Show Notes
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?
Maurice Glasman is the founder of the Blue Labour movement, a conservative strand of socialism that champions tradition, community, and civic association. In his view, we’ve come to the end of an era. From Thatcher and Reagan, through Blair and Clinton, we used to live in a period of open borders, globalisation and the rule of capital. Trump and MAGA show that the electorate is fed up with this. But what comes after MAGA? Glasman argues Blue Labour is the politics of the future.
Political theorist, Labour life peer, and a member of the House of Lords, Maurice Glasman founded the Blue Labour movement in 2009.
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
More from Philosophy For Our Times
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.
Are electrons real? What is the connection between physics and Buddhism? Is now the time to rehumanise science? Eastern philosophies have been an integral part of scientific thought and the development of multiple fields for millennia. Individuality and innovation have resulted in breakthrough after breakthrough, pushing the boundaries of the known in an ever-advancing march. However, Carlo Rovelli argues that science, especially physics, is leaving its philosophical roots behind, to the detriment of clarity and productive discourse.