tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post2525707309091967349..comments2024-03-02T12:39:23.745+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: The family is not a technology, part 2Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-4680661062897658722008-07-19T15:28:00.000+10:002008-07-19T15:28:00.000+10:00I agree that we do unavoidably rely upon tradition...I agree that we do unavoidably rely upon tradition as a source of knowledge. But what counts as knowledge changes from one generation to the next as we learn more about the world in which we live and our place in it. For example, it was once thought that kings ruled by divine right; and in the 18th-19th centuries conservatives such as De Maistre argued this. Nowadays conservatives defend governments based on the principle of the consent of the governed. Perhaps I'm turning apostate, but it seems to me that conservatives are debarred by their ideology from originating new ideas or accepting new knowledge until it has entered the common stock of tradition. Then it becomes a part of their heritage to be defended!<BR/><BR/>Likewise, it's all very well giving the dead a vote in the ideal-conservative assembly, but what if, say, the people have a good, clear and distinct reason to do away with some institution under which their ancestors consented to live? For example the present financial system needs to be adapted from conditions of scarcity which were abolished in the 19th century, towards the prevailing conditions of an age of material plenty. The wage needs to be progressively relaced with an unearned universal income. (I will explain this in greated detail if you like). But traditional wisdom distrusts such radical but overdue reform as "utopian." So what are we to do? Trust our knee-jerk instincts, or think the matter through properly? We must be prepared to credit the notion that, on a whole host of topics, we may indeed know better than out ancestors. <BR/><BR/>I don't intend to defend Descartes' epistemology, chiefly because it's based on a priori assumptions that can't be justified. According to him we can know that God exists because the most perfect being cannnot not exist, as existence is a perfection. Certainly, reason unassisted by empirical investigation can lead us astray; and the definition of knowledge as true, justified belief places too great a burden of proof on the knower to justify his knowledge. Cartesian scepticism is really a form of neurosis which is incapable of extricating itself from the problem of solipsism. But what of it? Kalb attacks not only Descartes but also (1) the foundations of logic and (2) the foundations of the scientific method. That is why I call him an irrationalist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-64980531302739221812008-07-16T20:09:00.000+10:002008-07-16T20:09:00.000+10:00Jal, I don't agree that Jim Kalb is arguing for ir...Jal, I don't agree that Jim Kalb is arguing for irrationalism. Rather, he is trying to draw out the logical implications of the particular understanding of reason adopted in the West in early modern times.<BR/><BR/>The Cartesian rationalists wanted certainty in knowledge. They wanted to generally apply the method found in the natural sciences, in which natural laws could successfully explain and predict events.<BR/><BR/>The idea was therefore to find "clear and distinct" ideas which could be applied to human affairs through the use of individual reason.<BR/><BR/>One consequence of this is that tradition as a source of knowledge was denigrated as unhelpful bigotry or prejudice. Another perhaps is that human affairs had to be considered in more abstract and intellectual terms, i.e. according to abstract theories.<BR/><BR/>The Cartesian method is open to criticism. It seems clear to me that we do unavoidably rely on tradition as a source of knowledge. Many of our most important life decisions occur between the ages of 15 and 25, when we have limited life experience. It helps if we are influenced in the right direction by the culture we live in - i.e. it helps if the knowledge gained by previous generations, the lessons learnt, are made available to us as part of a tradition, rather than every individual having to learn through his own individual experience. Often, by the time we have learnt such lessons it will be too late to make amends.<BR/><BR/>I doubt too that there exist "clear and distinct" ideas that can be applied to human affairs. Human life is too complex. If we think even of only one aspect of life, relations between men and women, there are all kinds of factors at play. We can be motivated by the highest of spiritual impulses or by the strongest of biological imperatives. <BR/><BR/>So to attempt to explain the whole of human life through "clear and distinct" ideas, similar to a natural laws, effectively means radically limiting the scope of our knowledge. It is also likely to lead to an excessively abstract and theoretical approach to understanding human affairs.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-84252933572298932882008-07-14T13:41:00.000+10:002008-07-14T13:41:00.000+10:00Kalb's essay and his definition of scientism are u...Kalb's essay and his definition of scientism are unsatisfactory. The main reason for this is that his definition makes the principle of Ockham's razor, and that of non-contradiction (or identity) constitutive of the view he is attacking. Thus he is really arguing for the right to hold contradictory views and views unsupported by evidence. perhaps it would be better is he defined the view he is attacking as "rationalism," and his own position as "irrationalism," which is what it is. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Kalb's position is essentially religious: he is attempting to make the entities in which he believes as a Catholic (God, the soul, free will, metaphysical evil, etc.) intellectually respectable. If non-religious conservatives adopt his dubious epistemology in defense of whatever absolutes and transcendent values they find it expedient to affirm, they must explain the ontological status of these entities in secular terms. <BR/><BR/>Mark, are you a Platonist? Because you don't seem to be a Christian..?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63048849328257195532008-07-08T03:12:00.000+10:002008-07-08T03:12:00.000+10:00What a work of art this Flynn is. He wants us to ...What a work of art this Flynn is. He wants us to become the equivalent of an ant colony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-68648242897275477872008-07-07T10:44:00.000+10:002008-07-07T10:44:00.000+10:00Thanks for the link to Kalb's .pdf essay. It took ...Thanks for the link to Kalb's .pdf essay. It took me a while to get through it but well worth the effort. <BR/><BR/>I have long felt that scientism is a nefarious and ubiquitous force on its own, but it would not be so powerful in a society with undiminished traditional values. We tend to worship Science without even thinking about it, only wanting and expecting (and getting) more from the technological firmament. To read Kalb eloquently delineating this cardinal source of strength of modern liberalism is both gratifying and bracing.leadpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08957439101293478340noreply@blogger.com