thoughts in and out of season
David Gress, a Danish classicist and historian, wrote a discussion some years back of the differences between American and European conservatism. The discussion isn’t altogether coherent (I think some lines were dropped when The World and I put it on the web) but includes some interesting material. I’m likely to take up some … More ...
F. A. Hayek’s 1960 discussion of “Why I Am Not a Conservative” is a useful statement of the arguments in favor of classical liberalism over conservatism. Naturally, I think there are serious problems with them, mostly having to do with Hayek’s agnosticism, which I don’t think works to ground a free social order:
The exchange keeps rolling (previous parts here, here, here and here). Here’s an edited version of the most recent installment:
… More ...Liberal Lawyer: On what basis do you claim that representational democracy with divided powers and charters guaranteeing individual rights were inventions of Catholicism?
Jim Kalb: I said “representative government with distributed powers
My liberal lawyer correspondent continues the discussion (previous exchanges here, here and here). Here’s an edited version of the most recent part of the exchange:
… More ...Liberal Lawyer: I strongly believe that the comprehensive liberals about which Hitchcock complains are pursuing things that fundamentally conflict with basic political liberalism as proposed by John Stuart
I’ve written some things denouncing the “tyranny of liberalism,” and here at Turnabout we’ve had a number of entries describing how that tendency is playing itself out in Canada. There’s a brief article at First Things worth reading as a summary of the latter point. A detail that reveals something about where things stand: the … More ...
The language of international diplomacy: Homosexuals Call Barbaric Church Purveyor of Nasty Dogmas. Apparently “gay rights” advocates were upset that the drive to establish international homosexual rights has stalled at the UN Commission on Human Rights, which is now meeting in Geneva. I’m naturally pleased the drive has stalled, but don’t really understand the … More ...
In my last entry I suggested that the problems of modern thought have to do with a defective understanding of knowledge. We refuse to believe anything without explicit proof, and since it turns out we can’t function without believing things explicit proof can’t justify people claim to have it when they don’t. Results have included … More ...
I have yet another draft of my “theory of everything” paper online. As always, comments are very welcome.
One line of thought behind the piece is that the modern world is based on a theory of knowledge that tries to be very rigorous but ends up not working. Think of
Faith and the Church
Tradition always points to something other than itself, so acceptance of one’s own tradition — and therefore knowledge — involves faith. Just as institutions and even reason depend on the complex of memories, understandings and habits that constitutes tradition, tradition depends on its connection to a larger order of which it … More ...
Tradition and the Good
But if liberalism is inadequate as a basis for social and political life, what is the rational alternative?
The question comes down to the problem of the social and political good. To say something is good is to say it is a reasonable goal, one worth choosing after consideration of what … More ...