[Buddha-l] Re: Silence, conservatism and JPII

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 15:45 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:

> Was this relief connected with some sense that "liberal" and "Socialist"
> both convey meaning, however inadequately?

Any word conveys meaning if the user of the word makes it clear what the
intended meaning of the word she is using is. So when a person says that
the word "liberal" means a Socialist intent on destroying the American
way of life (yes!), then the word "liberal" has meaning in the context
of the conversation in question. When, however, the word "liberal" is
used without further specification, then it is meaningless.

A few years ago I was participating in a discussion on the Christian
Science Monitor forum, and someone said about my position (something
like calling for an armed popular insurrection against the current
administration) that it was a typical liberal view that did not require,
since it was so obviously liberal, any further consideration. I
responded that calling a view liberal hardly counts as an argument
against the view, especially since the word "liberal" has pretty much
lost its meaning in American political discourse. My interlocutor
replied that the claim that the word "liberal" has lost its meaning is a
prime example of a liberal claim that requires no further discussion.

All this talk has made me miss the Progressive Conservative Party in
Canada. It has also made me wonder why we are talking about this on
buddha-l, where it decidedly does not belong.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico