1

I have just finished reading a collection of essays by Isaiah Berlin and it was one the most insightful books I have read in my life. I seem to agree with him on many points and especially the weirdness of how nationalism came to be ubiquitous, taken for granted as natural and pretty much absolute in any political discussion.

I was wondering if there are any accounts of the current philosophy which serves as a set of assumption in the whole of the mainstram political discourse.

Let me be more transparent; personnally I find that the vast majority of people that surround me have a very specific philosophical framework for all matters considered, not limited to "politics" (as in partisan parlementary politics in Canada) but also on the metaphysical, ontological levels. My personal opinion is that it relies on a few diverse pillars:

  • A sort of Hegelian view of history, where the end of history has been reached around the fall of communism as Fukuyama stated. Which is also tied to the next point

  • A fundamentally positivistic view of the world, where all questions are tainted with the how instead of the why and where the why is taken to be "common sense" babbling in it would be mental masturbation

  • A "Rousseau/Hobbes" weird mix of political ethics, with a primarly hobbesian view of the nature of man, hence the absolute need of state.

So on and so forth, the positivism leading to adoption from all of the political spectrum, especially the "right" of techno-utopian views which, ironically, are very Marxist.

My question is dual: Is there any essayist, philospher or sociologist having a Berlinesque approach to the current "silent" doctrine. Which would dissect the very assumptions of the psyche of our contemporary societies?

And also, just to not be too self-indulgent, is the framework of my question itself coherent?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Joseph Weissman Dec 30 '15 at 21:49

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Welcome to Philosophy.SE! I removed some redundant text and removed your question whether we agree or disagree. This is not a forum; questions cannot be opinion-based here (see the tour or the help center for more info). Enjoy the site. – Keelan Dec 9 '15 at 20:40
  • Ok then, thanks for your non-condenscending way of correcting me (as opposed to some other mods on other forums). Will remember that. Cheers – SolipsistElvis Dec 9 '15 at 20:49
  • 1
    What is "the current silent doctrine?" By the way, I have very fond memories of when I ran into Berlin and his critique of the central idea of post-enlightenment western political philosophy: (1) All genuine questions have one and only one true answer (to all genuine questions there exist one and only one true answer); (2) There must exist a dependable path toward the discovery of these truths, and (3) That these unique true answers to genuine questions must necessarily be compatible with one another, since one a priori truth cannot be incompatible with another. We've come a long way. – gonzo Dec 10 '15 at 3:24
  • 1
    I wonder which book of essays did you initially run into: Against the Current, Russian Thinkers, Concepts and Categories, Political Ideas in the Romantic Age, The Crooked Timber of Humanity. The Hedgehog and the Fox? These are all good. I mention these to suggest what you might read next. If you are aware of one I have missed, please do tell. – gonzo Dec 10 '15 at 3:29
  • I should have mentioned: it was against the current that I read and looking foward to reading the other collections. By the "silent doctrine" I meant a mixture of different ideologies and philosophical tenents which seem to underly all political discourse. The three points I raised were my personal impression of what could be some "ingredients" of that mixture. As such I don't pretend that I know the answer, that is why I am looking for some analysis of those questions. Also, I know this body of ideas would not be perfectly coherent, rational or immutable. – SolipsistElvis Dec 10 '15 at 3:50