Comments on: Burke, Creeds, Ideology http://larison.org/2007/10/05/burke-creeds-ideology/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:34:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Charles http://larison.org/2007/10/05/burke-creeds-ideology/#comment-7786 Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:21:07 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/10/05/burke-creeds-ideology/#comment-7786 How exactly is the immutable sacredness of human life an abstraction? Does Brooks doubt his own personhood? He wants to save us from "abstract theological orthodoxy" that "slows medical progress," does he? Sounds like something cribbed from the journal of Josef Mengele to me. How exactly is the immutable sacredness of human life an abstraction? Does Brooks doubt his own personhood? He wants to save us from “abstract theological orthodoxy” that “slows medical progress,” does he? Sounds like something cribbed from the journal of Josef Mengele to me.

]]> by: brendon http://larison.org/2007/10/05/burke-creeds-ideology/#comment-7785 Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:49:01 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/10/05/burke-creeds-ideology/#comment-7785 I think that conflating natural law with the abstraction that traditional conservatives rightly mistrust, as Mr. Brooks does, is a nasty bit of equivocation. The abstraction proper to natural law and correct moral reasoning is in no way opposed to observation, rational deliberation and reflection. Indeed it necessarily begins with the observation of concrete actions. Abstraction is what happens when we take the time to reflect on these concrete actions, to compare them with other human actions and to then come to conclusions about human nature and human actions. In contrast, the abstraction that Burke finds so distasteful is the exact opposite. It begins not with the observation of reality, but rather with the construction of a system in thought. The difference between the two is the difference between a mind that tries to understand reality as it is and a mind that tries to reshape reality to conform with the idols it has constructed. I hope that Mr. Brooks was simply confused about these two very different uses of "abstraction" and not trying to pull a fast one so as to get traditional conservatives to abandon strong moral positions that make life difficult for the GOP and Beltway insiders when they attend cocktail parties. I think that conflating natural law with the abstraction that traditional conservatives rightly mistrust, as Mr. Brooks does, is a nasty bit of equivocation. The abstraction proper to natural law and correct moral reasoning is in no way opposed to observation, rational deliberation and reflection. Indeed it necessarily begins with the observation of concrete actions. Abstraction is what happens when we take the time to reflect on these concrete actions, to compare them with other human actions and to then come to conclusions about human nature and human actions.

In contrast, the abstraction that Burke finds so distasteful is the exact opposite. It begins not with the observation of reality, but rather with the construction of a system in thought. The difference between the two is the difference between a mind that tries to understand reality as it is and a mind that tries to reshape reality to conform with the idols it has constructed.

I hope that Mr. Brooks was simply confused about these two very different uses of “abstraction” and not trying to pull a fast one so as to get traditional conservatives to abandon strong moral positions that make life difficult for the GOP and Beltway insiders when they attend cocktail parties.

]]> by: Bob Cheeks http://larison.org/2007/10/05/burke-creeds-ideology/#comment-7782 Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:36:02 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/10/05/burke-creeds-ideology/#comment-7782 Excellent piece! In a letter to Robert Heilman, written in 1955, (The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Selected Correspondence, 1950-84, Univ. of Missouri Press, 2007) Dr. Voegelin wrote, "This kind of (conservative) intellectualism differs from the European insofar as it is solid American evangelism and revivalism transposed into the secular key. It is related to European sophistry, from the enlightenment and conservatism of the 18th century to the Marxism and theologism of our time, through the use of the same ideological symbols, but it does not seriously overstep the condition on which the American Republic was founded-so that the Marxists become New Dealers and the Karl Barths become Reinhold Niebuhrs." Voegelin continues, "-the extra ounce of disgust is perhaps caused by the inevitable disadvantage under which a conservative ideology labors: that it appears to stifle growth by principle, while the liberals at least in appearance want to go ahead. At bottom, of course, both have broken with the reality of existence in the present; neither of them can face the facts of life." Excellent piece!
In a letter to Robert Heilman, written in 1955, (The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Selected Correspondence, 1950-84, Univ. of Missouri Press, 2007) Dr. Voegelin wrote, “This kind of (conservative) intellectualism differs from the European insofar as it is solid American evangelism and revivalism transposed into the secular key. It is related to European sophistry, from the enlightenment and conservatism of the 18th century to the Marxism and theologism of our time, through the use of the same ideological symbols, but it does not seriously overstep the condition on which the American Republic was founded-so that the Marxists become New Dealers and the Karl Barths become Reinhold Niebuhrs.”
Voegelin continues, “-the extra ounce of disgust is perhaps caused by the inevitable disadvantage under which a conservative ideology labors:
that it appears to stifle growth by principle, while the liberals at least in appearance want to go ahead. At bottom, of course, both have broken with the reality of existence in the present; neither of them can face the facts of life.”

]]>