由市场政治化的社会。我想说两个原因。第一个当然是因为后现代政治意识形态发展的原因，这个原因非常复杂。我们之前有一些播客讲过，左派和右派都开始拒绝自由主义。那他们拒绝的方式之一，当然就是拒绝自由主义最核心的理念，那就是公共空间和私人空间的区分。
来源片段
reason liberal who tells you that it can resolve every issue, it's ultimately going to be stretching the theories in ways that make it less plausible. So the white reason I like this kind of public reason view that I have starting from where real people are and idealizing their own real commitments is that whether you can achieve a public justification is partly an empirical matter. But when you can achieve it, it's actually substantive. It's actually meaningful. It's not just a theoretical trick. So I think what I just have to say is in the case of the abortion, issue, there's a bit of a modus for Vindi that I think there aren't any other issues because usually a public reason liberal would say, look, in the absence of a public justification, don't
目标片段
美国人越来越意识到，他们要为自己16岁发的推特，或者说脸书状态负责，不再有政治观点是私下的观点，所有的政治观点都变成了公共政治观点。所以回到播客，一开始这个问题，企业应该在政治问题上表态吗？我认为，如果你是一个古典自由主义者，如果你拥顿公共空间和私人空间明确的划分。你认为公民的自由包括了在私人空间不可侵犯的自由。公民在私人空间做的事情，不应该被任何人干涉。如果你持有这个观点，那你可能会说企业在政治问题上的态度关我屁事，我根本就不想听到一个冰淇淋品牌来教育我巴以问题如何解决？这不是一个冰淇淋品牌该做的事。