The British royal family is a role model? But the words 'royal' and 'scandal' go together so well. The phrase is part of our heritage. Along with bishops suspected of not believing in God, bullying in the army, class prejudice, self-serving greedy politicians who turn out to have been respected and dedicated public servants after they die, funny dogs whose barks sound like words and soldiers who wear absurdly tall fur hats to draw the attention of the enemy. It's our fantasy. Let us live it our way.

With regard to 'word salads' it is partly about the subjective meaning of the author and also what another may read into it, especially the ambiguities. This applies to life in liberal society in general because people exchange ideas and express themselves, often with a lot of fantasised ideas about what is communicated through the haze of words and what they represent. It probably leads to a lot of distortions, misunderstandings and even belief in shared understanding where none exists.

subjective — Jack Cummins

:up:

Thoughts can be presented in a coherent, easy-to-grok fashion; in fact communication is all about that. However, there are times when this isn't achieved (word salad) and it is then that one projects oneself onto the text/picture/sound/touch/taste/smell - you see things ... in a manner of speaking ... glimpses of your own beautiful mind.

distortions, misunderstandings — Jack Cummins

I'd say the image in a mirror can be used to detect the shape of the mirror. A quick way to tell you whether a stellar image is Hubble or James Webb is to look at how many rays of light the star appears to have. If you wanna know it's 4 for the former and 6 for the latter.

He proposed the idea that today ‘liberalism’ is about ‘getting rid of role models’. — I like sushi

Yep, I understood the words he used but as an argument against liberalism I don't think this hits the right target for reasons I presented earlier. Maybe there are other ways of putting this argument that will resonate with me.

Berlin, for sure and Robert Dahl. And Charles Taylor for criticisms of pluralism. I know very little about political theory and it has been 30 years since I studied it.

I can remember going to see an occupational health doctor once and he wrote a report, which read like a 'word salad'. The funny thing was a copy of it got sent to a senior manager on her mobile phone. I got called in for a meeting about it because she was so puzzled by it. I didn't know her that well and she was querying aspects of it and I didn't know what they meant exactly. It was like trying to work out a secret code.

:smile:

I dislike the notion of role models. I've never had any. Aspiring to be like someone else seems to me to show a weakness of character and a lack of self esteem. Better to aspire to be your best self instead.

Better to aspire to be your best self instead. — Michael

What if your best self is an exceptionally talented serial killer?

I think people generally choose role models closer to home - the royals, with the possible exception of Her Maj, have generally been a banal and motley crew. Whether it's Phil-foot-in-mouth-the-Greek, toe sucking Fergie, swastika donning dumb-arse Harry, flighty Di, tampon sucking Charles, or even Randy-Pederast-Andy - they make decidedly inadequate subjects of veneration.

What if your best self is an exceptionally talented serial killer? — Tom Storm

By “best” I’m also including moral goodness.

I thought you might say that.

they make decidedly inadequate subjects of veneration. — Tom Storm

Veneration. Honestly such an appalling idea. Hero worship, God worship, all of it just seems terrible to me.

Perhaps but isn't venerating moral goodness also problematic? :razz:

There’s a difference between aspiring to have certain qualities and aspiring to be like another person. It’s the latter that I find problematic.

There’s a difference between aspiring to have certain qualities and aspiring to be like another person. It’s the latter that I find problematic. — Michael

I'm sure many would agree. But aspiring to have the virtuous qualities of certain others is a well known path too. Hence gurus and religious leaders like Gandhi. I think the problem is determining what moral goodness is and what 'venerating it' involves. But this belongs elsewhere.

Does not liberalism (as we know it today) stand for the lack of all role models (but volunteerism)? — Eros1982

Can you try to make a cogent case for this? From what you've presented, you don't seem to have a solid rational basis for it.

You have a point here too, i.e. there are things advertised as expressions of true freedom when in reality they are just expressions of extreme leftist mentality.

I am not sure I understand your assertion that Britain has what other nations lack - role models. Are only royalty held up as role models? Can not a scientist be? Or a philosopher even? A social worker perhaps? Maybe even a politician or activist?

As a 20th century liberal myself (if there is such a thing), my biggest qualm with with role models in the 2022 liberal zeitgeist is the push for the role model to be matched by identity to you. So a young black woman should have a young black woman as a role model. A disabled east Asian man should have a disabled east Asian man as a role model, etc. That not me denying that identity is important - it is. But I fear that in the over stretch towards identity, we sometimes forget the common humanity that we share. Depending on what you read today, you would be forgiven to think the young black woman and old white man have no shared experience at all, no common thread of shared humanity.

@I like sushi seems to suggest that I confuse liberalism with extreme leftism.

That may be an answer. You have all these Soros-minded people who have enough power to sponsor Hillary Clinton and 100 film-makers who will remind you 24 a day that democracy and politics should preoccupy firstly with ALL KINDS of minorities and individuals and then with working families and traditional majorities.

So, it may be due to the power of the extreme left that many people (including Orban, Trump and Putin) have drawn a lot of support in their war on liberal institutions, though as I like sushi implies not everything that is called liberal it solely means that word (excluding other political definitions).

I'd like to add here, also, that I might have found this idea of lack of models in Plato's Republic.

I his work, Plato seems to suggest that democracy debases human beings, since its main function is not to promote the division of roles/labor or to promote sound thinking, but to promote desires and caprices.

Though Plato was referring to another "kind of democracy" it is really striking that today's electoral democracies do somehow rely on desires more than on sound reasoning. It is hard to govern people today, if you are not informed on daily basis about their demands. So, if you happen to govern a diverse district, the first thing you ask yourself is not how you will get your tasks done perfectly, but how you will represent all your voters' wishes in the way you perform your tasks. If you don't do this, you may loose votes in the next election.

Hence, again (like 25 centuries ago) emotions seem to play one of the major functions in democracy.

It is hard to see how a liberal society can promote models nowadays when the first thing every politician should worry about is the representation of his voters wishes, his fear that none should be excluded so that no vote is lost in the next ballot.

All societies handle conflict. — I like sushi

In the broadest definition, sure. But there are large differences in the means employed and the desired end.

External conflict may be used to achieve internal cohesion; a good war can unify the population. Conflict may be used to reduce unwanted diversity by stoking internal conflict between groups (like the Nazis did). Internal conflict may be used to weaken opposition to colonization. Etc.

An ostensibly liberal society like the United States (which is hardly the only example) may employ quite illiberal methods of. As you noted, "We are most certainly NOT all equal". It takes a lot of manipulation and misinformation to keep a lid on our potential social conflict.

Are manipulation and misinformation tools of liberal management???

Manipulation and misinformation are ubiquitous across all political colours (in public circles likely more so due to wilful ignorance).

Hence, again (like 25 centuries ago) emotions seem to play one of the major functions in democracy. — Eros1982

It's always a big mistake to suppose that emotions won't play a major role. We are not altogether rational animals.

It is hard to see how a liberal society can promote models nowadays when the first thing every politician should worry about is the representation of his voters wishes, his fear that none should be excluded so that no vote is lost in the next ballot. — Eros1982

To some extent (% varies from estimate to estimate) electoral politics are and always have been a sham. Liberal societies (like all other societies) strive to stay in business, so whatever supports continuity from election to election will be employed. Still, no system is perfect so every now and then 'the people' manage to actually improve things through voting.

Good, all of you have added some clarity here, like: 1) not to confuse liberalism with extreme left (they are related, but do not need to be identical) and 2) we are not looking for perfection, but for the last worst option.

This second element has become very practical in my political choices. Though I dislike Democrats and their obsession with "open society" and "identity politics" (viz. Sorosianism), there are so many other things where Democrats and liberals in general are more acceptable to me.

(viz. Sorosianism) — Eros1982

What?

Did you follow Hillary's Clinton electoral campaign?

All her arguments where about accepting everything (immigrants, Muslims, LGBT, Hispanics, and so on).

I am an immigrant, I have Muslim (and Orthodox) ancestors, I have LGBT friends, I think Hispanics are the coolest people in America, but I don't know what a hell of electoral campaign was that?

Like taken out from some George Soros' article where the impression readers get is that in democracy what matters the most is that every minority is represented enough, so as none to be excluded, none to be offended.

I wonder if these kind of politics can ever produce models like: good father, good wife, beautiful woman, well dressed/haired people, and so on.

Because now in the government jobs we are even told to accept all kinds of of hair-styles and dresses from our colleagues (but male short pants). We are in the constant pressure to accept anything and to not judge things as ugly or as beautiful.... just because some person who belongs to a sect or tribe may complain that he/she is not accepted.

This is what am I talking about. Does this kind of mentality lead to models? Can cultures and societies last without models?

Like taken out from some George Soros' article where the impression readers get is that in democracy what matters the most is that every minority is represented enough, so as none to be excluded, none to be offended. — Eros1982

Well, equal rights is a pretty important aspect of democracy.

Still don't know what this has to do with Soros.

This is what am I talking about. Does this kind of mentality lead to models? — Eros1982

Why wouldn't it?

Can cultures and societies last without models? — Eros1982

See here and here.

Having a "demos" (a like-minded community) is very important also. But when you hear all the time about differences and identities that need to be respected, you stop believing that you are living in a demos.

You start believing that you are living in a regime where everyone is distant and different from you and the only way to make yourself heard is to exercise some kind of power on others (through voting, lobbying, protesting, vandalizing, and so on).

Having a "demos" (a like-minded community) is very important also. But when you hear all the time about differences and identities that need to be respected, you stop believing that you are living in a demos. — Eros1982

So a like-minded community is one where certain groups of people should be disrespected? This really is quite telling of your (lack of) ethics.

@Eros1982 Maybe you could stop dancing around the issue and be more precise with what you're saying. Are you saying that it's better for society if homosexuals are not allowed marry, and women are not allowed to vote, and black people are not considered citizens, and ...?

What specific liberal policy related to social equality do you disagree with?