Back to the Stone Age I D
3. Reason, Sentiment, and Tradition
Skeptical of propaganda and the sentimentalism of human rights and progress, palaeoconservatives might be attacked for their cold-blooded rationality. Instead, they are more typically criticized for their supposedly romantic attachment to tradition and for their rejection of the "science" of politics preached by the highly unscientific followers of Leo Strauss and other foreign-born political gurus.
Following the insights of profound political thinkers from Aristotle to Michael Oakshott, we distinguish between subjects that are the proper subject of entirely rational analysis, e.g., mathematics, logic, physics, astronomy, and most of the natural sciences, and subjects that involve the complexities of the human person and the vagaries of the human will, such as art, literature, ethics, and politics. In the latter case, reason is constrained to work on material that is neither abstract nor entirely subject to rational analysis.
In this vein, I have written several times of "irrational rationality," the attempt that has been made (since Descartes and the thinkers of the Enlightenment) to reduce the organic and complicated affairs of human life down to the level of universal rules and to a "moral algebra" in which all persons (P) are required to behave toward all other persons (P 1.2.3.4.5…..) according to formulas x, y, and z, without any consideration of the relationship that holds between the two persons. I wish I were making this nonsense up, but the concept of moral algebra can be found in Leibniz and Locke and worked out in absurd detail in the works of the otherwise sensible Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson, but the granddaddy of this style of thinking is René Descartes.
There is nothing authentically rational about reducing the variables of human existence to simplistic formulas that are as scientific as phrenology or the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. It is highly irrational to pretend that I owe the same duties to my wife as I owe to my children and still more irrational to pretend that what I owe to my family I owe to families in China. Families matter, and so do communities, nations, ethnicities, religions, and cultural traditions. To sort out one's duties to all these is not a simple task, and to pretend that it is only dampens our willingness to take care of our own family or defend the interests of our country.
But that pretense is at the heart of all liberal political thinking, and in this important respect, there is no significant difference between classical liberals—whom we now think of as conservative—and Marxists. Human nature being what it is, not all liberals and leftists have been completely insane. One can learn a great deal from philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, from Hutcheson, Thomas Reid, and Adam Smith—but it is important to keep an eye out, because liberals like Smith (especially in The Theory of Moral Sentiments) start from entirely false premises. Talking about practical things, such liberals often have useful things to say, but you should never trust them not to slip some dangerous nonsense into their argument. They are like talented cooks who like to slip in a little arsenic for flavoring.
What philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment sometimes referred to as moral sentiments are part of the outfit of toolkit we use in everyday life. No one can think his way, rationally, through every conflict of duty or interest. We have to rely on natural impulses and affections—the desire for food and sex, a man's reaction to defend himself--and the lessons we learned at our mother's knee, from Sunday School, and from our mentors. Those who wish to change the conditions human life and launch revolutions against human nature, describe these lessons as irrational prejudices, but it is by means of such prejudices, such as not playing with a loaded gun or walking backward into the street while talking on a cell phone or sticking pins into an electrical socket, that parents teach their children to stay alive until they can begin to think rationally—if they ever do.
If a tradition goes back far enough, it is generally likely to be more or less true. Steve Goldberg once wrote a good essay in Chronicles, arguing that ethnic stereotypes were statistically accurate. Speaking of his own background, he said many gentiles regard Jews as pushy, while Jews tend to think of themselves more as merely enterprising, but whichever word we prefer, the phenomenon is the same. Of course, not all Jews are enterprising—some are as lazy and unambitious as I am—but the stereotype, which was arrived at after centuries, even millennia of experience, is a good basis for predicting future behavior.
Some traditions that we accept without reflection are of fairly recent, though they are taught as revealed wisdom in school. This is, more or less, the whole body of liberal thought: Human beings are basically good; men are all the same everywhere and racial and ethnic differences are trivial, though (paradoxically) there are many cultures where marriage does not exist and female chastity is not admired much less enforced; religion encourages ignorance, bigotry, and violence; the Western traditions of male dominance, free enterprise, and personal responsibility are inherently and uniquely evil.
Where it turns out such "traditional" lessons are wrong or immoral, as is the case of much of what we have been taught in school, we can, of course, correct the mistakes by turning both to higher authorities (the Bible, the great classics of our literature) and to our own observation of human life. No matter how many times Marxists might try to convince us that private property, monogamy, and the family are evil inventions of patriarchal males, we can look around the world and see that they are wrong. No matter how many times that Libertarians tell us we are all free individuals, we can look at real human beings and conclude they are more likely to be slaves.
No single human being can find out everything important on his own. Even in matters of science, we take most of what we think we know on faith. We think, for example, that we know that the spheroid earth goes around the sun, but, prisoners of older traditions, we continue, doggedly, to say that the sun rises in the East, and we often refer to the four corners of the world. This is harmless enough, because as valuable as the advances in science and mathematics have been, they affect our lives only indirectly through science and technology. When I was headmaster of a private school, I used to ask the teachers questions like this: If one and a half bottles of wine contain 38 ounces, how many ounces are in a body of wine? Left with pencil and paper for 10 minutes, they could gradually figure it out, but they had forgotten the simple formula they had been taught in sixth grade: If 3/2= 38, then 1=2/3 of 38. An Alexandrian shopkeeper 200 years ago could do the math more rapidly than most educated Americans.
We are forever saying things like, "according to scientists…," because in fact, rather few of us would know how to go about proving that our world is a globular planet of roughly 25,000 miles in circumference, though we are taught to laugh at the churchmen who told Columbus that he could never reach China before running out of food and water, because the earth is too big. Churchmen had to be wrong because they accepted an ancient scientific tradition (going back to Eratosthenes) as true, while Columbus had to be right because in the liberal legend, he was a bold individualist who challenged authority.
We typically take things as Darwinian evolution, the Big Bang and the expanding universe, and the structure—or even the existence--of DNA on faith. They are handed down by a tradition that goes back, sometimes only to a generation ago but sometimes all the way back to the ancient world, as in the case of Eratosthenes' brilliant calculation of the earth's circumference. According to some scientists, by the way, a majority of the medical studies cited in the press are bogus. It is better not to read anything than to read an AP article on a study of the dangers—or benefits—of drinking coffee.
But if science depends on the acceptance of tradition, then how much more do we depend on the traditions of our culture to tell us our moral and social responsibilities. A brilliant man might devote his life to moral philosophy without contributing one sound or irrefutable idea that people can use in their daily lives. The obscure terminology and improbable theories of academic philosophers do not constitute an advance in human wisdom, and if we were tempted to believe they did, we have only to look at the miserable lives led by so many academic philosophers. But even when a brilliant moral philosopher makes a break-through, he is only building on a far greater tradition of wisdom handed down by his predecessors......
Entries(RSS)
" According to some scientists, by the way, a majority of the medical studies cited in the press are bogus."
And, I would add, if they are not bogus, what the press purports them to be saying is bogus, both because reporters and editors don't know how to assess and evaluate what they are saying and because the press, inherently Jacobin, wants to transform findings into discoveries--counterintuitive, antitraditional, Revolutionary discoveries! (My favorite example is the incessantly repeated "fact" that 7 out of 4 women will be victims of rape.)
Ray writes: "what the press purports them to be saying is bogus,"
Yes, the new trend in television and radio is maximum advertisement. It was once thought a certain amount of filler was necessary in order to achieve the primary ends of television. ( Filler was once considered the movie, the song, the program, the news show, etc. used for the primary end of advertising, creating jobs and wealth, and keeping the viewing masses in check ,or to use their term, in-formed !) Today of course there is no need at all for filler and the entire content can be 24 hr advertising, selling things peple don't need or really want,, forming their imagination and blinding their ability to see . "Restore your sex life!!! Buy this~...!!! But Call 911 if its effects last longer than four hours!", In the old "public service" comments I remember a man with bass in is his voice coming over the audio, announcing the time ( usually around midnight) and then ask, "Do you know where your children are ?" I noticed that today after directing the older question to all parents, they have appropriately added one for the youngsters too: " "The time now is 2.00 am, do you know where your parents are?" Well enough of this, I need to go watch the post analysis of the debates I watched last night, to see if I am thinking correctly today. Or as they say down "our" way these days, "Audios !!!"
Thanks for this series, Dr. Fleming. It is one of the most succinct break-downs of conservatism that I have ever read.
I remember some years ago, when we still lived in the Los Angeles area, listening to Dennis Prager passionately berate bigoted blacks for their stance against white families - or any other ethnicity other than African American - adopting black babies, because the children would not grow to be culturally black. While I basically approved of Prager's position, when he said something to the effect that "blood means NOTHING!" I couldn't help cringing at the very core of my being. I couldn't immediately place my finger on what I objected to, but I sensed something was wrong with that portion of his commentary.
Now, to say that blood (or race, ethnicity, culture, etc.) isn't everything, it isn't necessary to say it is nothing! Can these things be overcome when greater priorities come into play (e.g. our salvation, based on God's willingness to adopt us alien sinners as sons and daughters through the Only Begotten's blood sacrifice)? Of course! But God placed in us these dynamics conferring a tendency to look after that whichnaturally issues forth from our loins, or is closest to us. As you point out above, this aids us in prioritizing our affections - "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim. 5:8). Should I still, for example, contribute to missions on the other side of the world? Of course! Let's not make this into an either/or proposition (The Fallacy of the Excluded Middle Term?), when it is a both/and. But let me begin by loving and caring for the concrete and non-abstract humans who live with me before I venture into helping those whom I can't see.
This has helped me to understand a little better the difference between popular (or neo?) conservatism and those of us on the more traditional side of things.
I also appreciated what you said about stereotypes. Now, I'm Scots-Irish on my dad's side and Irish on my mom's. Both of those ethnicities, among other stereotypes (especially the latter), have a reputation for liking the "craythur". Though I've never been drunk a day in my life, I understand that there's a good reason for this stereotype based in reality. Sure, I want to be judged, ultimately, as an individual, but without the time and effort necessary to get to know someone, we often have to play the odds with those we encounter on a more transitory basis. As a result, you can be sure I'm going to be careful around Arab Muslims, blacks and hispanics dressed in a gang or inner-city manner, etc. Not to do so would be to deny pattern recognition skills that might save me and mine from injury or even death.
Such "prejudice" and conservatism has helped folks for centuries and I see no good reason to abandon it.
"No single human being can find out everything important on his own. Even in matters of science, we take most of what we think we know on faith."
In past discussions with people who have assumed that "Reason" and "Faith" are diametrically opposed, I have tried to bring up this fact to help better define the terms. It's like trying to put stinging Camphophenique on a child's open wound! Some folks are either so proud or simply hate Christ so much that they cannot accept that they take anything on faith. Discussions like that are what convinced me that debating/arguing in today's world is almost always a complete waste of time.
In past discussions with people who have assumed that "Reason" and "Faith" are diametrically opposed, I have tried to bring up this fact to help better define the terms. It's like trying to put stinging Camphophenique on a child's open wound! Some folks are either so proud or simply hate Christ so much that they cannot accept that they take anything on faith.
In mathematics this is related to the Incompleteness Theorem: the idea that no system can be complete and coherent at the same time and that it must always be viewed from a third-personal perspective:
Indeed, the man who does not accept, fully and consciously, a coherent doctrine of truth such as the Christian Revelation provides, is forced--if he has any pretensions to knowledge whatever--to seek such a doctrine elsewhere; this has been the path of modern philosophy, which has ended in obscurity and confusion because it would never squarely face the fact that it cannot supply for itself what can only be given from without.~Fr. Seraphim Rose
Mr. Smith,
I once had a Catholic priest in a homily try to expound on the passage where Nathanial, sitting under the tree and being told by others that they found the Messiah, says, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" as a resounding rebuke against the greatest of all cardinal sins, prejudice. He apparently missed the fact that, far from rebuking Nathanial for his "prejudice" upon greeting him Christ says, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile."
No offense intended to any here of a similar age, but he is a priest from "that" generation. The ones who in their youth gleefully took up clubs and pitchforks and stormed the Church in the name of Vatican II. They are all now old and near retirement or death and most good folks in the Church quietly wish them on their way with all haste (most especially the ones that finagled their way into a bishops miter). The sooner the field is cleared the sooner the new crop of orthodox young priests can start producing fruit. But he is indicative of his generation - somehow they have linked all "pre-judgment" with a rejection of Christ because they misunderstand the command of "Love thy enemy" and "Love they neighbor". Likely because they have no conception of what Love actually is or requires. Reproving sinners and instructing the ignorant are Corporal Works of Mercy, but you can only perform them if you can first judge that someone is either sinning or displaying ignorance.
It's part of the incorrectly used maxim that you can't judge a book by its cover. As if the choices people make regarding how they dress, how they behave, how they talk, or what music they blair from their car radios can tell us nothing at all of the person who made the choices. Obviously people who believe this have never screened candidates at a job interview. I think some people, in true "Sea-Lawyer" fashion, just want to get around Christ's admonishment "For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged" by simply refusing to judge anyone or anything, thinking God will then be bound by the same standard. I just don't think it works that way.
I was reminded here of something from Professor Lewis's Abolition of Man, that there indeed are "shoulds" and "oughts", guidelines and standards for what is virtuous, true, and beautiful. The Authority upon Whom these ideas are based is not un-reasonable or even anti-reason; He is extra-reasonable (?), that is, beyond our limited reason. He who would elevate human Reason to the level of godhood will automatically (and arrogantly) exclude the God "outside the box". Faith is certainly not unreasonable, but at some point, if one rejects revelation's self-evident truths, then there is no hope. One either believes . . . or not.
The Authority upon Whom these ideas are based is not un-reasonable or even anti-reason; He is extra-reasonable (?), that is, beyond our limited reason.
More than that: God IS the logos, reason. Even if we cannot fully perceive the grandeur of this Reason, He is there, and He is logical. There is a moment in the novel/movie Diary of a Country Priest when the Curé d'Ambricourt admonishes the countess: "God is not the master of love: He is Love itself."
Bravo, Mr. Moses! Thanks!
"irrational rationality," the attempt that has been made (since Descartes and the thinkers of the Enlightenment) to reduce the organic and complicated affairs of human life down to the level of universal rules and to a "moral algebra"
There are many examples of this. I recently came across a couple of podcast series made by intelligent people who have studied the Trivium. After learning it, they then examined Christian teaching, or what they think they know of it, and concluded that since Christian belief does not follow some path of logical reason, that it is therefore false. These otherwise worthy people, from whom one might actually learn a lot of good, true, and helpful things, then use logic to go off on tangents that cause them to believe in certain other non-religious things which anyone else can stand back and just see the ridiculous absurdity of, without needing to use logic to find the fallacies. In this case one must look past the absurdities and just benefit from whatever else they can get from the podcast. I'll take the Trivium, but they can keep their bizarre rationality.
Didn't someone once say that logic is a whore?
I believe Mr. Wilson is thinking of Martin Luther's declaration that "Reason is the devil's whore".
While I wouldn't go that far, I do know what Mr. Cornell is talking about when he says "debating/arguing in today's world is almost always a complete waste of time." For instance, there's no point trying to *prove* to somebody that America suffers from ailments far too profound to alleviate merely by changing the occupant of the White House.
Either somebody already sees it, or he don't.
For instance, there's no point trying to *prove* to somebody that America suffers from ailments far too profound to alleviate merely by changing the occupant of the White House.
This has another parallel in the mathematical world: it is possible to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 without assuming anything about numbers or number properties, but in practical terms, there's not usually much reason to go there.
I'm not sure Mr. Moses' point is necessarily relevant to your own. But Luther was his own mistake. Reason like anything in this finite world has its limits. That's why there then is a word such as 'faith' and the subsequent truth or reality backing it. Reason at its boundary points to faith, what else? Neither it nor reason are 'the devil's whore' any more than anyone or anything else is including Luther. By the way I do enjoy all of your contributions, and look forward to same.
I'm not sure Mr. Moses' point is necessarily relevant to your own. But Luther was his own mistake. Reason like anything in this finite world has its limits. That's why there then is a word such as 'faith' and the subsequent truth or reality backing it. Reason at its boundary points to faith, what else? Neither it nor reason are 'the devil's whore' any more than anyone or anything else is including Luther. By the way I do enjoy all of your contributions, and look forward to same.