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?