The future of the right | Sohrab Ahmari, Gawain Towler, Rachel Maclean, Mark Littlewood
Philosophy For Our TimesShow Notes
Is the populist right opposed to liberalism and the free market? Does this mark a change in what it is to be right-wing, or was it a mistake to see populism as far right in the first place? Or is there an unavoidable conflict on the right between maintaining the status quo and being conservative, and enabling change through the free market? At the outset of the use of the term, to be on the right was to back the aristocracy, authority and the status quo. In contrast, the liberals, known as Whigs in 18th century Britain, backed change, freedom and the rights of the individual. But in recent decades to be in favour of the free market and against the state itself came to be seen as right-wing. Now there's a further twist. The new populist right, often described as far right by its critics, has become critical of some aspects of the free market. Trump's tariffs are in support of current jobs and against the market. Le Pen is against big corporations. Reform in favour of state ownership of key services. Sohrab Ahmari is a celebrated journalist and cultural critic and co-founder of Compact magazine and author of Tyranny, Inc. Gawain Towler is a British political strategist, journalist, and long-standing figure in the Eurosceptic movement. Best known for his work in party communications and media strategy, he currently serves on the governing board of Reform UK. Rachel Maclean is a former UK minister, Conservative peer, and is Director of Strategy to the Leader of the Opposition. Mark Littlewood is a libertarian economist and media commentator known for his provocative advocacy on free markets, regulation, and public policy. He’s currently director of the think tank Popular Conservatism. Hosted by Roger Hearing.
Don't hesitate to email us at [email protected] with your thoughts or questions on the episode! To witness such talks live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/ And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/ You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimes See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
More from Philosophy For Our Times
Description Does the left really need to be more conservative? What is the difference between capital C and lowercase c conservatism? Is the Blue Labour movement the best tool against the MAGA agenda and right wing nationalism?
Should we give up seeing evidence as the truth and instead see it as a persuasive argument? Does evidence settle the matter or is a counter-narrative always possible? And if evidence is not the truth, how are we to choose between competing perspectives and models of the world? We turn to evidence to settle the matter. And we imagine it is evidence that confirms a scientific theory, or the guilt of an accused. But perspective can result in evidence being interpreted radically differently. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. More broadly some argue all so-called 'facts' are context or theory dependent. And if evidence depends on perspective, it is no longer clear what counts as evidence in the first place. Unlike the French legal system, that assumes evidence determines truth, the English system embeds opposing narratives, each employing their own 'evidence' to support a case. The same is true when physicists operate with different models of reality, recognising that alternative frameworks can be used.
Are homo sapiens the only organisms capable of creating and experiencing beauty? Can we find beauty in God? Why do we see the hand of an Artist in the Natural, if God does not exist?
What does it mean for rationality to be ‘permissive’? Is rationality more limited than we would like to admit? Does the idea that ‘truth is the aim of belief’ still stand?
What makes humans different from nature? What do Confucianism and Daoism have to do with physics? Is science too realist? In part 2 of our interview with Carlo Rovelli, we help unpick the history of the philosophy of science. From uncovering how millennia old Chinese philosophers were debating Enlightenment philosophical principles, to finding whether the self and consciousness are functionally identical, Rovelli's argument finds a home in a single statement: we must rehumanise science.