Skip to main content

Enlightenment and Restoration

NRO's Jonah Goldberg takes look a two new books critical of France and drops not one, but two interesting observations about the Enlightenment, both of which have profound implications for those of us who call ourselves Conservative. More people should know this first bit. A lot more:
The French have long tried to claim that the American Revolution was merely an offshoot of the French Enlightenment project. Himmelfarb disagrees. She shows that the French took a different road to modernity than the British and Americans, who took similar but slightly different routes themselves. The British valued virtue more than liberty; the Americans had it the other way around. But where the French differed is that they sought to replace the religion of old Europe with a new cult of reason. They even made the Notre Dame Cathedral into a "Temple of Reason." The philosophes' Encyclopedie proclaimed, "Reason is to the philosopher what grace is to the Christian. Grace moves the Christian to act, reason moves the philosopher." By making a religion out of politics, with the state at its center, the French never embraced liberty the way Anglo-Americans did. It was this legacy that lent intellectual heft to all the great dictators — Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. (A similar impulse also transformed American liberalism for the worse, but for that you'll just have to read my book, whenever it comes out.)
Conservatives do have to seek the seats of power - parliament, the courts, the media and key points in the culture - but the most important thing for them to hold is the culture as a whole. If we do that, we limit what Liberals can do while they are in power. They would be hobbled by their desire for power, and held back by public opinion. To have people govern themselves by conservative principles would be a victory in both the means and the ends. To think that by merely winning an election and placing a conservative government on the throne is enough to breed deep and sustaining change for the better is to engage in French / Liberal politics of 'legislated improvement.' Using Liberal means to 'conservative' ends is a hollow project. Even those who are not themselves religious need to recognize that the churches will be the means through which any conservative restoration will be achieved. The churches are how the masses spontaneously organize themselves. Atomized idividualization does not appeal to people who know they can't compete one on one with the doctors and the technorati. If you want to get them onside, you need to get them to combine and cohere to the point where their quality of life is competitive with most obviously talented. When their private family lives are rich and fulfilling, a government safety net isn't all that attractive and the taxes that support it are annoying. I also love this story because it supports another thing that I really think is true: the modern elevation of reason, and reason alone, in spheres other than hard science, is Left / French thinking, and it leads to all the problems of modernity. Goldberg:
The Enlightenment was that moment when mankind allegedly first threw off the shackles of superstition, tribalism, and tyranny and embraced reason, universal human rights, and democracy. I say "allegedly" because there are still quite a few friends of mine who resist the idea that the Enlightenment was a major step forward intellectually. This is a more interesting debate than you might think.
I think that debate is more interesting and sustainable than most are willing to concede. I'm not anti Enlightenment and I'm not remotely anti science. I do think the Enlightenment's best success was in the sciences and that we have largely failed to carry that success into other spheres of human endeavor. That failure has been expensive. Our efforts have lead to a serious neglect of religion, to the point that very large numbers of people are unable to comprehend the foundational documents of our culture: to read them, think about them, comprehend them with anything approaching the kind of depth that would have been taken for granted in anyone who called themselves educated only a hundred years ago.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi