Mark T. Mitchell – författare

In The Limits of Liberalism, Mark T. Mitchell argues that a rejection of tradition is both philosophically incoherent and politically harmful.The Limits of Liberalism identifies why most modern thinkers have denied the essential role of tradition and explains how tradition can be restored to its proper place. Mitchell demonstrates that the rejection of tradition as an epistemic necessity has produced a false conception of the human person—the liberal self—which in turn has produced a false conception of freedom. Together, these false conceptions have facilitated both liberal cosmopolitanism and identity politics.Mitchell uses the philosophies of Michael Oakeshott, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Michael Polanyi to construct a compelling argument for a reconstructed view of tradition and, as a result, a reconstructed view of freedom. The Limits of Liberalism reveals that only by finding an alternative to the liberal self can we escape the incoherencies and pathologies inherent therein.

In The Limits of Liberalism, Mark T. Mitchell argues that a rejection of tradition is both philosophically incoherent and politically harmful.The Limits of Liberalism identifies why most modern thinkers have denied the essential role of tradition and explains how tradition can be restored to its proper place. Mitchell demonstrates that the rejection of tradition as an epistemic necessity has produced a false conception of the human person—the liberal self—which in turn has produced a false conception of freedom. Together, these false conceptions have facilitated both liberal cosmopolitanism and identity politics.Mitchell uses the philosophies of Michael Oakeshott, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Michael Polanyi to construct a compelling argument for a reconstructed view of tradition and, as a result, a reconstructed view of freedom. The Limits of Liberalism reveals that only by finding an alternative to the liberal self can we escape the incoherencies and pathologies inherent therein.

Many Americans are longing for an alternative politics that is rooted in strong communities, a recognition of limits, and respect for the natural world. These issues are not the possession of one political party. Rather, they refer to ideas rooted deeply in the best aspects of our common tradition, and they represent yearnings that many, regardless of political affiliation, share. This book articulates a cultural and political vision that leads off the couch and into the garden, out of the shopping mall and into the farmer's market, away from Washington and in the direction of home.In this postpartisan call to action, Mitchell develops the concept of the "politics of gratitude," which is centered around four ideas: creatureliness, gratitude, human scale, and place, culminating in a distinctive, fruitful view of human nature and community at odds with the prevailing norms of individualism (and, not so paradoxically, statism), giantism, and hypermobility. Going beyond the liberal-conservative factionalism that has reduced our political and cultural discourse to clichés and vitriol, he urges us to become responsible stewards of the earth who are committed to family and community and who abide in gratitude, taking nothing for granted.The result is a political and cultural vision that is at once local, limited, modest, republican, green—and grateful.

The polymath Michael Polanyi first made his mark as a physical chemist, but his interests gradually shifted to economics, politics, and philosophy, in which field he would ultimately propose a revolutionary theory of knowledge that grew out of his firsthand experience with both the scientific method and political totalitarianism. In this sixth entry in ISI Books' Library of Modern Thinkers' series, Mark T. Mitchell reveals how Polanyi came to recognize that the roots of the modern political and spiritual crisis lay in an errant conception of knowledge that served to foreclose any possibility of making meaningful statements about truth, goodness, or beauty. Polanyi’s theory of knowledge as ineluctably personal but also grounded in reality is not merely of historical interest, writes Mitchell, for it proposes an attractive alternative for anyone who would reject both the hubris of modern rationalism and the ultimately nihilistic implications of academic postmodernism.