Comments on: Deneen vs. Munoz: Pro Wrestling

By: CJ Wolfe

CJ Wolfe — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:25:09 +0000

Deneen strikes back at Schleuter, and argues against what he calls the “Brownson/Murray/Lawler” argument:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/12/7411/

By: CJ Wolfe

CJ Wolfe — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 22:20:46 +0000

Here’s a quote from Schleuter that Pomocons might find thought provoking (or simply provoking):
“the American Founders did not build better than they knew, they knew more than they said.”

By: CJ Wolfe

CJ Wolfe — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 21:33:49 +0000

Deneen uses a very nonstandard definition of “voluntarism” in his article. He says:

“By ‘voluntarism,’ I mean a philosophic claim, arising especially in the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke, that political arrangements can only be deemed to be legitimate when they have been voluntarily chosen by the citizenry.”

That’s strange; “Voluntarism,” usually refers to non-teleological approaches to ethics, beginning with Occham. Also, my friend Nathan Schleuter wrote a reply to Deneen and Munoz worth reading: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/12/7322/

By: CJ Wolfe

CJ Wolfe — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:55:27 +0000

What’s new is the venue- both wrastlers are at Notre Dame now

By: Deneen vs. Munoz: Pro Wrestling | cathlick.com

Deneen vs. Munoz: Pro Wrestling | cathlick.com — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:48:31 +0000

[...] exchange in PUBLIC DISCOURSE. I’m glad, of course, to see the exhange, although it Source: Postmodern Conservative Category: Blogs and [...]

By: Tom H

Tom H — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:18:53 +0000

Ask, and you shall receive! Thanks, Peter. I agree there’s nothing new. The reason I asked was because I’ve been seeing a little bit of interest in this debate from among some of my theologian friends who don’t normally think about Locke, Jefferson, and liberalism in these terms. So I’m very glad to have a PomoCon entry in the discussion I can point to for the benefit of those just tuning in.