Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Non-liberalism (Hegel and the state)
Message-ID: <521@umich.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 20:46:29 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.521
Posted: Mon Mar 17 20:46:29 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 20:16:29 EST
References: <1400@mtuxo.UUCP> <372@gargoyle.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 16
Summary: 

I'm not familiar with much of Hegel's writings, but Charles Taylor's
commentary is wrong on at least one count (here I am criticizing, not his
exegesis of Hegel, but his apparent endorsement of the view he is
elaborating).  Taylor contrasts the individual considered "as an organism"
vs. "as a human", but why are these mutually exclusive viewpoints (as seems
to be implied)? (Hint: They aren't -- a human is a certain distinctive *sort*
of organism.)  Sure our communal life is important, but how does "liberalism"
fail to acknowledge this?  F'rinstance:  Taylor lists utilitarianism among 
the "modern liberal" viewpoints; where does he get off accusing it of 
ignoring or disparaging communal life?  I keep hearing this axe-grinding 
against "individualism", but just what is it and why is it objectionable?
Feel free to give the answers you think Hegel, Taylor, and/or Alisdair 
MacIntyre (to throw in another contender with whom I'm more familiar) would 
give, or, of course, your own.

--Paul Torek						torek@umich