tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2623721153002721356.post8891222994271563681..comments2024-03-28T17:49:01.125+00:00Comments on Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness: After Britain? Arthur Aughey and 'endism'.Owen Polleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00567787385096905811noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2623721153002721356.post-19450571361840101822009-05-11T16:17:00.000+01:002009-05-11T16:17:00.000+01:00I don't advocate 'utilitarian' language Jim, just ...I don't advocate 'utilitarian' language Jim, just clear language. And I'm afraid you've lost me with the rest of the comment.Owen Polleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00567787385096905811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2623721153002721356.post-22502547944491146642009-05-11T15:06:00.000+01:002009-05-11T15:06:00.000+01:00Granted Perryman is unreadable. BTW you might be i...Granted Perryman is unreadable. BTW you might be interested in Donald Winch's new book which does a great job of analysing the scope and power of utilitarianism as the language of public moral debate in Britain. It is a joy to read something on this topic that doesn't turn on identity but instead on the capacity of of a cultural resource to allow for rational negotiation of interests. Not that utilitarianism is particularly my cup of philosophy, but if one is trying to understand the strength of Britain as an idea this seems to be a better place to start than most. All the versions of the mosaic, which are derived from Burke in one way or another, seem to me to be question-begging. I can see that gravity holds the dry stone wall together, but doesn't the mosaic need some other civic philosophical glue? The quality of the glue would then seem to be the essence of the issue.Jim Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08497420769236086524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2623721153002721356.post-8604946426937491152009-05-11T11:46:00.000+01:002009-05-11T11:46:00.000+01:00“If arguing form the general to the particular rea...“If arguing form the general to the particular really insenses you then you should avoid doing it.”<br /><br />There is a subtle difference between ‘arguing from the general to the particular’ and starting out with fairly wild speculation and presenting it as a given. <br /><br />“And how do you justify an affection for metaphors "dry stone wall?" over arguments for working out historical processes?”<br /><br />You’re getting two separate things confused here. The metaphor is useful simply because it illustrates that the ‘historical processes’ which you reference are far from linear. It is a different way to understand the interaction of those processes, rather than a replacement for considering their dynamic. <br /><br />Incidentally it is the vague language which Perryman uses which offends me more than the specifics of his argument.Owen Polleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00567787385096905811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2623721153002721356.post-60886134732178407892009-05-09T22:03:00.000+01:002009-05-09T22:03:00.000+01:00Hi Chekov, thanks for linking to that article.
M...Hi Chekov, thanks for linking to that article. <br /><br />Money quote: <br /><br />"The problem here is the historical misunderstanding of the Agreement as a foundational event from which a radically new society emerges rather than conceiving of it as an event standing in contiguous relation to other events, the particular qualities of which are more apparent than their world-historical significance."<br /><br />The problem with NI is that if we trust in radical nationalism's narrative and the GFA represents a 'conceptual year zero', then anything is possible. Public policy choices are only selectively informed by the past and you end up with inflated notions for 'truth recovery', a maximalist BoR etc...<br /><br />By the way, if you're interested Arthur is great on fatalist unionism. Check out chapter 10 of Wilford's Book <br /><br />http://www.oup.com.au/titles/academic/social_science/politics/9780199242627The Baronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02308962164419990465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2623721153002721356.post-33872255573769938502009-05-09T20:10:00.000+01:002009-05-09T20:10:00.000+01:00If arguing form the general to the particular real...If arguing form the general to the particular really insenses you then you should avoid doing it. Just because there are no inevitable dynamics in history does not mean that nothing ever ends. The arguments about the possible futures for the United Kingdom and the probable prospects for British identity need to be assessed on their own merits. Hiding behind a general dislike of general arguments hardly establishes the health of either the union or British identity. And how do you justify an affection for metaphors "dry stone wall?" over arguments for working out historical processes?Jim Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08497420769236086524noreply@blogger.com