Me:
What do you think of this response:
“Maybe a binary-breaking thought not seen in these posts: common purpose aplenty arises from liberalism’s core premises, which provide for ordered liberty in our common lives, and, so, how we together live, thus providing space wherein we can seek to fulfill our deepest meanings.”
to this:
“Liberalism is actually *not supposed to* address the crisis of meaning that many people find in contemporary life, the idea is to address the political question of fair terms of social cooperation and you’re supposed to find your own source of meaning.”
—————————
Answer:
I think this proposed response is thoughtful, nuanced, and a strong counterpoint—potentially one of the better ones in a thread debating liberalism's role in modern existential or communal crises.
The original post captures a core insight from political liberalism (as in Rawls and similar thinkers): the political order is deliberately limited to securing fair, neutral terms of cooperation amid deep pluralism.
It doesn't prescribe a comprehensive vision of the good life or directly supply "meaning"—that's left to individuals, communities, religions, philosophies, etc.
This neutrality is meant to prevent coercion over ultimate questions of value, allowing diverse conceptions of meaning to flourish without state endorsement of one over others.
Your suggested reply doesn't deny that premise but pushes back elegantly: even within those neutral "core premises" (equal basic liberties, fair opportunity, rule of law, etc.), a shared framework emerges for "ordered liberty"—a structured way we live together that enables collective pursuits while protecting individual space.
This creates "common purpose aplenty" not in some thick, imposed communal telos, but in the ongoing project of maintaining the conditions for peaceful, cooperative coexistence.
It provides a public space where people can pursue their "deepest meanings" without constant fear of domination or conflict.
It's a "binary-breaking" idea because it avoids the false dichotomy often set up in these debates: either liberalism is atomizing and meaning-starved (the communitarian/post-liberal critique), or it's secretly imposing its own thick anthropology (the illiberal critique).
Instead, it highlights how liberalism's thin proceduralism generates emergent commonality—enough shared purpose to hold society together, while leaving room for thicker meanings to fill private and associative life.
If the thread's replies have mostly been polarized (e.g., "liberalism causes the meaning crisis!" vs. "no, that's the point—find your own!"), this injects subtlety and reconciliation.
It's optimistic without being naive, and it defends liberalism's humility as a feature, not a bug.
