Comments

There Are 18 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by Rublev's Dog on 27 March 2008:

   “Progress is not the necessary path of the human animal but simply a contemporary, and essentially materialistic, way of describing the events of the past so as to make the present seem superior.”

   Perfect timing. I just read Lyle Lanier’s essay on “The Philosophy of Progress” this afternoon. It is chilling to see the visions of Bacon, Kant, Comte, Hegel, Marx, Dewey, the neo-cons, and Barak McClinton coming into full focus.

2. 2 Comment by PcH on 27 March 2008:

   Excellent! Excellent!

   And please do not feel guilty about the succès fou of my thesis. God is sovereign. An honour it is to fall well for what is right. And Dr. Fleming is right that 60 years after our departure shall each of us be wholly forgotten, anyway. Such is the lesson of history…

   I can’t wait for [i]What is[/i] #10.

3. 3 Comment by Tomislav Milosevic on 27 March 2008:

   A “half-truth” is a term in many languages.

   It is not a “half-lie” as it should be since Truth sounds more absolute then Lie.

   It seems that we all tend to deny Truth that privilege and grant equality to Lie.

   Lying does not require special skills. Telling the truth does. We never think in terms of “transparent truth” or accusing someone of “hiding a lie”. However, we refer to them as The Truth and A Lie.

   I often wonder how many people are really capable of telling the truth. Thinking, feeling, understanding, accepting, demanding, living, believing the truth.

   Truth hurts, we also say. Lie therefore doesn’t, I guess.

   Truth has many faces. That would be the greatest lie of all, widely accepted though.

   Lie requires heavy philosophical approach. Truth, being so simple, doesn’t. Besides truth is rarely as convenient or glamorous as a lie can be.

   Lie is so dear to us while we can’t stand the truth.

   Should we talk now about History?

4. 4 Comment by NGPM on 28 March 2008:

   Michael Bentley articulated six points in this same school of thought, which I quote here:

   1. History is not led by “the facts” or “the evidence” because neither category has any meaning or status until we – the historians – ask a question or make a case.

   2. There are always facts but never “the facts”; and “the evidence” can only mean a subset of facts chosen for their bearing on a question posed or an argument offered.

   3. View of the past are always constructed from a given present that is itself a view whose perceived nature both conditions what is said about a past and which itself changes in ways that are retrospectively traceable and suggestive.

   4. Historians construct – they cannot “reconstruct” – a past that they postulate with the aid of whatever has survived into the present and been rendered urgent by their preoccupations.

   5. What determines the “truth” of a constructed past is not its resemblance to “what happened” but its congruence with the (present) evidence produced in its support on the basis of professionally-licensed modes of selection.

   6. History functions, therefore, as a system of internal codes that form the basis of criticism within the discipline. Its product at any moment is a cluster of competing representations of some part of the past.

5. 5 Comment by Doug on 28 March 2008:

   “The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton”

   Wow. Where is this gem from?

6. 6 Comment by James Beck on 28 March 2008:

   The State has gone mad because it is caught in an Error of its own making which it is yet *dogmatically required to believe and thus act out. I would argue that only of late has this Dogma become error; it wasn’t a mistake prior all things considered. see [post #72] on the Next board under: ‘The “Isms” That Bedevil Bush’ – for further explanation. … It’s an error that is rather deepseeded and wasn’t an error per se *all things considered even in religion until the present. I would put the ‘present’ more or less beginning with the 20th Century. Cheers.

7. 7 Comment by Doug on 28 March 2008:

   I may need to clarify. I’m not disputing Chesterton’s point. I just want to know where Chesterton wrote this.

   In any event, I agree with the statement. Modern secular democracy seems caught in a feedback loop of illogic. In such a system, an intelligent, courteous obstetrician who runs for President is a “kook,” and a bitter, crazed old man with no marketable skills is probably going to be President.

8. 8 Comment by Edward on 28 March 2008:

   The “facts” of history do not exist for any historian until he creates them, and into every fact that he creates some part of his individual experience must enter. —Carl Becker

   Historical knowledge is dead and worthless that has not as its sounding-board and its measuring-rod the historian’s personal intellectual and spiritual life. —Huizinga

   Most people assume that fact precedes value. How untrue!

9. 9 Comment by James Beck on 28 March 2008:

   “Most people assume that fact precedes value. How untrue!” -Edward

   Fact is a subset of the actual which includes value…And the context is where we are now i.e. the dimentional world of height, width, depth and time generally, as well as being case specific to the cultures/peoples included therein.

   If you posit ‘value’ as transcendant to this actuality, leaders claiming to represent transcendant value [good for all people] will, like Bush, lead you around the world by your nose and get you to do their/& actually ‘your’ bidding – since they know that’s what you ‘believe.’

   Right? How true (yes)!?! Also. How actual. Truth when you make it a transcendant quantity and associate it with value as transcendant is up until now – your own culture/unimproved. But it’s where you’re at, so it’s still ‘good’ for You. It’s what’s known as the sentimental and it does help make people less barbaric. Good. Beautiful. Beauty is truth and truth beauty in this regard. -Keats

   Want a cookie? [want to go to Iraq to do 'good'?] I want to get elected so i got to talk’to’ya this way dude. Enjoy. … stuff like this makes up history, between the lines…

   i’m arrogant… annoying… it’s the gift i sometimes give to me. i have manners. i apologize. sorry, Eddy or Ed or Edward. you can take it right?! got to be able to take a punch and not necessarily retaliate to be a man. ladies can’t often…they go nuts and start pulling each other’s hair… while we film it. amen.

10. 10 Comment by Eagle on 28 March 2008:

    Professor Wilson,

    I know that all education cannot be encapsulated in some “great books” curriculum, but could you, when you have the opportunity, post a list of what you consider some of the more important and interesting of historical writing? The Internet and book stores are awash in books, but many, if not most, it is said are poorly written, factually incorrect, or thinly veiled propoganda serving today’s ideological fashions. I am slowly building mine and my children’s libraries and am very interested in discerning the worthwhile historical reading so I don’t waste money or risk corrupting young minds. Some classical European history as written by that era’s historians is evident – but what are the worthwhile modern scholars on the topic (I suppose I would pose the same question to Drs. Fleming and Trifkovic.). How about as concerns American history, particularly of the antebellum and postbellum South? Many thanks for any suggestions you may have.

11. 11 Comment by robert m. peters on 28 March 2008:

    Rublev’s Dog @ 1

    The post-modern age with which we find ourselves sharing the time and space which the Almighty has allotted us holds that all morality is relative and that utterly no fruit inspection – “by their fruits shall ye know them” – is allowed as that age entertains, in its arrogance and hubris, such actions as it will which reveal its whims, its sentiments and its “need” for instant gratification, including but not limited to fornication, adultery, abortion, debasing of marriage, blasphemy against God, etc.; yet, this same generation has “created” (as if IT were the creator!) from whole cloth a number of “sins” ans “crimes” with which it deigns to “punish” past generations and those of the present who might find truth or value in those past generations. Thus, do they “describe” the events of the past in order to make theirs seem superior. They have in their own minds and to the extent that they can by getting control of the monopoly of power of the state taken the place of God and have proclaimed themselves to be gods.

12. 12 Comment by Rublev's Dog on 28 March 2008:

    Mr. Peters (#11) well stated. Hence, the “messianic State,” something to be truly feared. John Taylor of Caroline was perfectly prescient of where all this would go when he argued strenuously against the notion of governmental “sovereignty.”

    Eagle (#10, with apologies to Dr. Wilson for jumping ahead): pertaining to the South past & present:

    I would recomend the book from which I cited Lanier’s essay, I’ll Take My Stand (12 Southerners).

    Eugene Genovese’s The Southern Tradition is also excellent (especially coming from an ex-Marxist).

    And everything ever written by Richard M. Weaver.

    I suppose Dr. Wilson’s From Republic to Empire is also essential (my atonement…)

13. 13 Comment by Edward on 28 March 2008:

    Beck, I notice you write like a crazy person.

    My point was simple. Today, many people think that values are derived from facts. It seems as if the opposite idea does not occur to them. For example, if the protection of innocent life is not a value then abortion will not be regarded as homicide or murder but rather as just further means to and end. Conversely, the value of a woman’s ‘right to choose’ determines the ‘fact’, namely that abortion does not constitute murder. In these instances, the value has to already exist for the fact to have meaning.

    Maybe it is simply my youth and ignorance, but I can’t help but read some of your posts and see what I can only refer to as ‘psychobabble.’ I would appreciate less esoteric writing; it reminds me of a college comparative religious department.

14. 14 Comment by Brutus on 29 March 2008:

    Eagle @10,

    For some books and academics focusing on postbellum South look into what was known the “Dunning School.” These were some historians who actually lived through “Reconstruction.” These analysis’ came to an end in America after the “civil rights” movement of the 1960’s.

    National Vanguard’s book catalog lists many good books. It provides a superb checklist of books that should be read. The history and pre-Christian religious books listed are all excellent. I know of no other comprehensive book list such as you request.

15. 15 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 29 March 2008:

    For those interested in true Southern history, you might look at “The South and Southern History” archived with my columns on the lewrockwell.com website. I also suggest that you explore the websites for the Abbeville Institute (www.abbevilleinstitute.org) and the League of the South Institute (www.lsinstitute.org) Both these sites contain a good deal of guidance to reading matter. Also, note that a large (and largely neglected) amount of good audio and video lecture material has been put out in the last ten years or so by both of these organizations. It is a tremendous marshaling of knowledge by outstanding scholars, many of them well klown to the Chronicles fellowship.

16. 16 Comment by James Beck on 29 March 2008:

    “Beck, I notice you write like a crazy person.

    My point was simple. Today, many people think that values are derived from facts. It seems as if the opposite idea does not occur to them.” -Edward

    Edward thanks for taking the time. This I respect not just the casual elbow in the ribs or knee to the groin like I got on another board from dominic about my ‘English.’ That’s sort of like ‘terrorism’. It’s lazy too.

    You comments have merit but need qualification. First it’s *both Facts and ________ [unknown] from which values derive and you sense that and imply you’re aware of it. Cudos.

    Now for the qualification of myself For you – regarding myself-who has been man of a thousand names since i didn’t want to have to keep explaining. But now that I’m attempting for something new to stick to just one moniker I need to further expose myself as to what I am doing, at least in my own mind or in my own mind’s eye. Are you following this so far, or do you perceive me as having already gone off the deep end [crazy]?

    ‘Being’ [that issue] is transcendant but not ‘out of this world’. In other words in our world of degrees it exists within a hierarchy which may or may not be also under a ’supernatural’. ? At or about that level as Soren Kierkegaard pointed out-(without his falling into the trap of medieval theology – not that it was a trap per se but rather as I refer to it an ‘as if’ dimension)-we can only have Faith about it i.e. the supernatural. But the Being of us beings in this world is not supernatural. With me still? (I’m not sure I’m still with me I’m wondering where was I going with this?) – Ok, what is the ‘verum’ or truth of Being here in this world? … Let’s stick with medieval theology which is meritorious and seeks to find new and more creative ways to understand and to have or experience in this world our relationship with God, if possible. … Unlike with the Essenes from whom all of this stemmed in the first place who were its root as it were; in medieval times Thomas Aquinas, imagining in the Platonic tradition, decided that for any genus of beings it was its supernatural soul or eternal spark that when coupled with the temporal provided the *whole truth of its Being even in the temporal. Ok, but now you’re talking Faith not philosophy. We now Know Aquinas was correct because with such Faith in that, possibly only verbal construct if not also Actual in itself, regardless -Endorphins are realeased in us human beings which are the brain’s natural painkillers and are what permitted us our own evolution in the first place. … In other words it’s also a very natural thing Faith/belief and thus also has mother Nature’s own seal of good house keeping or good evolving stamped upon it. The Essene discipline on the other hand was that the person in their totality the whole person themself was also their essence or soul. That’s more sort of Buddhist not quite as sexy in terms of being other worldly so easily…and thus as a belief releases less Endorphins. In other words mother Nature herself likes Aquinas & the Medievalists better than the Essenes or the Buddhists but as to whether or not God likes Aquinas and his peers a the time better is (obviously where the supernatural is concerned) a matter of Faith. So whether what ‘you/universal’ believe in is Actual or not – the very belief itself once you enter that ‘as if’ dimension has material results. … Yet this does not live up to the rigorous standards set by philosophy in terms of explicating what is the meaning of Being here in the world which unlike the soul or supernatural spark itself is presumably knowable herein to a greater extent? Plato would say no – Aristotle would say yes. Because after all it’s lower in the hierarchy than the supernatural which can only be known, if at all- through Faith.

    Edward are you asleep yet?

    Here’s where my alleged ‘craziness’ is explained. This explaining goes against my grain since I notice I am also a warrior and that there is a competition in me and I don’t really want to have to ‘explain’ myself. But I will because it speaks to what I am Doing. … Even in the times of the Greeks which was a much more fertile time for the influence of philosophers, nonetheless they were experienced by the Greeks as disruptive. Today it’s worse, and, paradoxically better. Worse in the sense that much more crud has built up over the ground for this work so that it is not so fertile…while at the same time – time is on my side for doing so. The CRUD to get through requires the severity of my expression in order to grasp beings {like you} in your Being. Worse in order to do this sometimes an inelegance of expression is required because for this task not only are words usually lacking – meaning they don’t exist (yet?) but above all neither does the grammar (yet?)

    You see once we became aware of being aware and started to pause at the ‘conceptual’ level (UNLIKE every other genus on this planet) – what we spoke was 90% of necessity for concealment and 10% for unconcealment. And as you may have already guessed it is only through our Own unconcealment that we can get to a better understanding of Being here in our world; and also if you do have Faith under God.

    So although I may sound crazy for which I do apologize (I am actually a rather civilized person with manners – ) and I am in fairly good company historically speaking.

    Cheers!

    p.s. I’m too lazy myself now to go up and re-read this and edit it and make sure I said something coherent enough. So let’s work this way… if you have any question or noticed something doesn’t make sense let’s chat about it. I’m not always an OGRE. Not even usually.

17. 17 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 30 March 2008:

    Mr. Beck, if you are too lazy to read through your own stuff, how do you think the rest of us feel about it? I find I can get through life fine by skipping completely over it.

18. 18 Comment by James Beck on 30 March 2008:

    With respect I agree with post #18. Seriously I also agree with the old line ‘I yet would not want to belong to a club that would have me for a member.’ But that’s just speaking for myself alone. And before I say much less you’re the exception to the rule which proves it Mr. Wilson. You can get through yours just fine skipping over it. The problem is that it is deep-seated in my opinion what have led to your and America’s domination by the Frankfurt school (and prior the yankees.) Unless in either or both of the cases it was a good thing. Which I can’t know of course but don’t think so. Sorry I’ll be more terse and less lazy if I post. Regards, p.s. it’s an imperfect world unless imperfect’s perfect. Great post of yours. I hear it.