[neel_k]

Richard Rorty, whose humanism and love of democracy MacIntyre despised.

Over the course of his career, MacIntyre went from an extreme left Marxist to an extreme right Thomist, and the only constant was his hatred of liberalism. He really couldn't stand the idea that people could believe in rationalism, feel the moral force of individual rights, or make purpose and meaning for themselves, all without appealing to an authoritarian source of control.

[throw0101c]

> […] all without appealing to an authoritarian source of control.

Well that was partly what After Virtue was about: arguing it wasn't possible to have an objective moral system without the supernatural.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue

And he's not the only one to hold this view (many atheists do as well):

* https://global.oup.com/academic/product/atheist-overreach-97...

You're left with either Nietzsche's arbitrary will, or virtues (à la Aristotle). For the latter, MacIntyre attempted to develop a system of morality (? ethics?) based on human biology:

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/655623.Dependent_Rationa...

Once can certainly tell oneself that there is a certain purpose or meaning to one's life, but if you're a materialist, then (the argument goes (AIUI)) it's not true.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

The arrangement of atoms is arbitrary and without meaning, and to call some arrangement(s) "good" or "bad" or better / worse is a value judgement that is just as arbitrary and meaningless.

[keybored]

Link dump at the ready.

> And he's not the only one to hold this view (many atheists do as well):

The author Christian Smith is apparently a Roman Catholic. What do you mean?

[kendallgclark]

He didn’t write as if he hated liberalism. Maybe he did. But in his work you get deep, principled critique from the basis of epistemology and selfhood.

Lenin wrote like someone who hates liberalism. Stephen Miller gives that vibe from the right, though I doubt he can write anything coherent at all.

[Veen]

Perhaps, but 20 years after Rorty's death, he's largely forgotten. I think it unlikely the same will be true of MacIntyre two-decades hence.

[lapcat]

> Perhaps, but 20 years after Rorty's death, he's largely forgotten.

No, he's not. Not at all. Rorty has been and always will be more important, and more famous, than MacIntyre. This is not to insult MacIntyre, who was important within philosophical circles but not so much in the general public, except perhaps within religious groups, with which I'm not well acquainted.

Rorty's breadth of influence was also greater than MacIntyre's, ranging from "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" to "Achieving Our Country", addressing vastly different subjects and audiences.

[vehemenz]

This is an odd take. Rorty is one of the major philosophers of the 20th century. MacIntyre is more obscure, probably unknown to plenty of academic philosophers.

[gjm11]

Excellent -- thanks! Do you know where/when he said it?