Jefferson apparently proposed legislation to “reduce” the penalty for sodomy down to “just” castration. So much for enlightenment ideals, or the vision that the founders were some kind of paragons of virtue. Unfortunately, they were just people of the times — and that time was brutal. The object lesson should be that there is no recourse to the past. We have not yet reached anything approaching idea governance, and the regressives who seeks wisdom in the past are wrong.
“The object lesson should be that there is no recourse to the past … and the regressives who seeks wisdom in the past are wrong.”
While I see how particular kooky “conservative” arguments (like the one in the video) might motivate such a claim, I find this a frightening general principle. I am daily saddened by how little we know about our tradition and how little we appeal to it for guidance. I am not romanticizing the past nor pretending that we should accept what was in some uncritical way. But I think there is substantial wisdom embedded in the tradition and in the “perennial philosophy” and we cut ourselves off from those wellsprings of wisdom to our own detriment. As I have said before on this blog, for my part I think there is more wisdom (not “knowledge” but wisdom) to be gleaned from Sophocles than there is from any contemporary neuroscience.
I have to agree with Dr. Kleiner. I feel as though Homer, Sophocles (I think Oedipus Tyrannus is brilliant), and Socrates/Plato have taught me some of the most important things that I’ve learned so far in my life.
There is wisdom to be derived from the past, otherwise we wouldn’t have anything that could be called collective wisdom, and progress would be impossible. I am highly dubious of the word “tradition” because it seems to embody the attitude that past precedent should be followed merely because it is precedent. A tradition that should be followed and not rejected is one that has the added property of either being a good idea or neutral and harmless. I don’t see the harm in going through the motions of a behavior that has no inherent value, so long as it harms nobody. Most of us do this most of our lives.
I won’t even attempt to hide the considerable glee I take in quoting the great G.K. Chesterton on an atheism blog:
“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.” – G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.
This is a little ominous when you realize that by “small and arrogant oligarchy” Chesterton means The Living. The traditionalist denies that we are in the best position to prescribe action for ourselves, while the progressive says that we are.
All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.
A clever turn of phrase should not be mistaken for wisdom, especially when it makes no sense. Democracy is explicitly defined as rule of the living by the living. The dead have their part to play; otherwise we would not have constitutions and legal systems, but the dead are, well, dead, and hence subordinate to the living (in a Democracy).
Chesterton has nothing against the living, he is just against “chronological snobbery” – the view that we have a superior view about how to order ourselves and society simply because more time has passed. I am not of the view that we are, of necessity, in the best position to prescribe action for ourselves. Such a view would presuppose that we are wiser than those that came before us, and it strikes that not only is this not necessarily true, it currently strikes me as false. There is no guarantee that the passage of time entails progress, it can just as easily involve regress. This is the danger of “progressivism” – it is intoxicated with itself and has no humility so it assumes that change is a good.
Our contemporary situation is particularly dangerous. To borrow words from a bio on Strauss, modern progressives have ‘an unquestioned faith in progress and science combined with a queasiness regarding any kind of moral judgment’. Yikes. What worries me about modern progressive movements is that they almost always “immanentize the eschaton”. The whole Obama movement was a discomforting example of this (even progressives have to look back and recognize that they got pretty carried away, in an almost “messianic” way, with this guy).
As with anything, it depends.
A lot of traditions are very useful and wise, and “good”. Most culture’s food norms and taboos are a perfect example. If locals are eating some things but not others, it’s probably a good idea to follow their lead. At the same time, tribalism, slavery, racism, and general xenophobia are pervasive worldwide “traditions”.
I personally don’t know any self-described progressives who would consider any kind of change whatsoever to be good–myself included. That’s just dumb. Consider the still on-going health care issue. I think some serious reform is needed in the country’s health system, but I don’t think that any old change at all will be good or useful (and I don’t think the shape the bill ended up in will really solve the problem). But if your status quo sucks, careful considered change is better than sticking to tradition simply because “that’s the way things have always been”.
You have to consider Obama’s popularity during his campaign in light of the country’s frustration with Bush’s presidency.
To bring this back on topic though, the kind of “tradition” this video exhibits can’t possibly be something you’re willing to defend.
One unfortunate subtext of Christianity is that life on Earth can only get so good, due to our inherently sinful nature. There is the pernicious suspicion that anyone lobbying for progress must somehow be linked to the anti-Christ, because that seems to be what we’ve been told will be his MO. The Enlightenment, in particular, comes under heavy retroactive derision.
At the very least, Christians should realize that they are arguing almost exclusively from their own viewpoint.
If we adopt the secular view, however, we are unchained from that millstone. We are free to make our world as good as it can get, without being charged with trying to immanentize the eschaton– because that is recognized for the obstructionist casuistry that it is (IMO). If we can still view merit in tradition after we have freed our minds, then great. Conversely, if we find fault in progress, we are free to argue it without prejudice.
Well, I am certainly not in the habit of arguing that those with opposing political opinions are doing the work of the anti-Christ. Again, low lying fruit.
It strikes me that “sin” is not a religious construct. One need not be religious to think that something has gone terribly wrong, that we and the world are not what they ought to be. To reject the category of sin is to pretend that we never violate even our own conscience, much less objective moral norms. No one can say that. I actually think that there is considerable “empirical evidence” for something like “original sin”. If “original sin” was just a metaphor or, worse, a myth, then how come no human ever in the history of the world has managed to remain innocent?
Even Obama, in his largely praise-worthy nobel speech (a speech, though, that George W could have given!) spoke of some inherent brokenness in man which we must humbly accept and try to do our best in light of.
To put this another way (and in a way that is likely more acceptable to readers of this blog), I am not sure the diagnosis is all that different, be one atheist or theist. It is the response to the diagnosis where we differ.
Michael Novak makes this sort of an argument in his fine book: “No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers”
I see that we’re veering dangerously close to the verboten “nature of morality” debate. Of course, for the Christian, all these things are linked together, so I can see the general attractiveness of basing everything in that. If we are essentially broken then our best recourse will always be in past tradition, and getting as close as possible to the Word of God is really the only option left open to you. But as I say, this premise is utterly dependent on religious doctrine. However, there is nothing about our intrinsic imperfection that isn’t completely consistent with naturalistic origin. To say that we are “broken” presumes that we were once in a state of perfection. Naturalism never makes that admission. Therefore, tradition becomes no more than another avenue of knowledge, with no great weight attached to it.
The diagnoses are similar insofar as each side agrees that humans are fallible creatures, but as far as I can see, that’s where the similarity ends.
Ah, I see blockquote does nothing here. The first and third paragraphs above should be in quotes.
But the founders said it was okay. That makes it right, right?
Did any founding father ever support a bill to kill or imprison gay people?
That sounds immediately suspect to me.
I don’t know whether any of the founding fathers endorsed such a bill, but certainly sodomy laws were enforced in colonial America.
http://www.outhistory.org/wiki/Colonial_America:_The_Age_of_Sodomitical_Sin
Jefferson apparently proposed legislation to “reduce” the penalty for sodomy down to “just” castration. So much for enlightenment ideals, or the vision that the founders were some kind of paragons of virtue. Unfortunately, they were just people of the times — and that time was brutal. The object lesson should be that there is no recourse to the past. We have not yet reached anything approaching idea governance, and the regressives who seeks wisdom in the past are wrong.
“The object lesson should be that there is no recourse to the past … and the regressives who seeks wisdom in the past are wrong.”
While I see how particular kooky “conservative” arguments (like the one in the video) might motivate such a claim, I find this a frightening general principle. I am daily saddened by how little we know about our tradition and how little we appeal to it for guidance. I am not romanticizing the past nor pretending that we should accept what was in some uncritical way. But I think there is substantial wisdom embedded in the tradition and in the “perennial philosophy” and we cut ourselves off from those wellsprings of wisdom to our own detriment. As I have said before on this blog, for my part I think there is more wisdom (not “knowledge” but wisdom) to be gleaned from Sophocles than there is from any contemporary neuroscience.
I have to agree with Dr. Kleiner. I feel as though Homer, Sophocles (I think Oedipus Tyrannus is brilliant), and Socrates/Plato have taught me some of the most important things that I’ve learned so far in my life.
There is wisdom to be derived from the past, otherwise we wouldn’t have anything that could be called collective wisdom, and progress would be impossible. I am highly dubious of the word “tradition” because it seems to embody the attitude that past precedent should be followed merely because it is precedent. A tradition that should be followed and not rejected is one that has the added property of either being a good idea or neutral and harmless. I don’t see the harm in going through the motions of a behavior that has no inherent value, so long as it harms nobody. Most of us do this most of our lives.
I won’t even attempt to hide the considerable glee I take in quoting the great G.K. Chesterton on an atheism blog:
“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.” – G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
This is a little ominous when you realize that by “small and arrogant oligarchy” Chesterton means The Living. The traditionalist denies that we are in the best position to prescribe action for ourselves, while the progressive says that we are.
A clever turn of phrase should not be mistaken for wisdom, especially when it makes no sense. Democracy is explicitly defined as rule of the living by the living. The dead have their part to play; otherwise we would not have constitutions and legal systems, but the dead are, well, dead, and hence subordinate to the living (in a Democracy).
Chesterton has nothing against the living, he is just against “chronological snobbery” – the view that we have a superior view about how to order ourselves and society simply because more time has passed. I am not of the view that we are, of necessity, in the best position to prescribe action for ourselves. Such a view would presuppose that we are wiser than those that came before us, and it strikes that not only is this not necessarily true, it currently strikes me as false. There is no guarantee that the passage of time entails progress, it can just as easily involve regress. This is the danger of “progressivism” – it is intoxicated with itself and has no humility so it assumes that change is a good.
Our contemporary situation is particularly dangerous. To borrow words from a bio on Strauss, modern progressives have ‘an unquestioned faith in progress and science combined with a queasiness regarding any kind of moral judgment’. Yikes. What worries me about modern progressive movements is that they almost always “immanentize the eschaton”. The whole Obama movement was a discomforting example of this (even progressives have to look back and recognize that they got pretty carried away, in an almost “messianic” way, with this guy).
As with anything, it depends.
A lot of traditions are very useful and wise, and “good”. Most culture’s food norms and taboos are a perfect example. If locals are eating some things but not others, it’s probably a good idea to follow their lead. At the same time, tribalism, slavery, racism, and general xenophobia are pervasive worldwide “traditions”.
I personally don’t know any self-described progressives who would consider any kind of change whatsoever to be good–myself included. That’s just dumb. Consider the still on-going health care issue. I think some serious reform is needed in the country’s health system, but I don’t think that any old change at all will be good or useful (and I don’t think the shape the bill ended up in will really solve the problem). But if your status quo sucks, careful considered change is better than sticking to tradition simply because “that’s the way things have always been”.
You have to consider Obama’s popularity during his campaign in light of the country’s frustration with Bush’s presidency.
To bring this back on topic though, the kind of “tradition” this video exhibits can’t possibly be something you’re willing to defend.
One unfortunate subtext of Christianity is that life on Earth can only get so good, due to our inherently sinful nature. There is the pernicious suspicion that anyone lobbying for progress must somehow be linked to the anti-Christ, because that seems to be what we’ve been told will be his MO. The Enlightenment, in particular, comes under heavy retroactive derision.
At the very least, Christians should realize that they are arguing almost exclusively from their own viewpoint.
If we adopt the secular view, however, we are unchained from that millstone. We are free to make our world as good as it can get, without being charged with trying to immanentize the eschaton– because that is recognized for the obstructionist casuistry that it is (IMO). If we can still view merit in tradition after we have freed our minds, then great. Conversely, if we find fault in progress, we are free to argue it without prejudice.
Well, I am certainly not in the habit of arguing that those with opposing political opinions are doing the work of the anti-Christ. Again, low lying fruit.
It strikes me that “sin” is not a religious construct. One need not be religious to think that something has gone terribly wrong, that we and the world are not what they ought to be. To reject the category of sin is to pretend that we never violate even our own conscience, much less objective moral norms. No one can say that. I actually think that there is considerable “empirical evidence” for something like “original sin”. If “original sin” was just a metaphor or, worse, a myth, then how come no human ever in the history of the world has managed to remain innocent?
Even Obama, in his largely praise-worthy nobel speech (a speech, though, that George W could have given!) spoke of some inherent brokenness in man which we must humbly accept and try to do our best in light of.
To put this another way (and in a way that is likely more acceptable to readers of this blog), I am not sure the diagnosis is all that different, be one atheist or theist. It is the response to the diagnosis where we differ.
Michael Novak makes this sort of an argument in his fine book: “No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers”
I see that we’re veering dangerously close to the verboten “nature of morality” debate. Of course, for the Christian, all these things are linked together, so I can see the general attractiveness of basing everything in that. If we are essentially broken then our best recourse will always be in past tradition, and getting as close as possible to the Word of God is really the only option left open to you. But as I say, this premise is utterly dependent on religious doctrine. However, there is nothing about our intrinsic imperfection that isn’t completely consistent with naturalistic origin. To say that we are “broken” presumes that we were once in a state of perfection. Naturalism never makes that admission. Therefore, tradition becomes no more than another avenue of knowledge, with no great weight attached to it.
The diagnoses are similar insofar as each side agrees that humans are fallible creatures, but as far as I can see, that’s where the similarity ends.
Ah, I see blockquote does nothing here. The first and third paragraphs above should be in quotes.
The blockquotes, they do nothing.
I’ve been trying to play around on the backend to make comment formatting a bit better, but haven’t figured it out yet.
In the meantime, bold and italics tags will work. Italicizing a whole paragraph will have to do for now.