Exhibit 1:
(h/t Andrew)
Exhibit 2:
Compare and contrast.
Archive for the 'Politics' Category
Serious philosophical questions and midterms do not mix well.
I have so many things floating around in my head, including some thoughts on capitalism vs. culture, but it’s mostly responses to the responses. Some of my favorites (and you should really read the whole things, because they say far more than I can quote):
EAT THE APPLE
Virtue ? That is your responsibility, whilst it may be nice to think of the spartans whipping virtue into the young, wishing you too could have the rest of modern society from its crack addicts to perverts to slothful today tonight watchers pushed towards a life of virtue, to do that is to deny their humanity, deny their choice and ultimately deny that they have any possibility of a virtuous life. For virtue can not simply be external behaviour rote learned. It has to be valued and sought after by the individual, not simply a pattern of behaviour forced upon an individual if they are to survive and participate in the community.
We may not be a virtuous society today, and many individuals may not express such a character. But for the first time in human history it is at least possible and an option. One built on a real foundation of respect towards us as humans who can choose individual achievement towards nobility, not a forced behaviour as if mere pet dogs trained to beg and bark on command.
You can seek community, or you can seek virtue. Not both, and likely neither with modern conservatism.
SHE SAID PERFORMATIVITY! …WELL, SHE SHOULD HAVE.
A good play can change not just a man’s life but his identity, but only if he “believes” it in a very particular way. He can’t really believe it—if he does, he’ll rush onstage to try and stop Oedipus from blinding himself!—but neither can he keep in the front of his mind that it’s just his friend Jeff in an Oedipus mask. That’s the kind of belief I have in my traditions, especially those that can’t be traced back to divine revelation. More on why traditionalism isn’t relativism here. I’d excerpt, but this post is long enough already; let it suffice to say that Oscar Wilde was my kind of conservative.
(Helen at Pomocon)
YOU KEEP USING THAT WORD. I DO NOT THINK IT MEANS WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.
Here is what I think: I think “postmodernism” is a great way to justify excessive navel-gazing, obtuse writing, obfuscated thinking, and various forms of related wankery. (But if anyone wants to convince me otherwise with a concise definition of the term, the comments are open below.)
THE STATE: WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?
My deeper point is that by not locating our own context/position, political discussions that are abstract (What is The Fundamental Issue?) assume a one-size-fits-all answer for all times and places. And they can inadvertently end up supporting a point of view I doubt (esp. in this case) the author really holds to. Moreover, a great deal depends on our location in terms of what we see/pick up on.
If postmodernism (conservative and/or liberal) taught us anything it’s that meaning is contextual and that contexts are never-ending, hence all our statements (including this one) are provisional. [Provisional however can be a very long time--point to pomocons]. My take is the best way to deal with that reality is to be as honest as we can about our own position and just say it out. In that way I think there is more an invitation to debate and dialogue than a framing that says “X Issue is THE One” and then creates sharp divisions between those who stand on either side of X. When often, the reality, I would say, is never that clear or simple.
TO DEFINE CONSISTENCY AS TRUTH IS TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF TRUTH
I would substitute her categorical rejection of rationalism and a firm commitment to community with the following maxim: It is the conservative’s job to remain permanently uncomfortable with existence. Because it is precisely when we think we have arrived at final answers–whether they reside in reason or in community–that we actually become susceptible to totalitarianism. We shoud firmly accept, as the late Judge Learned Hand once declared, that “The true spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right.” This belief was at the heart of the American Founding, and it is, sadly, a belief that has all but evaporated in today’s destructive partisan politics.
Conservatism should be about ideas and ideals, not about emotional appeals to interpersonal connections, and there is simply no way to arrive at the “right” ideas without reason. This element of balance is what seems to be missing from the worldview that Karass has arrived at.
MY BELOVED IS MINE AND I AM…WHOSE?
To the extent that this is a love story in which the beloved(s) remain intentionally unnamed, I can understand your interlocutors’ frustration! WHOM one loves (whether a person, a Person, or a persona e.g. a tradition) makes an enormous difference….
I can guess at a few possible beloveds; and you say yourself that this is a story of the shape of your thoughts rather than their content, but obviously it’s really difficult to separate shape from content, and I wonder if your decision to attempt the separation wasn’t a mistake.
I’m hoping that this reading of Nicola’s post is reasonably accurate. Because there are several different ways to read it, and a love story with a beloved (or beloveds) she can actually name would be the best one. A love story in which the identity of the mystery date hasn’t been revealed, but she thinks it might, and she’s going on a detective search–that’s also good.
(Eve — and seriously, read the whole thing. I think she groks me in a way that I don’t grok myself, which is always cool if a little scary.)
I promise I’ll get to all of this, not least because I can’t sit still until I do. In the meantime, feel free to discuss in comments.
In other news, I really, really want this shirt:
The West at Yale has the most moving response I’ve seen yet to Tuesday’s Presidential Debate. It’s a lament for the dearth of serious philosophical commentary in this election cycle, in a world in which a Presidential candidate can declare healthcare “a right” and, instead of a public debate about the nature of Rights Language, be greeted with a resounding intellectual silence. It’s a loss that’s been particularly felt since Andrew Sullivan turned into a tabloid scandal hound. The money quote?
I just need some conservative intellectual commentary right now to save me from this election cycle’s demagoguery, and Sullivan is being as unquestioningly partisan as Hannity is for McCain.
Incidentally, the most official endorsement of loose rights terminology that I’ve ever seen was at the Museum of the Red Cross in Geneva. According to the stone inscriptions that greet visitors on entry, prisoners of war have natural rights to Water, Food and … Tobacco. Of course, if access to tobacco is a natural right, may the noble savage light up inside a New York restaurant?
I mentioned this “political autobiography” project for class and a few people were interested. I am one of my favorite topics, so I’m happy to share it; find out All About Me after the jump. (I feel very silly about this.) This is more of an attempt to trace my development than the actual content of my thoughts — that’s a much more interesting story.
“La Contre-Révolution ne sera pas une révolution contraire, mais le contraire de la Révolution.” — Maistre.
From the end of my “political autobiography” (for class):
More than anything else, I am concerned with how we think about things, and what that means to us in terms of living both virtuous and fulfilling lives. I’ve long since stopped caring about labels: call me a conservative, a libertarian, a reactionary — just don’t call me late for the counterrevolution.
Now to finish write the other two papers due tomorrow. (Note to my mother: just kidding!)
Intellectual history is in large part the geneaology of ideas. We try to understand the backdrop, the implicit assumptions, the unconscious past meanings that present use still carries. Sometimes it’s fun to do it to yourself.
Rule: I take criticism poorly. I find it irritating. But I don’t find it disturbing.
Exception: The commenter who responded to my YDN column about the lack of explanation surrounding increased campus police presence by asking, “What are you trying to hide?”
Oh, right, I forgot. Only the most shamefully degenerate college student would ever engage in illegal activity. Like underage drinking. Or file-sharing. Or jaywalking.
Of course, that’s not only a straw man but an inaccurate one. The real assumption is that it’s foolish to think that the police would ever care about the illegal things students do, because their sole purpose is to protect us from the bad guys. Sure, this comes from a place of blind faith in the institution — “Of course the University has nothing but our best interests at heart!” — but also from entitlement: “We pay their salaries with our tuition, they have no choice but to be on our side!”
There’s also the fact that the closer you get to having decision-making power yourself, the sillier it seems to scrutinize the intentions of power (Obama on FISA, anyone?). But as dangerous as it is to rationalize that “When I’m in charge it will all be okay,” it’s more troubling to assume that there’s some sort of mutual understanding between “decision-making people,” that they have the same interests at heart — and, furthermore, that those interests are necessarily in the best interests of society. That it goes without saying that the police are here to protect students from the strangers roaming their courtyards, and to imply otherwise is not just ridiculous but rude. What are they supposed to be around to protect, anyway? The law?
Daniel Finkelstein is being sensible about the latest Palin furore. The brunt of the story is that Palin quoted some praise of small towns, out of context, written by Westbrook Pegler, who elsewhere called for the murder of Robert Kennedy. As Finkelstein points out,
Palin did not misrepresent Pegler because she didn’t talk about him.
Palin might be inadvised to reference a racist who issued calls for political assination. And simple political intelligence should be a requirement for high government office. But she didn’t endorse his complete oeuvre, or claim him as her inspiration. She just lifted a few pretty lines about standard small town values. Really guys, get over it. There are far more serious things worth attacking her on.
I don’t know much about Pegler, but Buckley seemed to like him…
Most Recent Comments
RSS