Admin: I’m still in the middle of my busy week—which seems to be extending itself. Trying to cope. Commenter Helmsley Hawes made a book recommendation that I want to pass along. It’s a book that I haven’t actually read—The Liberal Mind, by Kenneth Minogue—but Minogue’s approach seems sound.
I would recommend also Minogue's The Servile Mind (2011). I've not read The Liberal Mind, but found The Servile Mind an incredibly accurate characterization of today's warped liberalism. Here's the Amazon description:
One of the grim comedies of the twentieth century was the fate of miserable victims of communist regimes who climbed walls, swam rivers, dodged bullets, and found other desperate ways to achieve liberty in the West at the same time as intellectuals in the West sentimentally proclaimed that these very regimes were the wave of the future. A similar tragicomedy is being played out in our century: as the victims of despotism and backwardness from third world nations pour into Western states, the same ivory tower intellectuals assert that Western life is a nightmare of inequality and oppression. In The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life, Kenneth Minogue explores the intelligentsia's love affair with social perfection and reveals how that idealistic dream is destroying exactly what has made the inventive Western world irresistible to the peoples of foreign lands. The Servile Mind looks at how Western morality has evolved into mere ''politico-moral posturing about admired ethical causes-from solving world poverty and creating peace to curing climate change. Today, merely making the correct noises and parading one's essential decency by having the correct opinions has became a substitute for individual moral actions. Instead, Minogue posits, we ask that our government carry the burden of solving our social-and especially moral-problems for us. The sad and frightening irony is that as we allow the state to determine our moral order and inner convictions, the more we need to be told how to behave and what to think."
Beep, beep! "How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life." There's an irony there, isn't there? Didn't the Founding Fathers say that their experimental Constitution was only suitable for a moral people? And yet democracy itself erodes the moral life. The answer to this, of course, is that the scheme was to enable the aristocratic and influential social institutions to impose their moral norms on government, rather than the other way around. The problem arose when those institutions--the religious institutions in particular--and the ruling elite abdicated all responsibility for inculcating any meaningful morality.
"the ruling elite abdicated all responsibility for inculcating any meaningful morality."
The key word here is "meaningful".
It's not that they inculcate no morality, it's that the morality that they inculcate
can be described (so well) by Lawrence above, as "making the correct noises, and parading one's essential decency by having the correct opinions, has became a substitute for individual moral actions."
And, I'll add, a substitute for cogent analysis, of what such a meaningful morality might involve.
So, Gore can make a movie about Inconvenient Truths, while jetting around the planet lecturing conferences about the problem, and no major mainstream pundits dare to remark about the irony.
Virtue Signaling over (esp. intellectual) substance.
"The evident problem with democracy today is that the state is pre-empting--crowding out as the economists would say--our moral judgments. Life is a better teacher of virtue than politicians, and most sensible governments of the past left moral faults to the churched." Minogue, The Liberal Mind
Yes. This is a great summation of the basic human individual and societal problems and needs. We do need a purpose, a "good" purpose that transcends us and contributes to the well-being of others, not just an individualistic libertarian one). That said, we all are subject to failure in meeting that purpose (at all times and at any given moment), independently of our own volition. As St. Paul said, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." It is natural that we need God's laws, to know them, and to recognize we cannot completely follow them. That leads to recognizing that we need a savior. This is true of us as individuals and of societies and of the fallen world as a whole. As long as we live in denial of that fact and of rather placing belief in our own thoughts anbd actions, disaster will most certainly follow.
This stress on moderation is reminiscent of the views of Burke (on Prudence) and Smith, on
prudence, + benevolence, justice, and self-Command (e.g. of appetites and impulses), this last being the most important, as it helped govern the others.
Moderation = Lukewarmness. Most of the time. Not having decided or strong views. Truth is not moderate.
As for "the views of Burke and Smith", actually those are the views of the Greeks as taken over by Christianity under the title The Four Cardinal Virtues:
Prudence (φρόνησις, phrónēsis; Latin: prudentia; also Wisdom, Sophia, sapientia), the ability to discern the appropriate course of action to be taken in a given situation at the appropriate time.
Justice (δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosýnē; Latin: iustitia): also considered as fairness;[3] the Greek word also having the meaning righteousness
Fortitude (ἀνδρεία, andreía; Latin: fortitudo): also termed courage: forbearance, strength, endurance, and the ability to confront fear, uncertainty, and intimidation
Temperance (σωφροσύνη, sōphrosýnē; Latin: temperantia): also known as restraint, the practice of self-control, abstention, discretion, and moderation tempering the appetition. Plato considered Sōphrosynē, which may also be translated as sound-mindedness, to be the most important virtue.
Josef Pieper has a wonderful book length exposition of these virtues:
Wisdom and Prudence occupy the same place on the list for Cicero:
Prudence (φρόνησις, phrónēsis; Latin: prudentia; also Wisdom, Sophia, sapientia), the ability to discern the appropriate course of action to be taken in a given situation at the appropriate time.
Temperance is simply Self Control, which is not the same thing as Moderation.
I would trust the classic Greek and Christian philosophical explanations of human nature and human virtues over the Classical Liberals any day.
OK, Wisdom and Prudence occupy the same place on the list for Cicero, but I see them as different enough from each other.
If prudence is the ability to discern the appropriate course of action, wisdom is the ability to discern sound general *principles* for deciding action.
And yeah, Self Control is not the same thing as Moderation.
Self Control is mostly about appetites/ impulses, while Moderation is mostly about more thought-out actions.
If by "Classical Liberals", you include Machiavelli & Hobbes, I'll take those two over most other classical Greeks and Christians (save for the Aristotelians) and later Classical Liberals (save for Smith).
We are imperfect beings, imperfect in ourselves, but more importantly imperfect continually in our actions. We "sin" against ourselves every day as well as against others, usually those we are closest to, every day. Each day, I wake up, will wake up, and inevitably at some point let myself down, fail to follow through on something I told myself I was going to do, fail to make that little change in behavior I committed to changing, tell a little white lie to my spouse about doing that thing that I didn't do, but fully intend to do tomorrow so why give her reason to be disappointed in me. And certainly, each day I will achieve some things, act bravely or in a way I had wished to, each day I will do things that pleases others. But nevertheless, I will wake up tomorrow having sinned against myself, and probably others, many times the day before. I use "sin" here in the moral sense of failing to perform an act I had felt some obligation to perform. If I am addicted to a chemical substance, or in dire financial straits or have a mental condition that makes it hard for me to reason, or if I'm just and angry miserable wreck or in a reckless mood, I might commit crimes against others, do them harm and affect them in more dramatic ways than simply letting them down on this or that expectation. Or if I just get caught up in some selfish desire that leaves me heedless of the obligations I have to my fellow man, I might do the same. But generally I only sin in minor, non-criminal ways. We can argue here until the cows come home about my needing more temperance or prudence or self-control or wisdom, but what there can be no dispute about , I feel it important to say, is that we all are, to one degree or another, "sufferers" of our human nature, and that governing that human nature is a personal undertaking that has ramifications for others who are similarly undertaking the governance of their own human nature. This is the moral universe. I am profoundly skeptical of ANYONE who professes or theorizes the abijlity to govern himself without admitting he is a failure at it.
I would recommend also Minogue's The Servile Mind (2011). I've not read The Liberal Mind, but found The Servile Mind an incredibly accurate characterization of today's warped liberalism. Here's the Amazon description:
One of the grim comedies of the twentieth century was the fate of miserable victims of communist regimes who climbed walls, swam rivers, dodged bullets, and found other desperate ways to achieve liberty in the West at the same time as intellectuals in the West sentimentally proclaimed that these very regimes were the wave of the future. A similar tragicomedy is being played out in our century: as the victims of despotism and backwardness from third world nations pour into Western states, the same ivory tower intellectuals assert that Western life is a nightmare of inequality and oppression. In The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life, Kenneth Minogue explores the intelligentsia's love affair with social perfection and reveals how that idealistic dream is destroying exactly what has made the inventive Western world irresistible to the peoples of foreign lands. The Servile Mind looks at how Western morality has evolved into mere ''politico-moral posturing about admired ethical causes-from solving world poverty and creating peace to curing climate change. Today, merely making the correct noises and parading one's essential decency by having the correct opinions has became a substitute for individual moral actions. Instead, Minogue posits, we ask that our government carry the burden of solving our social-and especially moral-problems for us. The sad and frightening irony is that as we allow the state to determine our moral order and inner convictions, the more we need to be told how to behave and what to think."
Honk if that resonates with you.
Beep, beep! "How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life." There's an irony there, isn't there? Didn't the Founding Fathers say that their experimental Constitution was only suitable for a moral people? And yet democracy itself erodes the moral life. The answer to this, of course, is that the scheme was to enable the aristocratic and influential social institutions to impose their moral norms on government, rather than the other way around. The problem arose when those institutions--the religious institutions in particular--and the ruling elite abdicated all responsibility for inculcating any meaningful morality.
"the ruling elite abdicated all responsibility for inculcating any meaningful morality."
The key word here is "meaningful".
It's not that they inculcate no morality, it's that the morality that they inculcate
can be described (so well) by Lawrence above, as "making the correct noises, and parading one's essential decency by having the correct opinions, has became a substitute for individual moral actions."
And, I'll add, a substitute for cogent analysis, of what such a meaningful morality might involve.
So, Gore can make a movie about Inconvenient Truths, while jetting around the planet lecturing conferences about the problem, and no major mainstream pundits dare to remark about the irony.
Virtue Signaling over (esp. intellectual) substance.
"The evident problem with democracy today is that the state is pre-empting--crowding out as the economists would say--our moral judgments. Life is a better teacher of virtue than politicians, and most sensible governments of the past left moral faults to the churched." Minogue, The Liberal Mind
*churches*
Same way I came to him. Kimball seems to be standing the test of time as well. James Bowman is another.
Yes. I was also introduced to Minogue by Kimball back in 2013--when I bought and read The Servile Mind.
Yes. This is a great summation of the basic human individual and societal problems and needs. We do need a purpose, a "good" purpose that transcends us and contributes to the well-being of others, not just an individualistic libertarian one). That said, we all are subject to failure in meeting that purpose (at all times and at any given moment), independently of our own volition. As St. Paul said, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." It is natural that we need God's laws, to know them, and to recognize we cannot completely follow them. That leads to recognizing that we need a savior. This is true of us as individuals and of societies and of the fallen world as a whole. As long as we live in denial of that fact and of rather placing belief in our own thoughts anbd actions, disaster will most certainly follow.
This stress on moderation is reminiscent of the views of Burke (on Prudence) and Smith, on
prudence, + benevolence, justice, and self-Command (e.g. of appetites and impulses), this last being the most important, as it helped govern the others.
Moderation = Lukewarmness. Most of the time. Not having decided or strong views. Truth is not moderate.
As for "the views of Burke and Smith", actually those are the views of the Greeks as taken over by Christianity under the title The Four Cardinal Virtues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_virtues
Prudence (φρόνησις, phrónēsis; Latin: prudentia; also Wisdom, Sophia, sapientia), the ability to discern the appropriate course of action to be taken in a given situation at the appropriate time.
Justice (δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosýnē; Latin: iustitia): also considered as fairness;[3] the Greek word also having the meaning righteousness
Fortitude (ἀνδρεία, andreía; Latin: fortitudo): also termed courage: forbearance, strength, endurance, and the ability to confront fear, uncertainty, and intimidation
Temperance (σωφροσύνη, sōphrosýnē; Latin: temperantia): also known as restraint, the practice of self-control, abstention, discretion, and moderation tempering the appetition. Plato considered Sōphrosynē, which may also be translated as sound-mindedness, to be the most important virtue.
Josef Pieper has a wonderful book length exposition of these virtues:
https://www.amazon.com/Four-Cardinal-Virtues-Josef-Pieper/dp/0268001030/ref=sr_1_1
Good list, tho I'll quibble with any implication that the 2 lists are identical.
Fortitude and Temperance overlap a fair amount, whereas benevolence and self-Command are rather more distinct.
And, Cicero's list (wisdom, justice, courage, temperance) is also different, for putting wisdom in (over prudence or benevolence).
Wisdom and Prudence occupy the same place on the list for Cicero:
Prudence (φρόνησις, phrónēsis; Latin: prudentia; also Wisdom, Sophia, sapientia), the ability to discern the appropriate course of action to be taken in a given situation at the appropriate time.
Temperance is simply Self Control, which is not the same thing as Moderation.
I would trust the classic Greek and Christian philosophical explanations of human nature and human virtues over the Classical Liberals any day.
OK, Wisdom and Prudence occupy the same place on the list for Cicero, but I see them as different enough from each other.
If prudence is the ability to discern the appropriate course of action, wisdom is the ability to discern sound general *principles* for deciding action.
And yeah, Self Control is not the same thing as Moderation.
Self Control is mostly about appetites/ impulses, while Moderation is mostly about more thought-out actions.
If by "Classical Liberals", you include Machiavelli & Hobbes, I'll take those two over most other classical Greeks and Christians (save for the Aristotelians) and later Classical Liberals (save for Smith).
We are imperfect beings, imperfect in ourselves, but more importantly imperfect continually in our actions. We "sin" against ourselves every day as well as against others, usually those we are closest to, every day. Each day, I wake up, will wake up, and inevitably at some point let myself down, fail to follow through on something I told myself I was going to do, fail to make that little change in behavior I committed to changing, tell a little white lie to my spouse about doing that thing that I didn't do, but fully intend to do tomorrow so why give her reason to be disappointed in me. And certainly, each day I will achieve some things, act bravely or in a way I had wished to, each day I will do things that pleases others. But nevertheless, I will wake up tomorrow having sinned against myself, and probably others, many times the day before. I use "sin" here in the moral sense of failing to perform an act I had felt some obligation to perform. If I am addicted to a chemical substance, or in dire financial straits or have a mental condition that makes it hard for me to reason, or if I'm just and angry miserable wreck or in a reckless mood, I might commit crimes against others, do them harm and affect them in more dramatic ways than simply letting them down on this or that expectation. Or if I just get caught up in some selfish desire that leaves me heedless of the obligations I have to my fellow man, I might do the same. But generally I only sin in minor, non-criminal ways. We can argue here until the cows come home about my needing more temperance or prudence or self-control or wisdom, but what there can be no dispute about , I feel it important to say, is that we all are, to one degree or another, "sufferers" of our human nature, and that governing that human nature is a personal undertaking that has ramifications for others who are similarly undertaking the governance of their own human nature. This is the moral universe. I am profoundly skeptical of ANYONE who professes or theorizes the abijlity to govern himself without admitting he is a failure at it.
Right. You want to use the government to enforce conformity with your liberal ideas on the us conservatives.