"[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
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a Member of Parliament for North East Somerset whose witty comebacks first drew my attention to him. This book has a somewhat nostaJacob Rees-Mogg is a Member of Parliament for North East Somerset whose witty comebacks first drew my attention to him. This book has a somewhat nostalgic and elegiac tone as mr. Rees-Mogg paints a vivid pictures of 12 famous Victorians (among these are Palmerston, Queen Victoria, Gladstone, Disraeli and sir Robert Peel).
The book is obviously meant for a more general reader and therefore often describes the individuals accomplishments in broad strokes. His intention is to write a plaidoyer so that our picture of this period stops stemming from Lytton Stratcheys 1918 book "Eminent Victorians" (which paints a largely negative portrait of the period). What I found to be most interesting was how British society handled the coming of modernity. How do you ensure stability given the implications of the industrial and the french revolution? You do it by gradually implementing political change and therefore giving society a chance to adapt slowly.
Mr. Rees-Mogg also presents the reader with a few not quite as remembered Victorians such as W. G. Grace, William Sleeman, Albert Dicey, and Augustus Pugin. I found the biograpy of Pugin interesting as it shed some light on how Victorians attempted to retain their religiosity and sense of meaning in the wake of the scientific revolution. Pugin was an architet who redesigned the interior of the palace in Westminister after it burnt down. His work was an attempt to articulate and show the power of God through Gothic architecture. He was a Catholic who seemed to have a deep longing for a simpler time and his churches were his attempt at imbibing his contemporaries with this same longing.
One gets a sense when reading this book of the Victorian values, that is mainly duty, as well as the sense of progress which seemed imbued in these individuals from an early age. There is no problem which cannot be fixed (which the author shows through the story of an bureaucrat (William Sleeman) who brought a gang of vicious criminals (Thugee) working all over India to justice). But duty is in here very closely aligned to personal responsibility and that one should deliver on what one promises.
I would recommend it to anyone interested in knowing more about the period provided one is aware of the downsides of the work - that is to say his generalizations and the panegyric quality of the writing. Other than that I would agree with the historian Andrew Roberts that the book is a "a full-throated, clear-sighted, well-researched and extremely well-written exposition of the Victorians and their values".[7] Well... except for the "extremely well-written" part....more
This book will probably only interest those who are extremely curious about politics of England during the 19th century as it is often focused on specThis book will probably only interest those who are extremely curious about politics of England during the 19th century as it is often focused on specific questions of the day. The editor comments on each of the articles and thereby provides a context for Salisburys writing. Lord Salisbury was a deep and original thinker who managed to hide this fact from the world. His writings show a clear understand of history and what conservatism means in the English context. They focus on the role of parliament in society as well as the role of the church. Salisbury is unique in that he provides the perspective of an insider (his family has been in politics at least since Elisabeths days) who uses utilitarian arguments to provide a firmer ground for traditional values (much Roger Scruton). I have gained a deeper understanding of how the world (and politics) works by studying him. He was a powerful force and managed to stay prime minister for 13 years. I sometimes bring this book out when I am feeling down and want to feel inspired as Salisbury's writing is often very witty. If this sounds interesting then I would recommend reading Andrew Roberts wonderful biography of the man....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
This is the book to read if you are wondering what the current science states on meditation and its effect on the brain. It is also the story of the rThis is the book to read if you are wondering what the current science states on meditation and its effect on the brain. It is also the story of the research around meditation and how it has gradually become more popular among scientist. The book does however attempt to dispel false myths about the wonders of meditation.
I was amazed at how they found out about the default mode network. One would think that the brain is less active when not focusing on a task but this turns out not to be true. The brain wanders easily and is actually more active when we are daydreaming (which is most of the time). Meditation trains the mind to be less active and in doing so lowers the stress hormone (cortisol). Another fact which inspires me to keep meditating is that when the scanned the brain of a man who had been meditating all his life (he was in his 40's at the time) they found that his brain was significantly younger than his actual age. The authors divided test subjects into three categories depending on how long they had meditated. The brain of the long term meditator seemed always to be in the now as one would expect and could therefore more easily focus on one task (like counting your breath). There is so much experience in life we miss because we are not paying attention!
As a seasoned meditator I would warn however against trying to measure how far you've come on the spiritual path by counting hours. This varies a lot depending on the individual and how natural you focus is. It seems, at least for my part, that I have only come a short way given the fact that I have been meditating for 2 years and have attended 6 10-day silent retreats. But, as the authors emphasize, practice is what matters. If you keep practicing, results as bound to come as the Vipassana teacher Goenka says. ...more
Ayn Rands essays are published for the first time in Swedish and what a treat it is to read them. They are organized in five parts: the foundations ofAyn Rands essays are published for the first time in Swedish and what a treat it is to read them. They are organized in five parts: the foundations of philosophy, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and social criticism. The basics of objectivism are summarized in Anne C. Hellers book on Rand as the follows: "metaphysics (that reality is objective and cannot be altered by wishes or emotions), epistemology (that knowledge comes through reason and never though feeling), morality (rational self-interest), politics (individual rights), economics (free-market capitalism), and sex (the erotic response to intellectual values)." (p. 260)
There is so much to say about her worldview. I find it enthralling, riveting and challenging. There is too much to digest so I think I will try to summarize my views on this at a later date. I am still confounded by many questions (for example: how can free will exist given that the nature is objective and uncaused by us? If we are part of the universe then surely our free will is just a perspective that we conscious beings have?). I am very thankful to Timbro for trying to spread her ideas to meandering intellectuals in Sweden. I have managed to understand her much better (even though I think she is her own worst enemy at times).
The one thing that is most clear from reading these essays is that objectivism is about a practical reality, and not really about abstract ideas. Perhaps Rand would respond in the following way regarding the issue of free will: what society do we get if we assume that humans don't have a free will? And what kind of society do we get if we do?...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
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
I've long been interested in freedom of thought but hadn't found anything discussing this issue in depth until this book. I found it through a podcastI've long been interested in freedom of thought but hadn't found anything discussing this issue in depth until this book. I found it through a podcast by the Cato institute and decided to read it. Flemming Rose is the person who commissioned the Muhammed cartoons which ignited a debate over freedom of speech which has been raging ever since. The book follows its author as he tries to understand himself and the values he then ends up defending.
Roses first comes to grips with the importance of free speech during his stay in the soviet union where he is confronted with a dictatorship bent on controlling the thoughts of its citizens. Dissidents protesting this violation of human rights clarify a problem for Rose which he had not been entirely conscious of earlier: external restraints on speech lead citizens to censor themselves. Why is this problematic?
One of the people interview in the book, Salman Rushdie, gives a compelling answer: [...] everyone has a right to tell their own story in any which way they wish. [...] From the moment that you begin to talk about limiting and controlling certain expressions, you step into a world where freedom no longer reigns, and from that moment on, you are only discussing what level of un-freedom you want to accept. You have already accepted the principle of not being free" (p. 5) In other words banning speech is one way of controlling who you are as a person and this leads to intolerance. If one cannot accept that we are all different and therefore have different ways of expressing ourselves, then one cannot tolerate other norms than ones own.
Now to the main event: the cartoons. Rose commissioned the cartoons (in 2005) in order to see how much Danes self-censor themselves (as he had heard that few cartoonist were willing to draw Muhammed). He could not foresee the consequences which these cartoons would have and that it would start a discussion which is still very much alive today. The critics of the cartoons say that one should be able to say whatever one wishes as long as one does not offend anyone and since these cartoons are offensive to muslims they should be banned. This is at least one argument put forward (but this begs the question: Who is to decide what is offensive and what is not?). Another way of solving the problem of free speech is through threats and Rose has received multiple threats since 2005. Should one let violence determine the boundaries of our public discourse?
Rose's book has clarified the issue for me and I agree with the following statement:
"Violence is the antithesis of speech. Through speech, we try to persuade others with the force of our ideas. Violence, on the other hand, terrorizes with the force of arms. It shuts off opposing points of view" (p. 62)
The open society is built on a free discourse and free critique of ideas; if individuals lose this opportunity to think freely they will also lose the ability to understand themselves, to search for truth and to escape the ready-made worldview of totalitarian governments.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in freedom of speech or anyone who wants to understand the cartoon crisis better. ...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
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
Ever get tired of hearing about how the ego and the self? Ever feel like nihilism is spreading like a forest fire? In this collection of essays MachanEver get tired of hearing about how the ego and the self? Ever feel like nihilism is spreading like a forest fire? In this collection of essays Machan attemps to define his own type of individualism which differs quite a bit from the 'rugged individualism' one gets used to hearing about. In one of the best essays Machan critizises Hobbes radical individualism, that is to say the view that our instincts, not our thoughts, dictate what we think of as good. If anyone has ever read anything by Stig Larsson or seen the girl with the dragoon tattoo, you will know exactly the type of individualism Machan is referring to. To put it as succintly as possible, the individual struggles with others to get as much of the pie as possible; often ending in the survival of the strongest.
Machan defends what he calls classical individualism against this other view. Classical individualism can be described briefly as a view of the individual as a capable of rational animal combined with a free will to carry out his or her plans. The key to understanding this individual however is that he or she can only flourish in communities because working together allows individuals to develop together in order to reach their highest potential. Because human beings are rational we also have certain natural rights which cannot be violated and these are the right to (in the words of Locke) "person and property". While the hobbesian view focuses all the attention on the need for the individuals complete autonomy, Machan claims that the individual needs some degree of autonomy (that is to say separateness from others) but working together with others can produce results drastically higher than those we would have accomplished had we worked by ourselves.
In other essays Machans takes time to defend the rationality of man (along with the free will) as this lies at the heart of his political philosophy. Although one can question this stance (and certainly the stance of many economists of the chicago school), Machan states that we need not be conscious of our every choice in order to be rational. The concert pianist is not conscious of how his every finger moves but rather he has practiced so much that he knows which keys the fingers should press. For anyone interested in pursuing this line of thought, I would recommend this book as well as those who look to defend human rights against the relativism of postmodernism. ...more
Good overview of what classical liberalism meant to those who defended it.
Smith describes the group classical as a set of individuals with certain diGood overview of what classical liberalism meant to those who defended it.
Smith describes the group classical as a set of individuals with certain diverging ideas but what united them was their belief in liberty. What divided classical liberals seems to be two different moral schools: on the one side you had the natural rights based approach (John Locke) which defined liberty as something necessary for the public good. On the other hand you had the utilitarians (becoming ever more influential after the french revolution) which offered argued that public policy should be steered toward providing the maximum happiness for the most people. Liberty was seen as a way of providing happiness and therefore was the ultimate goal of public policy. Smith argues that this line of reasoning contains within in itself the seeds to its own destruction. If liberty has no intrinsic value, why not use other policies to make people happy?
Smith writes in a clear and accessible style which allows the reader to easily grasp the issues at hand. His thorough treatment of the issue of liberalism within the confines of political philosophy allows one to understand its origins and ultimately its decline in popularity.
I would've liked Smith to have gone more into another aspect of liberalism - namely the freedom of thought. How diverse do our thinking need to be in order for us to be free? What did Spencer, Locke, Jefferson think about such matters?
The subtitle to this memoir could be: how I learned to stop worrying and slouch toward Bethlehem. This is the intellectual autobiography of an elitistThe subtitle to this memoir could be: how I learned to stop worrying and slouch toward Bethlehem. This is the intellectual autobiography of an elitist who doesn't care about public (or indeed his reader's) opinion. His erudition (classically educated as he was) had made him archaic, superfluous, a remnant from a past decade.
Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945) was an influential libertarian (proto-anarchocapitalist you might say) who inspired Ayn Rand and William F Buckley (among other people). I was therefore keen to read his autobiography (which is more of an intellectual biography if anything else) to read his reflections on the state of world.
There is something Utopian (which oddly enough was the very thing Nock often criticized) to his writing. Maybe Utopian is not the right word but perhaps self-righteousness comes closer to describing the general sense of the text. He is also one of those few (among whom I would count HL Mencken) who seem to be very much against American culture and the idea of progress. Like others gr-reviewers have noted, his premises often stem from the fact that a large majority of people are intellectual inferior and that they will therefore act like animals. This is why democracy is doomed to fail. I found this aspect the most repulsive element of the book and a reason why I almost stopped reading it. He even goes as far as to call them subhuman.
What I found most thrilling about the book were his views on history (as a fan of realpolitik he sees parallels between the modern and the ancient world, something I will have to look into as Kissingers view is that realpolitik was born in 1648) as well as his wonderful language. The books general tone is one of uncaring elitism (which is both positive and negative) and is full of references to literature and philosophy from all eras. At these points reading the memoir was like having an intelligent conversation with an erudite friend. Alas this all too often paved way for a monotonous rant (which fought hard to retain my attention).
I would like to find a more sympathetic and cogent description of the philosophy which he tries to outline in the book. The following quote seems to parallell the work of Friedrich Hayek: "I grew up in the conviction that in a truly civilized society the sanctions of taste and manner would have a compelling force at least equal to those of law, religion and morals" (p. 18) However as modernity paves way for collectivism "(men) and events were taken, as they now are, as phenomena virtually isolated, virtually improvised, with nothing behind them but their immediate exciting cause." There is a very strong sense of Kultur in the book as he describes the differences between French, English and American culture. Losing this sense of identity brings about doom as the basic fabric of our mutual understanding seems to be ruptured and therefore we slouch towards our more basic instincts.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in libertarian thought during the late 19th and early 20th century....more
Even though Mises can be a bit long winded at times his defense of the free market and the need to liberalism is a refreshing read. Mises basic argumeEven though Mises can be a bit long winded at times his defense of the free market and the need to liberalism is a refreshing read. Mises basic argument is that only liberalism can provide continual material growth, peace and prosperity to mankind. Private property creates an opportunity for the division of labor which is a prerequisite for higher standards of living. Through private property - money - the entrepreneurs can calculate their losses and gains from their enterprises. A socialist system cannot as it lacks money and therefore agents cannot rationally calculate losses and gains. Like the classical liberals Cobden and Bastiat, Mises defines the role of the state consisting entirely in "guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty and private property against violent attacks".
Unlike anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe, Mises defense of the free market is based on a utilitarian ethics. Provided that all man wish for prosperity, liberalism is the only alternative which will succeed in the long run. Some critics (like Rothbard) ask the following question. sure, but what if we don't favor prosperity? We might be religious fundamentalists who favor the survival of a certain creed over the advantages of a material lifestyle. We also might be factory workers who want higher wages. Mises can no more guarantee the survival of a creed in the capitalist world as we can guarantee the the rise of workers wages. [Historically is has been a fact that workers wages have risen over time, but one can imagine a situation where the local company can't keep up with the international competition: the worker will then be forced to look for work elsewhere.]
Mises critique of the party system is quite interesting. I especially liked the following quotation: "The parties of special interest, which see nothing more in politics than the securing of privileges and prerogatives for their own groups, not only make the parliamentary system impossible; they rupture the unity of the state and society" This description of party politics can be compared with view which economists of the public choice have. Their reasoning runs along the following lines: given that man is essentially selfish, how can we create a public system which protects individuals and provides long term security? Mises answer to that question was to write an apologia for classical liberalism and to believe firmly that rational men will accept his arguments. ...more
Loading...
