Among the many very interesting aspects of his paper, there is one that I would like to explore and it refers to the (possible) philosophical foundation of liberalism.
Liberalism is certainly polysemic, when one can find intelectual and political positions like 'fascist liberalism', 'communitarian liberalism', 'neo-conservative liberalism' or 'social liberalism'. Professor Vincent appears to feel more comfortable with a rather wide and formal definition of the concept, and takes distance inasmuch as possible with normative or doctrinal approaches. Some of those formal values of liberalism could be: religious tolerance, freedom of speech, democracy, free markets, moral freedom, the rule of law, equality (at least to a certain extent), civil rights, balance of powers, constitutionality, popular sovereignty, private proprierty. But even if liberalism is referred to as a formal position, there seems to be at its root, a very strong normative, philosophical core, from which liberalism sprouts. It is thanks to that root that it is possible to even speak of liberalism among so many positions that bear the name. Even the self- transforming power of liberalism in different times and circumstances seems to derive from an element in its constitution that does not change.
Liberalism is certainly polysemic, when one can find intelectual and political positions like 'fascist liberalism', 'communitarian liberalism', 'neo-conservative liberalism' or 'social liberalism'. Professor Vincent appears to feel more comfortable with a rather wide and formal definition of the concept, and takes distance inasmuch as possible with normative or doctrinal approaches. Some of those formal values of liberalism could be: religious tolerance, freedom of speech, democracy, free markets, moral freedom, the rule of law, equality (at least to a certain extent), civil rights, balance of powers, constitutionality, popular sovereignty, private proprierty. But even if liberalism is referred to as a formal position, there seems to be at its root, a very strong normative, philosophical core, from which liberalism sprouts. It is thanks to that root that it is possible to even speak of liberalism among so many positions that bear the name. Even the self- transforming power of liberalism in different times and circumstances seems to derive from an element in its constitution that does not change.
Such a root is not political or historical, but philosophical, precisely because it does not change when the historical circumstances or the political situations do. And given that if lays the foundation for liberalism it precedes it in time. Professor Vincent disagrees with those who attempt to place the roots of liberalism, or at least some of its most prominent values, on thinkers like Kant and his idea of the human being's autonomous capacity of self determination and inherent dignity. Yet that idea seems to be very close to the philosophical core on which liberalism rests. It need not be Kant - or only him anyway - the source. Kant himself might have provided a late elaboration of an idea that had existed already in some traditions of thought. But the point to be made here is not who is the father of the idea, just that there is a philosophical core normative corpus from which liberalism arises and from which it draws inspiration.
