Farage/Clegg Debate

In our Mother Country, Nigel Farage has been debating Nick Clegg of late.

The most recent, the one that has me paying attention now, was the one on Wednesday, April 2, 2014.

For my fellow Americans, who only rarely tune into matters on the other sides of oceans -- it is worth your while paying attention to this.

Talking myself through it now ... Farange (that's his picture above) is the leader of the UKIP, or the Independence Party, which wants to quit the EU altogether and reduce immigration. Clegg is head of the Liberal Democratic party, which is in coalition with the (larger) Conservative Party in the present government. Clegg also has the title Deputy Prime Minister.

The aforesaid CP hasn't been taking part in these exchanges. Neither has the other Major Party, Labour. Its a little bit as if, in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt had debated Eugene Debs, leaving both the incumbent president (Taft) and the major party challenger (Wilson) out of the exchange. well ... not much like that. How much like a rooster is Gonzo?

Anyway, Clegg (that's his picture below) supports UK participation in the EU.

On April 2d, the two candidates engaged in what pundits always call a "spirited exchange." Farage said that his program is very popular among Brits, but the obstacle, represented by Clegg, is the "career political class, and their friends in big business."

Clegg responded that this is a "dangerous con" because the world has changed since 40 years ago when the UK entered the EU. It has changed by becoming more interdependent. "Working together with others is not a bad thing, it actually strengthens us, it doesn't weaken us."

The question of Russia and its recent takeover of the Crimea arose at about 8:45 in. A member of the audience asked how it is possible for Britain to "face up to international challenges like Russia in Crimea without the political weight which comes from being part of the European Union."

This gave Farage the chance to accuse the EU of having an "expansionist foreign policy." He alluded to a Baroness who is "pushing for a European air force." The EU, with at least the implicit promise of NATO support, has given encouragement to the Ukrainians, and that encouragement has worsened the clashes there.
"We have given false hope to those western Ukrainians," he said. So his answer to the question, though not quite spelled out this way, was that Britain should not want the kind of political weight that comes from being part of the EU, and should not help give the EU such weight by its participation.

Clegg rose to the bait. "It is extraordinary that his [Farage's] loathing of the EU is so all-consuming that he is now seeking to justify and defend" Putin's actions. This gives Clegg an open door into the subject of Syria, where again he blames the violence on Putin. Presumably, the point (again left unsaid) is that the EU/UK combination could do more against Assad than either of the two components separately can or would do.

At 12:36 they are talking over each other and its a bit entertaining, but soon enough they control themselves, stiffen their upper lips as their Victorian ancestors would have said, and they carry on.

I won't continue with a blow by blow, but I found it all quite illuminating and would like to commend the Brits for the kind of politics that can still entertain an intelligent and vigorous discussion of such issues. Our own political culture ... not so much.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog