1. Good discussion. I share Charles’ basic opinion of “no enemies to the right” and that the left must be completely defeated. I found the discussion of the essence of left and right and of the relationship of the moral to the political unsatisfying in the end.
2. There are a number of questions unresolved. Can the good that has come from the enlightenment be separated from its evils? I would argue that even though we may desire to cleanse many of the goods of the enlightenment by tracing them to Christian roots…
3. …that ultimately, if seen correctly, what began in the enlightenment was an attempt to remove the God, specifically God as worship in the Christian church, and removed the authority of the church from society, ultimately making amenable to a refounding of society on reason.
4. This process did not happen overnight. A one part of this larger cultural movement which began prior to the enlightenment, was a process of preparation for the church through the reformation to make it amenable to a world of the market and scientific learning.
5. The growing power of the bourgeoisie was channeled into the Protestant movement breaking open many of the constraints of the Roman Church (which was just the Church prior to this time) and the pre-reformation culture placed on the market and unrestrained scientific learning.
6. Prior to this the pursuit of knowledge and money for their own sakes were viewed with suspicion. The following the enlightenment, having broken free from these constraints, society was now free to pursue both.
7. Did this mean Christian influence disappeared overnight? Of course not. Society was still largely Christian. But the seeds were sown. This desire to cleanse the achievements of the enlightenment to claim them for Christianity is misplaced.
8. The enlightenment was not born ex nihilio. But that does not mean that we should somehow try to “Christianize” it’s achievements. Because in so doing we will fail to adequately see that you cannot have the benefits of the enlightenment without accompanying ills.
9. The good and the bad of the enlightenment must come together. In this sense, I would argue that Daniel is correct in noting the desire of the enlightenment was to ground morality, and thus society, in reason.
10. But what was elided, was the previous foundation for society prior to the enlightenment. It was primarily the revelation of God as authoritatively interpreted by the church, the living connection through apostolic succession to the apostles and thus Jesus himself.
11. This is one of the things that Schmitt identifies and hones in on, is the quest for truth. Ultimately the question of authority is a question of how we determine the truth. The key claims of the enlightenment revolve around this question of the truth.
12. Liberal democracy is the symbolic representation of the quest for truth, grounding it in human reason, achieved through the process of the marketplace of ideas and instantiated in the discursive process of parliament.
13. This is why Schmitt attacks the democratic idea as essential to liberalism, because of its claims for grounding truth in reason. Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas is an a priori concept that cannot itself be subject to the marketplace of ideas. It is simply accepted as so
14. If we reject reason as the foundation for truth, we must reject with it liberalism and all its forms and manifestations, including the marketplace of ideas, parliament as well as democracy as flawed, regardless of the goods that come from them.
15. The piece also fails to mention that the key differentiator between the enlightenment conception of the world and that of the Christian worldview which preceded it, was that of original sin.
16. Do you accept that human beings are fundamentally flawed and incapable through their own effort to “perfect” society, that they need divine intervention. Even with this intervention, because of the ongoing presence of human sinfulness, society’s ills cannot be solved.
17. They can only in this life be partially ameliorated.
This challenged directly the historical consciousness of the enlightenment. In the old way of thinking history was static and God was the primary actor. We awaited his second coming for the resolution of human sin.
This challenged directly the historical consciousness of the enlightenment. In the old way of thinking history was static and God was the primary actor. We awaited his second coming for the resolution of human sin.
18. The enlightenment is ultimately a soteriology. People are born blank slates. They are corrupted by society. If we can properly educate them change society, we can eliminate evil from the world. Man is at the center of history and carries the burden of his own salvation.
19. We will end ignorance through the pursuit of scientific learning and education. We will end poverty through the workings of the market. All this is brought together with technology and the idea of human progress. We are evolving towards our final end, the perfection of man.
20. Finally, it does not grapple with the necessity of living in a sinful world, a world in which we are incapable of eliminating or sidestepping the problem of evil. Governance in this environment means sometimes having to hard things, necessary things.
21. This concept of “necessity” was one introduced by Jacques Ellul to grapple with the nature of the political and of violence. Because of the nature of sin and living in a sinful world, our choices are not always between good and evil, but between one evil or another.
22. This is the hard truth that Dreher and Miller seem to shy away from. Sometimes we must do horrible things. They are not right or good. They imperil our souls. But they must be done because that is what the role of “kingship” demands.
23. The “necessary” should not be tried to be justified as a “good.” It simply has to be accepted as this evil thing I must do in this sinful world. Sometimes this is revolutionary violence. Sometimes this is the toleration of a reprehensible ally.
24. Moral categories are not always do not always allow you then option of “doing good.” This is one of the curses of sin. Sometimes the lesser evil is the necessary choice. Sometimes it is necessary to stand with a reprehensible ally against a more evil opponent.
25. By doing so you are not saving the world or bringing about “the glorious future” that can only be realized and known after the cleansing fire of the revolution. You are just doing what needs doing in putting an end to enlightenment liberalism, it’s goods and evils together.
Loading suggestions...