【推文】James Lindsay - The American Liberal tradition is based not in romanticism or idealism or...
連結
原推文 - x.com/conceptualjame...
Thread Reader App版本（一頁版本） - threadreaderapp.com/...
原文及個人翻譯
So I've been listening to some of the arguments made by so-called "post-liberals" (notably Prof. Patrick Deneen) a little more closely than before and want to speak to a persistent confusion I see in the foundation of their work that I almost have to wonder if it's deliberate. 🧵
The problem, and the allure of "post-liberalism" (including to our current Vice President) is obviously that "liberal" is a highly contentious term, and one has to wonder what it means if we're going to go "post" (beyond) it. It means VERY distinct things to different thinkers.
所以我比以前更仔細地聆聽了所謂「後自由主義者」（尤其是Patrick Deneen教授）的一些論點，並想談談我在他們工作成果的基礎中看到的持續混淆，我幾乎要懷疑這是故意的。🧵
主要問題，以及「後自由主義」的吸引力（包括對我們現任副總統的吸引力）顯然在於「自由主義」是一個高度有爭議的詞語，我們必須懷疑，如果我們要進入「後自由主義」（超越自由主義），它究竟代表什麼意思。對不同的思想家來說，它有非常不同的含義。
Deneen makes a curious point that liberalism began well as minimal government interference and the rejection of the birthright of the ruling class as absurd but rapidly acquired a different character of seeking the "Self-defined Self" liberated from all restrictions.
In particular, the "liberal" as such is someone who is seeking to overcome all tradition, authority, etc., that stand between him and his true self, which is a Self-defined Self. I don't know if he got this from Carl Trueman or not, but he argues similarly.
Deneen提出了一個有趣的觀點，即自由主義起初是政府極少干預和拒絕統治階級的世襲權利，認為這是荒謬的，但很快就轉變成為追求「自我定義的自我」從一切限制中解放出來的不同性質。
特別是，所謂的「自由派」就是指那些試圖克服所有傳統、權威等，阻礙他們實現真正自我的的人。這個真正自我是一個自我定義的自我。我不知道他是否從Carl Trueman那裡學到了這點，但他的論點相似。
To someone like me, this isn't a "liberal" except in some kind of wacky, "ghey" European sense, and that dissonance in understanding arises from the fact that American Liberalism and French Liberalism, which Deneen seems to be blending, are not the same thing on any level at all.
The French liberalism he seems to be describing is ultimately Romantic and Idealist, which is actually to say Gnostic and mystical, or one could say Cartesian and Continental, but it is not how American liberals think of themselves or their search for self or meaning, generally.
This is a fraught statement to make, of course, because again, "liberal" is unclear in its meaning. If you mean by liberal whatever the Progressive Democrats who call themselves liberals, or what their conservative detractors like Rush Limbaugh called liberals, I guess ok.
對我這樣的人來說，這在某種古怪、歐洲式的意義上才算是「自由派」。理解上的這種不和諧源於美國自由主義和法國自由主義，Deneen似乎將這兩種混為一談，但它們在任何層面上都不是同一回事。
他似乎描述的法國自由主義最終是浪漫主義和理想主義的，這實際上可以說是靈知派和神秘主義的，或者可以說是笛卡兒主義和大陸哲學的。但這並不是美國自由派如何看待自己或他們對自我或意義的探索。
當然，做出這樣的陳述是很危險的，因為「自由派」這個詞的含義不清。如果你所指的自由派是指自稱為自由派的進步民主黨人，或者他們的保守派批評者如Rush Limbaugh所稱的自由派，那麼我想可以接受。
"The libs," as we might call those people, have left American Liberalism behind for something that's like a weird American knock-off of the French and Continental original (so, "Globohomo"), which is metaphysically and ethically distinct from American Liberalism in all ways.
It is true, however, that "the libs" are somewhat correctly described by Deneen with his term "liberal," which makes this discussion really hard and confusing for people, which really sucks. It is wrong to conflate those people with American Liberals (classical liberals), tho.
我們可以稱這些人為「自由派」，他們已經拋棄了美國自由主義，轉而擁抱一種類似於法國和大陸原版的奇怪美國仿製品（所以，「全球同性戀」），在形而上學和倫理上與美國自由主義有根本的不同。
然而，事實上，「自由派」被Deneen用他的「自由派」一詞準確地描述了一部分，這讓討論對人們來說變得非常困難和令人困惑，這真是太糟糕了。將這些人與美國自由派（古典自由派）混為一談是錯誤的。
The American Liberal tradition is based not in romanticism (as with the French) or idealism (as with German) or their blend ("Continental") but in common sense, which has roots in the Scottish Enlightenment but not so much the Continental ones. It's very different.
In particular, the Common Sense tradition believes reality exists and is generally accessible and comprehensible to everyone without elite help (sense is common). It is realist, humble, and individualist. This is the opposite of idealist (not realist) Continental "liberals."
The goal of American (Common Sense) Liberalism is not to discover the "true self" (idealist concept) as a kind of Self-defined Self (Gnostic concept); it is to discover who we really are and live accordingly. There are facts about ourselves that are true, and we seek to know them
So in the sense that there's a search for "self" at all in American Liberalism, it's a quest of discovery for a Discovered Self as it really is in reality, not an attempt to find a "Self-defined Self" that is necessarily in objection to reality. Reality defines us; we don't.
美國自由主義傳統並非基於浪漫主義（如法國）、理想主義（如德國）或兩者混合的「大陸」哲學，而是基於常識（common sense），其根源可以追溯到蘇格蘭啟蒙運動，而非大陸哲學。這兩者有很大的不同。
特別是，常識傳統相信現實存在，並且一般人可以在不依賴精英幫助的情況下，理解和掌握現實（常識是普遍的，sense is common）。它具有現實主義、謙卑和個人主義的特點。這與大陸「自由派」的理想主義（非現實主義）形成鮮明對比。
美國（常識）自由主義的目標並非發現「真實自我」（理想主義概念）作為一種自我定義的自我（靈知派概念）；而是發現我們真正是誰，並據此生活。關於我們自己，確實存在著真實的事實，我們尋求去了解它們。
因此，在美國自由主義中，如果說存在著對「自我」的探索，那這是一場發現之旅，旨在發現現實中真實存在的自我，而非試圖尋找一個必然與現實相左的「自我定義的自我」。現實定義了我們，而非我們定義現實。
American Liberals (minus "the libs") don't see themselves as trying to overcome obstacles in tradition and institutional authority but rather we see ourselves in seeking to discover our capabilities, boundaries, and limitations and optimizing within them. It's very different.
The confusing point of overlap, aside from the terminology, is that American Common Sense Liberals will question institutions and traditions, or test them, to see when and where they are arbitrary, and as Chesterton's Fence demonstrates, sometimes this is in consequential error.
美國自由派（不包括「自由派」）並不認為自己是在試圖克服傳統和制度權威的障礙，而是我們努力發現自己的能力、界限和限制，並在這些界限內進行優化。這有很大的不同。
混淆的重疊點，除了術語之外，是美國常識自由派會質疑制度和傳統，或進行測試，以了解它們在何時何地是任意的，正如「卻斯特頓之欄」（Chesterton's fence）所示，有時這會導致重大的錯誤。
I raise this point because "post-liberalism" is on the rise (Marxism is Leftist post-liberalism, but now it's rising on the Right in various ways too), but its best thinkers seem desperately, if not deliberately, confused, mixing "liberal" traditions that aren't even similar.
I don't know why they do this, for surely they're well-read and intelligent enough to know better, and perhaps its just the complete poisoning of the language on the word "liberal," but I expect a lot better out of otherwise careful thinkers like Deneen and his acolytes.
Anyway, it's important to be able to spot this point of terrible confusion and see through it, at least for Americans who want to Make America America (thus Great) Again. The American tradition ain't broke, so don't fix it. We've just got to remove the Continental tares.
PS: "post-liberal" means "post-liberty." Don't forget that.
我提出這個問題是因為「後自由主義」正在興起（馬克思主義是左翼後自由主義，但現在也在以各種方式在右翼中興起），但它最出色的思想家們似乎絕望地，甚至故意地混淆了完全不同的「自由主義」傳統。
我不知道他們為什麼這樣做，因為他們肯定讀過很多書，也足夠聰明，知道區別，也許只是語言中對「自由主義」一詞的完全毒化，但我希望像Deneen和他的追隨者那樣謹慎的思想家能做得更好。
無論如何，能夠識別並看穿這點嚴重的混淆非常重要，至少對那些希望讓美國再次偉大的美國人來說。美國傳統沒有破碎，所以不要修補它。我們只需要去除大陸的雜草。
附言：「後自由主義」意味著「後自由」（Pika：失去自由後）。別忘了這一點。
額外內容
「卻斯特頓之欄」（Chesterton's fence）
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
在某種情況下，存在著某個機構或法律；為了簡潔起見，讓我們說是一座圍欄或路障。現代型的改革者會開心地走到那裡，說：「我看不出這個有什麼用處；讓我們把它清除掉吧。」對此，更聰明的改革者應該回答：「如果你看不出這個有什麼用處，我絕對不會讓你把它清除掉。你去想想吧。然後，當你能回來告訴我你看出了它的用處時，我才可能讓你摧毀它。」