Gav me a new perspective on the rise of a fringe movement into the centers of power. This book chronicles the rise of the far right circles in the US,Gav me a new perspective on the rise of a fringe movement into the centers of power. This book chronicles the rise of the far right circles in the US, Russia and Brazil. It is written by a ethnoographer with a keen interest and understanding of the esoteric philosophy of the far right. Steven Banon, Aleksandr Dugin and Olavo de Carvalho lead these movements in their respect countries. I was thought it was interesting how Dugin had effectively created much of the rhetoric which is today used by the Kremlin (i.e. work with Iran, China and North Korea instead of the decadent West, use disinformation to destabilize your opponents etc). I also thought Steven Bannon to be an interesting study; a person who came from the working class but rose through the educational system to positions of power while privately searching for some ultimate meaning. I could relate to Bannons spiritual quest although I do not think he managed at all to understand the true insights provided by the eastern religions. It could be because zen meditation (which he apparently does on a daily basis) is notorious for being stripped away from any sort of moral guidance.
It seemed as though these three individuals saw the need to invigorate their respective cultures by turning to various religions, especially religions from the east. I had a hard time seeing the connection between various insights gotten through meditation and how a society should be organized. I found that the views which these three individuals espouse often seem weird, eccentric and very esoteric. Often their views of how cultures develop is found in some return to a cyclic way of viewing the world rather than a linear approach which most Westerners have. The most interesting fact about the book is how these views have affected Trump and Putin. I am still uncertain as to to what extent Trump is influenced by them.
All in all worth reading to learn more about the new political direction the world seems to be taking....more
"[For] Kissinger history is more like one damned thing after another, unpredictable and uncontrollable: the basis of foreign policy has to be a pursui"[For] Kissinger history is more like one damned thing after another, unpredictable and uncontrollable: the basis of foreign policy has to be a pursuit of the national interest because, in an uncertain world, that is the anchor of stability" (xv). Realpolitik often gets a bad rep as it goes against a certain idealism but what this book explores is the consequences of pursuing ideology over realpolitik and how this effects world order.
Order is not something which is easily achieved and it is something which is constantly being challenged. Tragedy is the consequence of failure to grasp with this insight and therefore the inability to stop chaos or tyranny from erupting. Democracy is no safeguard against tyranny (Hitler was democratically elected). Neville Chamberlain thought he achieved "peace in our time" by appeasing Hitler and therefore failed to see the potential threat he had to national security and the world order.
Gewens provides the reader with a philosophical background of Kissingers thought (giving outlines of the thought of Arendt, Leo Strauss and Morgenthau) while the second part of the book provides the reader with something closer to a biography of the man. Kissingers thought can be traced to his early experience of having lost all freedom in Germany and his seeing the limitless possibility of tragedy everywhere. No order is fixed but rather politics is the art of evolutionary stability; great statesmen prevent revolutions by gradually implementing changes and often the choice is between two negative outcomes. It is safe to say that this is as far from the cheery and optimistic mindset most Americans have historically had. There's no problem which can't be fixed, right?
Kissingers key influence stems from Hans Morgenthau - a German Jew who is the father of realism in international relations. Morgenthaus experience from Nazi Germany as well as his reading of Nietzsche led him to believe that the main driving force for people is power. One needs an insane amount of will power and drive in order to reach the pinnacle of the political hierarchy and once there the politician continues to pursue powerful goals for his or her own country. Power is a part of human nature (according to Morgenthau) and to ignore this fact will lead to appeasement of tyrants or tragedy. ('If you want peace, prepare for war' as the protorealist Thucydides put it).
Foreign policy is however not only about balancing power through diplomacy and war but (according to Morgenthau) can be summed up in the the struggle for the mind of man. If one can convince people of an idea then that significantly changes the likelihood of long term influence. "Winning of hearts and minds" is a catch phrase which is these days looked upon with cynicism because of its overuse during the Vietnam war but it is nevertheless key to foreign policy. It is also important when it comes to 'public opinion'. In a democracy one needs to be able to convince the public of the necessity of a certain kind of cynical foreign agenda. Kissinger stresses the need for the statesman to be a an educator, otherwise the people might lose sight of the long term goal.
Democracy itself can cause problems when elected officials say what the people want to hear and not what the republic needs to survive. Hitler again is an example of this. The appeal of Nazism was based on the fact that the charismatic demagogue said what the people wanted to hear and thereby managed to draw crowds his rallies (people actually had to pay to hear Hitler speak!). One of the reasons that these German Jews were sometimes labeled as undemocratic was for this specific reason. Statistical models of how rational agents behave cannot save the world from the possibility of tragedy (nor from our own human nature). Luckily the US has a constitution which provides a limit to what a politician can do.
Unlike Foucault, they believe that power and authority are not the same thing. Authority stems from the consensual acceptance of an order. Morgenthau is not against international guidelines for nations provided that one realizes that sovereign states should still have national interest as their main goal in foreign policy. Disbelief in authority of traditional institution (such as the supreme court) paves the way for demagogues to take hold of the public imagination (something which Arendt is particular worried about). When man is deprived of reason, all that is left is the fuel of the passions.
I found myself very much in agreement with the argument Leo Strauss laid out for the necessity of common sense. To the liberal rationalist, common sense is extremely malleable term which therefore doesn't bear close scrutiny. Strauss, however, stressed the importance of a common derived interpretation of reality which no rationality can provide (something more akin to a starting point for rationality). The rationalist attempt to eradicate the passions ultimately leads to tragedy - that is why the emergence and reemergence of nationalism, religious fanaticism and general belief in the meaning of life continues. To use modern terminology: societies that are WEIRD (western educated industrialized rich and democratic) seem to have a hard time understanding any other perspective than the 'enlightened rationalist' one. When we lose our common interest then all we have left is special interest and fraction (which again is great source of disorder). I found strong similarities between this view and the strain of thought within the Austrian school of economics (von mises, Hayek) which emphasizes the fact that rationality is a mere method, not a goal in itself. Rationality is used to achieve goals made by the individuals subjective preferences.
Perhaps what all these thinkers stress is the need for a certain autonomy. There is a tendency for society to streamline thought and get people to conform with a certain way of operating in the world. What is viewed as science and enlightened values provide ready-made ideologies for people to follow. Strauss, Arendt, Morgenthau and Kissinger all viewed thinking as something the individual does (a contributing reason why Kissinger fears AI so much). Thinking is a subversive act (according to Arendt) and can therefore be seen as dangerous by the majority. It is nonetheless important in order to be able to distill clarity amid such fleeting times as our own.
This is the most interesting book I've read this year as it managed to articulate thoughts which until now have been hunches och instinctual reactions to foreign policy....more
What happens to a country after it has undergone a revolution? And what happens if the revolution spreads to several neighboring countries? How is ordWhat happens to a country after it has undergone a revolution? And what happens if the revolution spreads to several neighboring countries? How is order and its institutions to be maintained? Seen from this perspective, the outcomes of the spread of such a revolution seem impossible to predict. Therein lies a great danger.
This was very much what was Prince Klemens von Metternich's (1773-1859) mind; an Austrian diplomat who helped defeat Napoleon and create the "Metternich system" to balance power in Europe, a man who has been viewed as an arch-conservative and therefore an enemy of change everywhere. I first came across his name when reading Kissingers "World order" and his political influence intrigued me. It was hard to find a biography of the man (seems to be largely forgotten except in academic circles) and this book provides a somewhat revisionist account of the life & times of the man. It was an interesting read but nevertheless (as all revisionist literature is) had a tendency to view its subject in too positive a light. Having no other literature to rely on, it was difficult for me to know the veracity of certain statements. Nevertheless it provided new light on a more forgotten chapter of history.
Klemens von Metternich was born into a diplomatic family whose children had served the Habsburg for at least a century. Klemens was allowed to travel with his father on diplomatic excursions to the low countries (which were then a part of the Habsburg empire) where he could see politics in action. The two defining events of his life were the French revolution and the military campaigns of Napoleon. It is clear that Metternich had a lot to lose from the revolution (indeed everything that the family had fought for) and therefore it is easy to understand why from a personal perspective he would be against such a revolution. But there is a much deeper concern here and that is one of stability.
Metternich spent his youth studying law and history. In doing so he became something of a social scientist. "A politician, [Metternichs teacher Koch said], must look at history scientifically, establish its systematic and regular features, and search for casual connections. If we consider his approach form today's perspective, but translate his concepts into modern methodology, then we get a politically minded social scientist, a Max Weber, who looks to history not for norms but for ideal types, in order to capture the complex empirical reality and "to organize it intellectually". (p. 59)
In order to preserve order one first has to understand it as well as understanding the political underpinnings of the vast historical change the world seemed to be undergoing. The French revolution was "not only a political revolution but in its essence a "social" revolution. It wanted to topple the social order and the old law of Europe" (p. 71) Another way to express it is to say that it marked the birth of ideology. Ideology, like religion, was destined to have a stronger appeal to people than that of traditional authority.
Metternichs view of the past was that societies evolved gradually and peacefully by making changes in the constitution. When asked which nationality he would preferred had he not been Austrian he responded English. His thinking was deeply affected by his travels to London where he got to meet Pitt and experience firsthand what it was English parliamentary system was like (he might even have met Burke). My interpretation of the Austrian diplomats views is that they came down to something closer to an idealism tamed by a certain pragmatism. Idealism is the sense that as the enlightenment had provided a framework for understanding society and its development but one needs to be careful when implementing change all too quickly as that may lead to anarchy (or tyranny like in France during the reign of terror). That is also the danger of ideology as it provides an ideal view of society but not necessarily a view of how such a society would work in practice.
Metternich described a teacher (Friedrich Simon) he once knew who had become convinced of the righteousness of the revolution: "In Metternich's eyes, Simon was the prototype of a seemingly soft, commited do-gooder and revolutionary "fundamentalist", in today's parlance, with a propensity to violence. [...] Friedrich Simon was one of those characters who is easily inspired and gets carried away, who ruthlessly sacrifices victims in the name of the high ideals of humankind because the end seems to justify the means" (p. 77) (Simons line of thought might be summarzied with "fiat iustitia pereat mundi", let justice be done, even if the world perishes).
One can't help but feel that Metternich had a sense of responsibility that stretched beyond the constraints of the contemporary world. To quote Yuval Levins book on the debate between Burke and Paine: "Burke sees society as a relationship not just between the living, but also between the living, the dead, and the people of the future. Society exists not to facilitate individual choice but to meet the needs of the people, and to do so, it must draw on the wisdom available to future generations as well, supplemented by lessons learned by the current generation along the way" The connection to history and tradition therefore served as a framework which defined the edges of what was morally permissible. Without that framework one risks the excesses of ideology.
The job of foreign politics can be summarized in this quote: "There are two ways of surveying an area: from a high mountain or from a point on the plane. On my journeys, I made it one of my rules to choose the highest tower in the middle of a city still unknown to me as the destination of my first excursion. Within a few minutes, I knew the city better than my fellow travelers who wanted to become familiar with is in a less arduous manner by walking through the streets. [...] Of this perspective I have never since lost sight" (p. 90)
Given this viewpoint, how should one handle Napoleon and his seemingly insatiable appetite for conquest? One of the key takeaways from this book is the insight that Napoleon essentially exported the revolution countries around the world and therefore made the French revolution a world-wide phenomenon. (One wonders what would've happened had foreign forces managed to invade France before the advent of Napoleon on the world stage). He did this by implementing constitutional changes to all the countries he vanquished as well as replacing the ruling elite with those friendly to France (and more importantly to Napoleon).
There is always a risk in reviewing history as one already knows what will happen but for the contemporaries of Napoleon this was not the case. For the people living in this time it was as much chance that determined the fate of the world. Maybe if Napoleon had been slightly more humble he could've kept his empire (highly unlikely given his zest for power). The Napoleonic wars raged from 1803 to 1815 and shook the foundations of the European order. I was more interested in the general essence of history rather than the details and the author of this book goes to great lengths to provide proof that Metternich was key in defeating Napoleon.
It is from this sense that we arrive at perhaps what Metternich is most famous for: realpolitik. Metternichs diplomacy consisted of long-term strategic planning. In order to defeat Napoleon one needed to have the patience to wait for the exact moment when he was weak enough to attack. This proved difficult as Metternich needed to organize the other powers against its enemy which took much convincing (with repeated failures). After Napoleon was finally defeated at Waterloo Metternich along with the other European powers redrew the map of Europe the stability of which one could say lasted until the outbreak of World War 1.
I found an interesting definition of realpolitik on Wikipedia: Historian John Bew suggests that much of what stands for modern Realpolitik today deviates from the original meaning of the term. Realpolitik emerged in mid-19th century Europe from the collision of the Enlightenment with state formation and power politics. The concept, Bew argues, was an early attempt at answering the conundrum of how to achieve liberal enlightened goals in a world that does not follow liberal enlightened rules.
This view is more closely aligned with the politics pursued by Metternich. He wanted to create an international law in order to hold countries accountable when they threatened the balance of power. A prerequisite of this is however a shared sense of values. This may be easier to do if the lingua franca is french and the political elite of each country has a similar taste in culture. This order tended to be somewhat tenuous and required the finesse of politicians like Metternich and Bismarck in order to work. This order was constantly threatened by nationalism and a certain type of liberalism.
Even though I found the book too long and too much eschewed in Metternichs favor, I was delighted that it provided a history which I had never read before. The Austrian diplomat was not just an arch-conservative but rather a cosmopolitan who put national peace and rationality above national interests of states. The history of the Habsburg is fascinating in itself and something which I regrettably know very little about. I would recommend to anyone interested in the period and who wants to learn more about realpolitik....more
“The use of conservatism is to delay changes until they become harmless”
Lord Salisbury is one of Britain's lesser known prime ministers (which by its“The use of conservatism is to delay changes until they become harmless”
Lord Salisbury is one of Britain's lesser known prime ministers (which by itself might not be such a bad thing). He served as PM for a total of 13 years (although interrupted by Gladstone) beginning in 1885. Eric Midwinter has written this book as part of a series on the PMs of the 20th century and therefore it provides a sort of readers digest version of the late 3rd Marquess of Salisbury's life (and mostly) work. The book manages to present different aspects of Salisbury (despite the fact that it author is clearly left-leaning).
Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil (1830-1903) was born into an old aristocratic family. His great grandfather Robert Cecil advised Elizabeth I and ever since then his family has been involved in politics. He spent 9 years working as an independent journalist before he became an MP and the rest is as they say history… or not.
To better understand Salisbury’s political heritage one should see the importance of two contemporary revolutions: the political and the industrial. 1789 had seen the French revolution which had ended in bloodshed and a large European war. Stability had been achieved by the Vienna conference of 1815 but revolution was still in the air in 1848 when another wave of revolutions spread across Europe. Realpolitik was the attempt to balance super powers against each other was in Kissinger’s words an attempt at a stable world order. Salisbury was very much a part of that diplomatic way of keeping checks and balances in society. He believed that the community of Europe was key to Britain’s safety and therefore shied away from entangling alliances in order to deftly maneuver the political stage.
By using diplomacy he sought to keep stability and sought to avoid war by demonstrating the will to prepare for one ostentatiously. He therefore managed to prolong the peace of 1815 for another 20 years (which ultimately ended in 1914). He was not a keen empire builder but “the flag followed the trade”. It is indeed paradoxical that the man who was to preside over the largest empire in the world was of the opinion that British ‘greatness’ was largely an illusion that could only be preserved by clever diplomacy. Midwinter uses the analogy of the snooker player to explain the Lords skills as a diplomat: having played a diplomatic shot [he] knows exactly where the balls will halt and particularly the white ball, that is to say England.
The industrial revolution (which began in Britain) heralded rapid change, the reverberations of which we are still feeling today. When Salisbury was born more than half of the population lived on the countryside and when he died 77 percent lived in towns; the massive change from people having self-sustaining farms to becoming factory workers and 1880’s saw the first use of the word contraception. How is one supposed to cope with that? One way is to issue rapid social reforms and thereby create new political powers to soothe citizens. Another is to try sustaining the very institutions which form the basis of communal life, that is church and traditional order.
Salisbury was a religious man and believed that Anglicanism was ‘not only a religion but a civic pact with pervious generations’. It also provided a bulwark against class warfare. Religion was a way for people to relate to each other by sharing a common historical identity. Democracy by its very nature focuses on the values of the living whereas for Salisbury (as for Burke) society was a contract between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. Duty and honor are two concepts which seem very important to Lord Salisbury. He “preferred to see himself as a policeman, maybe a stolid village bobby, faced with what he called workers of mischief” (p. 91). This image seems in itself an archetypical English one: one should not interfere with other people’s business unless its absolutely necessary. The policeman should not be seen as some authority figure who commands others to behave in a certain way by force but rather like a zoo keeper who is trying to preserve ecosystems by carefully balancing each part so that the equilibrium is maintained.
The marquess “was a stout contender that men acted always and narrowly out of self-interest” which was one of the reasons he opposed parliamentary suffrage. “He forever anticipated that unalloyed democracy would be a steamroller, demolishing all traditional order.” There was therefore a risk that ‘mere anarchy [would be] loosed upon the world’. People can be charmed by charismatic politicians (Hitler was democratically elected) and because the election runs in cycle one could lose the long term perspective. Salisbury therefore tried to find pragmatic solutions which would keep benefit society both in the long- and short term. One example of this was his ennoblement of successful businessmen which had the effect of maintaining a certain social value to being noble. Perhaps most of all held up the right of the individual: government should not infringe upon the right of contract and “the feebleness of our government is our security” as he himself put it. An effective and powerful government can wreak havoc upon its citizens (and the rest of the world).
Then there is the character of Salisbury; the specifically English character. He seems to epitomize the English being in many ways. When one reads his writing one meets a careful sceptic who often uses waspish humor to say something quite drastic and it is here where his true character shines through (even though “[he] was a man of unremitting reticence in private matters and who regarded the expression of private emotions as being indecent.” (p. 19). The fact that he wrote 1.5 million words from 1864 to 1865 hints at the kind of work ethic which Salisbury evidently had. A world without twitter (nor TV for that matter) allowed for a different kind of politician to emerge: one lacked charisma but instead had the political acumen to avoid the major catastrophes. One who can bide his time and carefully plan his next move.
In hindsight he was correct in predicting the slow death of his cherished order – the divorce rate being extremely high in Europe, the church having lost all influence and the notion of a deeper sense of loyalty to one’s country seeming patently absurd. One wonders if a politician of Salisbury’s caliber would have managed to avoid the first world was (as there were many crises during his reign which were solved by Salisbury keeping cool and sober). Worth noting is that historian Niall Ferguson blames World War 1 on British politicians in his book “The pity of war”.
I will end on a note which seems to summarize Salisbury’s views: “No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts [...] They all require to have strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.” (p. 121) A quote which gently shows an important aspect of what it means to be a conservative. ...more
"No man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of standing in any way, nor will w"No man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." (article 39)
Can I get an amen? These words are among the most famous ever written in English and are a part of that great written famous political document - Magna Carta. Or was it really that great? Was it the liberal ideal which formed the basis for the liberties which Englishmen were to experience later on? Roland Poirier Martinsson is a Swedish writer and doctor of theoretical philosophy who deals mainly with history. This is his account of the Magna Carta and how one of the worlds most famous political documents came to into being.
Martinsson writes with a lucid yet philosophical prose. "I have never believed in history. It is written by the victors - or losers" (p. 92). This essay is Martinssons attempt to come to terms with the myth of Magna Carta and what actually transpired. Magna Carta came as a consequence of the tyranny of the King John and his continued transgressions of the rights of the nobility. After years of tough famines, struggles with the church and heavy taxes a group of barons gathered to declare war on king John (who happens to be the same King which the mythical Robin Hood faught against). After incurring heavy losses king John was forced to try to appease the barons and the Magna Carta was the result of this appeasement. The document was not an intellectual accomplishment in the same league as the declaration of independence (according to Martinsson) as it is centers more on the rights of the nobility, rather than laypeople. It was however one of the first times in history that a people have decided to set down in writing actual rights of citizens. A political emergency as well as several coincidences made this document possible.
Martinsson is also of the opinion that it would not be possible for a group of barons to negotiate with a king had it not been for changes in the political scene of Europe at the time. The old world order was slowly changing (perhaps not always consciously) and the barons did their best to make sure that their quality of life was not subsumed by taxes imposed by king John in order to pay for distant wars. It is because the King wasn't considered holy or a God that this was possible. In other parts of the world this was certainly not possible. What matters is not always the what, how or the why, but rather the consequences of this document. It was rewritten several times after 1215 as later Kings also had to subscribe to those same rights praised in this wonderful document. A myth or a story can therefore become fertile ground for a political discourse which in turn can turn colonies into Countries.
All in all I found it to be a nice and easy read. I always admire the way English fight for their rights and I am quite enthralled by their history. I would recommend this to anyone interested in liberty (the only drawback being that it is in Swedish). I will leave you with this great quote (one that almost make me wanna cry):
"All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men." (article 60)...more
Interesting portrait of the late great finnish General Mannerheim.
Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim was born into a Swedish noble family in Finland in 1867.Interesting portrait of the late great finnish General Mannerheim.
Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim was born into a Swedish noble family in Finland in 1867. His father left his family with his mistress in 1880 which really put the family in financial straits. Mannerheim decided to get into a military academy in Russia and ended up as a lieutenant general in the russo-japanese war.
After the russian revolution Mannerheim returned to Finland and it was at this point that he began his career as a true statesman. Ahlander does a great job in providing the culture shock between Russian and Finland; few people in Finland really understood the russian mentality and this knowledge would greatly help during the winter war, the continuation war and the second world war. Mannerheim basically created the modern day Finnish army out of nothing and thereby helped defend Finland as a sovereign state. If it wouldn't have been for Mannerheim then Finland would have met the same fate as the Baltic nations (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).
Mannerheim valued cosmopolitanism and liberal values at a time when they were questioned on all fronts. He despised Hitler (but had to make a deal with him in order to defend Finland against the Soviet Union) and throughout his life enjoyed the French cuisine. He spoke French, German, Swedish, Russian and a little Finnish. A great many fins questioned his loyalty as his Finnish wasn't perfect and he was seen as a Swede.
Unfortunately his contribution is largely forgotten in Sweden. If Finland would've become satellite state and in that case the risk of Sweden becoming one as well would be greatly expanded. I therefore greatly enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in Finnish history (and who can read Swedish)....more
It is with a certain sadness that I leave this momentous biography of a tory politician, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. It has been a joy to read about thIt is with a certain sadness that I leave this momentous biography of a tory politician, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. It has been a joy to read about the life of this long forgotten victorian titan.
He was the 4th longest serving PM in English history, serving for nearly 14 years at the end of the 19th century. He was chiefly responsible for British non-alignment foreign policy which has been crudely described as 'splendid isolation' from European great power politics.
Salisburys main foreign policy objective was to balance the power between the great nations and thereby preserve the order created by lord Castlereagh, Metternich and Talleyrand at the Congress of Vienna (1815). This order was fragile and required skilfull diplomacy (which Salisbury was a certainly a master of). Had his health been that of Gladstone perhaps WW1 could have been averted (who knows).
The older Salisbury strikes me as someone who has just the right balance between principled libertarianism and pragmatic conservatism. (I will write a longer review once I have let this biography sink in more)....more
As I was reading Charles Murrays book I kept thinking about Jean Twenges book on the differences in values across generations. Murray is a baby boomerAs I was reading Charles Murrays book I kept thinking about Jean Twenges book on the differences in values across generations. Murray is a baby boomer which shows in his writing and his thoughts on how one should comport oneself in the world. His critique of behavior in the work place seems very far from the culture I am used to at my office (things are especially lax after the pandemic). This book was written in 2014 which could perhaps contribute to the advice given sounding more old fashioned.
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate it. Since English is not my mother tongue I can appreciate someone who has guts to make a normative case for how one should write. It's important to try to be precise when writing (although I have to admit that my reviews tend to be more sloppy and hastily written). If mr. Murray were writing this review he for instance try to write every sentence as if it was going to be the last thing he wrote. Don't start writing without knowing what you want to say.
I noticed clear difference in personality between us when noting how Murray seems to value hierarchies (which hopefully is a order based on competence). I have a harder time adjusting to hierarchies, but then again, I suppose this just signals the age gap between us. But entrepreneurs and self-starters tend to want to work for themselves rather than have some boss tell them what to do.
One final thing: I am in complete agreement with the author on the importance of resilience. Too often today we want the fruits of our labor to come to us immediately. Things take longer time and are often more arduous than we initially thought. There will come backlashes and therefore it's important not to give up the first chance one gets. ...more
This book has profoundly shaped my thinking about the world. In its easy-going prose Henry Veatch, a philosophy professor who has taught at Indian andThis book has profoundly shaped my thinking about the world. In its easy-going prose Henry Veatch, a philosophy professor who has taught at Indian and Georgetown University, manages to provide a solid defense of modern day Aristotelian ethics.
The main question to be act is: given the complexities of the modern world, how should one act? Should we see life as meaningless and absurd? I have always regarded this viewpoint as somewhat absurd in itself. If I want to become a theater director then there are obviously better or worse ways to achieve that goal. Even if I am a brain in a vat or a living in a world where I can't access Das-Ding-An-Sich, I would still want to enjoy my experience as much as possible. I would still want to live a good life. Veatchs point is that we all have potential within us (which I interpret as our genes) which can be realized through living a rational life. That doesn't mean it is by any means easy. Life is more of a skill to be learned and as one grows older one sees what preferences one have which thereby makes it easier to make better decisions.
Veatch is bound to be compared to Ayn Rand given the title of the book. Both were inspired by Aristotle and both end up defending similar ideals. Reading Veatch is however more like having a pleasant conversation with an extremely well-read friend rather than facing a tough debate with a person of higher intelligence than your own.
A recommended read for anyone interested in ethics or liberty!...more
Great book which really helped clarify the difference between conservatism and certain strains of the enlightenment. Burkes contention is basically thGreat book which really helped clarify the difference between conservatism and certain strains of the enlightenment. Burkes contention is basically that we do not create society but we are born into it. We should therefore not think that we are smart enough to remake society according to abstract principles. Society is instead a sort of contract between the dead, the living and the unborn. This does not mean that Burke doesnt favor change: he does, but incremental change. (There is an italian saying: chi va piano, va sano; he who walks slowly also walks safely). Paine on the other hand believes that we can create a rational society and that stupidity should not be preserved just because it is old. Every individual is born with the ability to use reason and no one should be able to encroach upon our natural rights. Individuals should be able to do whatever they like provided they do not infringe on the rights of others. Levin does a great job in explaining these ideas and I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of political thought! ...more
A 'gentle' (to use one of Scrutons own favorite phrases) and thoughtful (albeit long-winded) book on what it means to be English. Roger Scruton is perA 'gentle' (to use one of Scrutons own favorite phrases) and thoughtful (albeit long-winded) book on what it means to be English. Roger Scruton is perhaps the worlds most famous conservative philosopher and also quite a good writer. This is his pastoral elegy for that country, which - in his opinion - is gradually losing its very character. This review will focus on the three things I found most interesting - English character, English law (or more like Law) and English government (not with a capital G).
Character. Scrutons main basic thesis is that the English are strangers to one another and that is why their society has managed to be so stable to several centuries. A certain respect for tradition and form while at the same time seeing ceremonies for what they are - norms, nothing more. The English could therefore joke at people who took certain positions too seriously. Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll are examples of authors who used nonsense to ridicule people of power. Thus satire and dissident became an integral part of the culture. How are you supposed to be free if you aren't free to criticize and discuss ideas openly?
Scrutons view is that because the English were strangers to each other and connected together only by various weird corporate identities (like sports) they could remain eccentric. Your home was your castle and one could indeed say that private property is the foundation upon which the English built their culture. The English are eccentric because... well because they can. Because nobody can tell them how to live. "Such eccentricity is not the functionless by-product of leisure, but a crucial ingredient in a free and risk-taking society. [...] For Mill eccentricity was both the expression of freedom and its ultimate guarantee, the character-building force which resists coercion and turns the world to human uses" (p. 53)
In another passage Scruton writes about the English ideal: "If we were to look for an adjective with which to summarize the English as they aspired to be [...] it would be 'gentle' - a word of Latin origin, to which the English gave their own particular and multi-faceted meaning. The gentleman emulated those of 'gentle' birth; and in doing so he became gentle in another sense. In the midst of social failure he retained the ability to deal kindly, distantly and humorously with others, and if he nonetheless insisted on his high social merits, he would only become ridiculous - in other words, not gentle, but mere 'genteel'" (p. 66) Eccentricity doesn't mean that one lives alone and doesn't cooperate with other people. Indeed, Scrutons point is that it is because the English are strangers to each other that they can cooperate more easily. Toleration comes as a consequence of not having to always be intimate with other people; of not having to conform to the exact wishes of the 'clan'.
Law. The English system of law quite unique and is something that the anglo-saxons provided. Basically the rights of contract are central and the norms with which individuals deal with each other are largely regulated by custom (that is to say case law). Lower courts can argue against higher courts because the basis for a law is a continual arguing for the pros and cons of decision making. I found the nature of 'ratio decidendi' to be quite interesting. Lawyers and judges have to provide reasons for their decisions and law can therefore not see as a rules laid down by the Sovereign (as with code napoleon or the corpus juris civilis). What is the just is not always obvious and therefore a lot of factors have to be taken account for. The fact that common law is based on case law and not some grand system makes it irrational, not unreasonable. Tradition develops slowly and over time which allows for corrections over time. Cases are also closer to what individuals actually experience in reality and it is up to the lawmaker to 'uncover' the general principle underlying the just outcome of that case.
Government. The English government is not entirely democratic either but should be viewed as similar to a court. The politicians represent the citizens but are also responsible to the institutions themselves. Society is not something that is only decided by the living but a contract between the dead, the living and the yet unborn (to take the Burkean view). This I found to be an interesting point and one which is rarely voiced in today's politics. I lean more toward direct democracy than Scruton does and therefore I find his case for a politicians loyalty to the system to be... a bit idealistic (even though one naturally prefers political amateurs like lord Salisbury to power hungry politicians which make the daily news). For most of their history, English government was small. It was the job of private enterprise (rather than some official) to fix urgent problems. If you found something to be deeply problematic then the best way to solve it was to take care of it yourself.
I found Scrutons view of the English countryside to be a bit too romantic for my taste and I think I diverged from him on his view of 'duty'. I am siding with Ayn Rand on this one: does duty really exist? The fact that people like to work and live together does not mean that we need to construct an irrational concept like duty. I could be wrong however and I would be open to hearing more arguments for the other side. Perhaps I will find them in the Lord Salisbury biography I am reading at the moment.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in English history and in understanding how a culture gradually develops. It is quite a timely book given how consumed everyone seems to be by the mass culture produced by Netflix and HBO....more
The title of this book is a reference to Ortega y Gassets famous book "the revolt of the masses". For those of you who haven't read it Gassets thesis The title of this book is a reference to Ortega y Gassets famous book "the revolt of the masses". For those of you who haven't read it Gassets thesis was that the 20th century represented a massive rise of the masses of people which resulted in a major cultural change. There were no longer any lofty ideals to be held sacred; instead technology was to serve the common man and help him enjoy the fruits of past generations labor. Laschs contribution is to take this a step further: today the elite has no allegiance to any historical past (such as tradition, loyalty to country etc) and has instead become global. This global political and economic elite cares little about the common man and is instead completely busy pursuing its own self-interest.
I was thinking of political clans like the Clinton or Bush family when I started reading it. Many of the things stated in this book are quite timely. I did find that Lasch got too much into the nitty-gritty details of secondary literature related to (among other things) the state of education in 19th century america and its effects on the minds of today. It would also seem that Laschs definition av democracy is romantic and entails some communal ideal which is all but forgotten today. I am quite annoyed with authors who carelessly use verbicide in order to get their point across.
Another thing which annoyed me was that it always seemed like Lasch was writing a longer editorial on the subject, rather than trying to be more scientific. He is undoubtedly unto something I am just not sure how right he is. Recommended reading for those who have a keen interest in 20th century America....more
Couldn't be bothered to finish it. This is more of a conservative rant about the decline of Britain. Unfortunately Hitchens fails to provide a more phCouldn't be bothered to finish it. This is more of a conservative rant about the decline of Britain. Unfortunately Hitchens fails to provide a more philosophical framework and explain his conservative principles clearly. The book therefore becomes more of an article that has been elongated in order to be published.
I was annoyed at the fact that everything he describes in the book had occurred in all other European countries with large welfare states. There is indeed little that is specifically British about it. If one wants to learn and understand English culture one should instead read Roger Scrutons book on England....more
Loading...
