Saturday, March 12, 2022

On Medium: Rebuffing Ben Shapiro’s Sales Pitch for God and Liberty

Here's a critique of Ben Shapiro's history of Western philosophy, a history which he uses to motivate his Judaism and libertarianism.

4 comments:

  1. What Shapiro seems to overlook is that both Athens & Jerusalem had their dark sides.

    Athens was not only the birthplace of western philosophy, but of western imperialism. After the Persian wars it dominated the other Greek states with it's navy & used the 'Delian League' as a pretext for extracting tribute from them. Moreover, much of Athen's wealth was built on the backs of the slave laborers who mined the silver deposites of Mt. Laurion. So it seems we have more in common with the Athenians than even Shapiro would like to admit & far from departing from Athens, we seem to be following the same script they did. Wait 'till the Spartans invade.

    Jerusalem did not cast as long a shadow as Athens; but I see echoes Hebrew Chutzpah in American exceptionalism. If the Jews were the chosen people, America is the chosen nation. We wrested it from those Heathen Injuns much like the Hebrews seized their promised land from the Canaanites. Israel had a heyday of approximately 250 years. But after Solomon & David, came the civil war that split them in two; followed by the Babylonian conquest & captivity. America is now 246 years old. I wonder if we also inherited any Jewish tenacity or humor to get us through what's coming? I'm guessing we didn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are good points, but I wonder whether the logic of Shapiro's argument about the historical and philosophical foundations and greatness of libertarianism requires that the foundations had to be flawless. He could say that history improved on the foundations in the dialogue between Athens and Jerusalem, culminating in the alleged flawlessness of Shapiro's Jewish libertarianism.

      Delete
  2. Shapiro is a manlet with short man syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, that's an ad hominem attack. A number of commenters on the article made such personal remarks about Shapiro, and they always make me suspect that the insulter is afraid of what's being insulted. Shapiro can be an intimidating speaker, but there's nothing to fear. Just read someone objectively, see what you really think about the case that's being made, and go from there. There's no need for the personal attack.

      Delete