Thanks for explaining liberalism so simple and clear! However, I would submit that liberalism envisioned by the west has caused more wars and conflicts than any other period in history. Internal order and liberal democracy favors the US and its erstern allies only. In other words it's no just and fair, and it's in stark contradiction with the US concept of one superpower as represented by the US snd US world hegemony. While liberalism seems good in theory its certainly not contributing to peace in practice. It's a pretext for US dirty work of interventions. Invasions snd US sponsored coups snd regime changes in countries who want to create their own forms of government. Interdependence to the extent the US desires means selling out your birth right to the US. This leaves very little independence of states. We have seen clearly what institutions like the IMF and the World Bank have done to third world countries. So , clearly liberalism as practiced by the conceptual west has caused conflicts, wars.,mass displacement of peoples and increased poverty. It's even severely affecting the working and middle class of the US and the Western nations. This is what makes Realism authentic
All human problems are solved!! just study quran if you are sincere in searching. If we follow god and his last messenger based on quran and the saying of the prophet our social injustice issues will all be solved. try to prove this statement wrong if you can!! after prophet jesus was sent. the last revelation by god was quran and god said it will be protected from changes and it did not change not even a single letter based on authentic narrations of companions of the prophet who documented quran when prophet Mohammed was alive. even the words of the prophet muhammed are all documented with narrators we can clearly tell the living situation for each narrator and wether they were trust worthy. and god fearing in their actions. it is all well documented and can be easily checked with the science of hadith.
the level that i see things at anecdotally is the only true level and no one can argue how i see the world because my personal perspective from my life is the only perspective and reflects all reality. Please do not argue with my rational or else I *WILL* fight you on twitter and call you names for not seeing the world the way i do and i will hate you forever if you are not on political team [**insert color here**] like I am
The level of analysis is the the perspective/dimension/priority set as primary for understanding the other dynamics of a situation, and the level part is a scale of relative complexity.
Self is the story you tell yourself about how you fit into the world and society. Identity is the unique combination of attributes of you relative to all other things. You may have an identity in the world that doesn't match your idea of self. Self-identity is just self. People must understand themselves in relation to the world and society, but the relationships aren't the same and they aren't a specific dialectic process. It's like how kids associate themselves either toward or against how they perceive their parents. That there is a relationship is a given, but it doesn't develop or change in a particular way. And given the ratcheting overlap of factors, it's roughly chaotic. In short, Identity goes we'll beyond an individual mind, but Self can only be an internal perspective.
If your definition of liberalism conflicts with the dictionary definition of the non-political term at its root, then perhaps it's better to simply come up with a different name, instead of calling your tall-ist policies and ideology shortism. The definition of llberal is: "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own", ie:"broad minded". The word shares a root with liberty, and clearly pertains to freedom. So there appear to be a lot of added meaning to your definition of liberalism that have nothing to do with... you know, liberalism. The reason liberalism supports gradual change is because *it is* the status-quo, and the reason it supports institutions is because those instuttions were built for and by, liberal governments. Those aspects, however, aren't essential to liberalism, they're essential to being established. If international institutions were built by, and served the interests of, absolute monarchies, then the two latter aspects of your definition: supporting gradual change and favoring institutions would apply to monarchism. And the same goes for Communism, Fascism, or any other political ideology which commands the dominant role in global affairs.
Thank you so much. I’ve only been watching the video for 2 minutes and I starting to understand this theory, my professor goes on and on for 2 hours and I can’t understand anything . Thank you
Other theories have limited concepts of the world. This why this theory is better than all others... Because it does not believe in truth and therefore everything else is bullshit anyways
After reading Marxism, Gramscian perspective and Robert Cox and his Critical Theory by John Baylis, this seems easier to understand. That was difficult.
I can't listen to this because of the stupid noise in the background but thought I'd drop in a comment about the exclusion of women (6:43) whch has been ramped up apace as a result of the utterly bizarre reconceptualisation of what it means to actually be a woman in many so-called developed societies.
briefly explain the critical and problem-solving theories according to Cox. How does he propose we understand social orders instead? what would be the answer for this ?
