Wednesday, November 27, 2024

Zubia on Hume and liberalism

“Hume’s Trojan Horse,” my review of Aaron Alexander Zubia’s new book The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination, appears in the Fall 2024 issue of the Claremont Review of Books.

Posted by at

27 comments:

  1. BrandonNovember 27, 2024 at 4:10 PM

    That was an interesting review. Hume's reputation as a conservative goes back to his own day, and took him also by surprise, but I think he diagnosed the reason correctly in a letter to Dr. Clephane:

    "With regard to politics and the character of princes and great men, I think I am very moderate. My views of things are more conformable to Whig principles; my representations of persons to Tory prejudices. Nothing can so much prove that men commonly regard more persons than things, as to find that I am commonly numbered among the Tories."

    Thus he defends the Glorious Revolution but (as he put it) "shed a generous tear" at the fate of Charles I. More broadly, I think what gives Hume's a conservative-ish feel is that when it comes to ethics he's a virtue ethicist. His virtue ethics is a somewhat stripped-down version of Cicero based on moral sentiment and social convention rather than reason, but structurally it's very recognizably a virtue ethics, in a period in which very few people are virtue ethicists. Thus when he talks specifically about people, he starts sounding like a modernized Cicero, and you can find connections, or at least analogies, to rather traditional political views; it's at the level of general principles that we start seeing the contractarianism, etc., and (as you and Zubia note) it becomes clear that he's definitely a political liberal, even if his loose Ciceronian focus on character leads him to make more concessions in a conservative direction than can usually be found.

    ReplyDelete
  2. TalmidNovember 27, 2024 at 8:32 PM

    Fascinant piece. A certain regular poster on the subject of conservatism likely would not find much to disagree with it.

    While the early modern thinkers were not necessarily all radical revolutionaries, there truly is the case that it was with them that the classical order that still existed at their time and traditional western philosophy and religion were already past to they. What to do exactly or if they could even deduce what to do were open questions, but everyone agreed that what they had back them needed to go.

    We are on a very diferent situation that what Hume had, but we still need to have a bit of caution to not mix totally diferent worldviews just because of similar adversaries.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CosmicCatNovember 27, 2024 at 8:33 PM

    Hume wrote an interesting reflection on democracy vs. monarchy. I don't remember the exact citation but this piece on the Internet Encyclopedia on Philosophy.

    As for Hume’s informal essays on popular political controversies, several of these involve party disputes between the politically conservative Tory party that supported a strong monarchy, and the politically liberal Whig party which supported a constitutional government. Two consistent themes emerge in these essays. First, in securing peace, a monarchy with strong authority is probably better than a pure republic. Hume sides with the Tories because of their traditional support of the monarchy. Except in extreme cases, he opposes the Lockean argument offered by Whigs that justifies overthrowing political authorities when those authorities fail to protect the rights of the people. Hume notes, though, that monarchies and republics each have their strong points. Monarchies encourage the arts, and republics encourage science and trade. Hume also appreciates the mixed form of government within Great Britain, which fosters liberty of the press. The second theme in Hume’s political essays is that revolutions and civil wars principally arise from zealousness within party factions. Political moderation, he argues, is the best antidote to potentially ruinous party conflict.

    There's a very cheeky remark between the lines of Hume's bolded endorsement. Art, in Hume's value system, is timeless and original sin, so when he said that monarchy is best for the flourishing of the arts, he said that monarchy is for total hipsters who own the original position vinyl shop. It's too authentic for you; you probably haven't heard of it. Wouldn't expect that from you.

    By saying in the next sentence that science and trade thrive under democracy, he spoke in favor of it because it's the only sane government possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael FNovember 28, 2024 at 4:58 PM

      The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. To have a democracy, we must abolish the electoral college.

      Delete
    2. ficino4mlNovember 29, 2024 at 5:37 AM

      Re: "The second theme in Hume’s political essays is that revolutions and civil wars principally arise from zealousness within party factions."

      One might define "revolution" and "civil war" in a way that would tend to exclude other kinds of strife within a polity. How do republics compare with monarchies in fostering internal tranquility when one considers monarchies' tendencies toward wars of succession? Off the top of my head I am also wondering whether monarchies are more likely to attempt conquest by war than are republics. I'll make bold to add "dictatorships" to "monarchies," though of course the two are not ordered identically. Foreign wars that turn into disasters can provide the foment for revolution.

      Delete
    3. TonyNovember 29, 2024 at 12:27 PM

      The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. To have a democracy, we must abolish the electoral college.

      The founders of the US expressly intended to set up a republic with some features democratically formed, and others not. Those elected to the House of Representatives are democratically decided...except that the age restriction is an undemocratic feature of that democratic body. Senators are elected democratically, but the feature of having 2 from each state (instead of a # by population) is an undemocratic aspect. By design, we have a republic, but it is a democratic republic, where "democratic" is not an absolute modifier, but a relative one.

      Just to note: nobody ever established an absolutely pure democracy, e.g. where toddlers and children had an equal voice, and where ALL governmental actions were decided by vote. It's not clear that it would be even notionally possible.

      Delete
    4. CosmicCatNovember 29, 2024 at 1:21 PM

      @Michael F.

      All presidential republics are monarchical democracies. All crowned republics are democratic monarchies.

      For some reason, there exists a spiritual principle that authorizes parliamentary democracies to require some sort of symbolic head of state. The parliamentary crowned republic of Sweden (which looks like a penis) has a king, and the parliamentary republic of Israel has a president who has absolutely no political power.

      The U.S.S.R. was the first and only republic that functioned like a pure parliamentary republic, without any sort of symbolic king or president, and it was both a communist and an atheist republic. ⚛️

      Delete
    5. TonyNovember 30, 2024 at 7:51 AM

      The U.S.S.R. was the first and only republic that functioned like a pure parliamentary republic, without any sort of symbolic king or president,

      Interestingly put. How would you square this characterization with the actual methods by which first Lenin, then Stalin, and then Bruszhnev, etc took the reins of the Politburo, (i.e. the behind-the-scenes murders, extortion, etc). And the fact that at least within extremely loose boundaries, at the height of their power Lenin and Stalin were more absolute monarchs than even Louis XIV. (The extremely loose boundaries: it is probable that if Stalin had announced to the entirety of the Politburo at the same time that they were all to go home, slice the throats of all their families and friends and then kill themselves, they would have rebelled. But short of an order to that extreme, his will was law.)

      Delete
    6. CosmicCatNovember 30, 2024 at 9:10 PM

      @Tony

      Keep in mind that I am not a historian of Russia, the U.S.S.R., or 20th century history.

      As far as I can philosophize, the U.S.S.R. by design did not have a head of state. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was the highest power of the land. A pure parliament, with no symbolic head of state (x ∈ {king, czar, presdient}), with the poliburo functioning as something analogous to the U.S. Department of the Interior and Homeland Security combined.

      However, the General Secretary of the Central Committee often took the reins of the operation, which is the office Lenin, Stalin, and Brezhnev filled.

      Delete
  4. NormNovember 28, 2024 at 12:40 PM

    I suppose, this is a more appropriate place for a previous comment of mine,

    Two Classical Natural Law Theorists,

    Prof and Dr Michael Pakaluk , two different philosophical approaches to politics and how it relates to bringing about a society that ultimately conforms to the natural law on fundamental issues such as protecting innocent life and preserving the institution of marriage.

    On one hand, Prof has approvingly shared, Patrick Deneen's "post liberal" analysis of the election that he gave to a German Publication and remarks in this article emphasising that the state officially aid the Church in its mission.

    On the other hand Professor Pakaluk wrote on twitter

    "Ignore all explanations using the words “post liberalism” and “neoliberalism” because they will give you a false diagnosis and false solutions."

    https://x.com/MichaelPakaluk/status/1855721067316461832#m

    How to make sense of it ?

    Personally I am sympathetic to a lot of aspects of Prof Feser's writings on post liberalism , infact 99 % of it and I always look forward to his articles.

    The only thing I cannot abide by, is using state power to suppress the spread and influence of other faiths. If Prof can convince me that Integralism does not entail that, I will gladly become a "post liberal integralist". But one cannot be a consistent Integralist and at the same time say that all faiths are free to compete with each other on the same footing, to convince and bring others into their fold.

    Or one could grant that non christian states have the right to act in the same way towards Christianity but ofcourse no Integralist would grant that and shouldn't grant it. Countries like the UAE are very tolerant of public worship and even celebrations of all the major faiths, the only thing they restrict by law is attempting to convert Muslims. Objecting to this law on grounds that Islam isn't True doesn't seem to serve any practical purpose besides justifying one's own chaotic suppression of other faiths. And as I said above that is legitimate in principle.

    But it is as good as defending the practice of indentured servitude in principle . A worthy excercise of intellectual capacity but not implementable at all.

    Allowing for a wide range of disagreement and freedom to convince other people, from Atheism to Hinduism to Islam to Catholicism is the right way forward. A way that recognises that even though such methods have a legitimacy in principle

    Integralism is legitimate in principle but will in most circumstances if not all lead to chaos in practice. Ofcourse we have Truth on our side but that has to be balanced with the very real possibility of disagreement. We exist in a fallen world, to not recognise that itself would be an act of grave imprudence, domestic and even away from home.

    How could we ever look at our missionary brothers in the eye as they beg for the right to share the joy of Christ in states hostile to missionary work, when Catholics themselves are engaged in the same visible acts.
    Expecting ones brothers and sisters in Christ to endure persecution that results from the direct consequences of such actions, seems unnecessary. Especially when there might have been other ways. Wouldn't we all best served by trying chart a more peaceful way forward. Saintly Popes lile John Paul II amd Pope Benedict XVI recognised this fact.

    And this doesn't even begin to cover the very deep Protestant Catholic divides. Years of having made common cause on certain societal issues may have soothed the relationship but one wonders if those issues were no longer relevant if such a truce could last because the differences are very significant and have been the cause for violence before. Would protestants realistically pledge allegiance to a state that facilitates the intercession of saints especially of Our Lady. Can the Church downplay what constitutes an integral aspect of its devotion. Would that be an integralism worth having?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousNovember 29, 2024 at 3:55 PM

      The interview was in LeFigaro, a French publication.

      Delete
  5. NormNovember 28, 2024 at 12:41 PM

    Having read and listened to the witnesses of catholic priests who live in circumstances where the authorities concerned don't mind people practicing their faith but are very hostile to people sharing that Catholic faith, trying to convince or have arguments or discussion. It's heartbreaking to someone like me who enjoys discussion and should be heart breaking to anyone who cares about the rational give and take of arguments.

    It will start with "You cannot go door to door, convincing people of your faith, you cannot publically share those ideas in public spaces, any attempt to convert a catholic person will be met with strict penalties. ".

    But then the authorities will notice that people also get converted through noticing the witness or expressions of faith and worship if the mere attempt to ban conversions itself doesn't evoke curiosity in people. This could lead to banning all public expressions of faith ,mosques, hindu temples etc.

    Other faiths will be something that can only be practiced in the privacy of your home, dare one attempts to convert one's neighbours, he shall face the consequences.

    Trust me, it's not pleasant to be the "other faith".

    One need not look further then the persecution of innocent Hindus in the Muslim dominated Bangladesh. Their temples are being destroyed, they are being forced out of govt jobs, and just being targeted in general.

    I will stand side by side with Prof Feser in condemning and fighting against abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and all these societal ills.

    But I will not contribute to sowing the seeds for religious persecution of innocent people. I don't see the point of emphasizing it unless it is to make an academic point of principle. Practically I don't think much will change in the way of integralism until the second coming. But I think there's a lot of hope for change in other foundational moral issues of our time.

    I'll end with this quote by Dr Michael Pakaluk

    "Christians have always believed that in a free society, with religious toleration and dialogue, Christianity will flourish, precisely because it is the true religion.

    Suppose I wanted to say, quite correctly, that religion is not a matter of emotion but of a search for the truth, then I might very well say, if I were speaking in a simple way, that religion itself in any form is a search for truth. Or, since it is a search for truth about God, it is a search for God. Or, since there is one God and one truth about God, it is the search for the same God.

    These would be very appropriate things to say to children, to present to them the ideal of a society of religious freedom, and the basis for such a society in the search for fundamental truth."

    https://twitter.com/MichaelPakaluk/status/1835307630610243834#m

    All this is said with due respect to Prof Feser to whom I deeply respect and admire.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyNovember 29, 2024 at 12:51 PM

      The only thing I cannot abide by, is using state power to suppress the spread and influence of other faiths...

      The question about this issue and any form of integralism is this: is it even possible for a Catholic to hold the above and still affirm all those things taught by the Catholic Church with firm insistence for hundreds of years about how states should act with regard to religions? Dignitatis Humanae from Vatican II, which taught a version of religious liberty, expressly stated that its teaching about such was consistent with past doctrine:

      Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

      If someone has analyzed DH's religious liberty teaching to show that using state power to suppress the spread and influence of other faiths is inherently wrong, AND show that this is in conformity with prior doctrine, I have not yet seen it, and such would be an innovative development worthy of proclaiming loudly. The rad trads of SSPX (and other groups as well) are convinced that no reconciliation is possible - to the detriment of the formulation in DH. The modern liberals in the Church are convinced that no reconciliation is possible - to the detriment of the doctrine taught up to Pius XII. Do you suggest that Pakulak has managed to square that (apparent) circle?

      Delete
    2. NormNovember 29, 2024 at 9:31 PM

      Tony

      Those are questions well worth considering.

      I would just add that my considerations are more practical then doctrinal.

      I am willing to grant that it's licit in principle.

      Although I think it's possible to debate if those implementations of it were prudent even at the time.

      I think the excesses of the inquisition weigh heavily in favour of the fact that it was not prudent even at the time.

      Delete
    3. TonyNovember 30, 2024 at 8:21 AM

      Norm, I propose to you the following scenario, which would be of a kind of integralist society: assume that the state is being formed (from scratch) 100% by Catholics. Assume that they write into the constitution the following: (1) that the state is formally a Catholic state and is expected to promote but not require Catholic belief; (2) everybody, upon reaching the age of majority, will either take an oath that they are believing Catholics and will defend the constitution, or will be considered a temporary resident and will be required to depart within 2 years, while accepting "visitor" constraints on their public acts until they depart; (3) all visitors from outside the state are required to accept that any beliefs or practices they hold in disagreement with Catholicism are only tolerated to the extent that they do not constitute a detriment to the Catholic practice and faith of citizens, and to the extent they do constitute a detriment, to that extent they are in violation of their visitor status and may be forced to leave (this includes their children). By such, all non-Catholics are per se not citizens, and are allowed to be there only by their voluntarily-given consent to constraints on their behavior.

      You are right that non-Catholics, e.g various Protestants, would feel that they have a right and even a duty to proselytize the Catholics in this state. Let's grant that this is what they believe. But that doesn't mean they DO IN FACT have a right and duty to do so. The Catholic Church taught quite clearly that they cannot really have a duty to preach something contrary to Catholicism, in spite of their perceptions.

      This was based on the fact (also taught by the Church) that even though there is not a definitive, scientific proof that God established the Catholic Church as the one true Church, and the Catholic faith as the one true faith (i.e. the act of belief remains taking a step beyond what can be proven as scientific or philosophical fact), still it is true that other religions have false tenets, and that usually at least SOME of their false tenets can be proven wrong by strict methods. And this can never be said of the Catholic faith. Therefore, even while civil law should treat parties equally where they are similarly situated, other religions are not in fact similarly situated in all respects, and the state can, under natural law, demote religious practices that can be known with certainty to be false (and therefore demote religions that hold such as part of their teachings, as being known to the state (as a civil authority) as false religions). Child sacrifice being an obvious example, but likewise other practices incompatible with the natural law as properly knowable, e.g. divorce.

      Delete
    4. NormNovember 30, 2024 at 2:16 PM

      Tony

      As I said before, whatever you said is licit in principle.

      I just don't think that it will ever be practically viable.

      Also again, speaking from a practical point of view, I think it would be better if the Church allowed for a more robust conception of religious freedom.

      Part of the Church's mission is to evangelise throughout the world.

      That mission is best served in part by Non Christian States or States with a non christian majority allowing catholics to evangelise.

      If I remember correctly, your response to this was sort of in the mould of Catholics should approach the authorities, engage with them and accordingly the authorities ought to see that there is merit in permitting Catholicism to evangelise.

      But the thing is that, that's just not how the world works. To be sure, I am not saying that it is correct or that it is a good thing, I am just saying that's how it is.

      Authorities are more likely to act on passion and seeing their own be treated by Integralist govts in such a way will likely lead them to impose similar rules on catholics in their state.

      Ofcourse it would be great if we could just convince them of the truth of Catholicism but it isn't realistic.

      In fact, the kind of rules you described is how most ancient societies operated. Lots of guardrails to protect the state customs and traditions.

      Ultimately, it just became clear that the (noble )desire to suppress other faiths and it's influence has an accidental tendency to devolve into outright controlling and violent instincts which in turn may spark internal revolutions or riots. It may also prompt external retaliation towards members of the Integralist community in other states.

      Now you might reply authorities of those other states aren't acting morally so the Integralist states aren't to blame for it. You might just shrug and say "Oh well I guess Catholics in those other states are called to be martyrs."

      But I think that would be too simplistic and ignores the Church's Universal Mission to evangelise all peoples. I think taking this into account, the Church could reasonably determine that "practicing" Integralism in this day and age hinders that mission even though it might be licit in principle.

      It might reasonably take into account the safety and well being of Catholics in non Integralist states and give their duty to evangelise a higher priority thereby avoiding support for any integralism.

      Indeed the primary blame, if a child happens to leave the faith lies with his nurturing and parents in a ,shall we say, wanna be Integralist state that is already evangelised, not with the influx or presence of other faiths.

      Even if it were the result of those external influences, one might reasonably determine that it would be extremely difficult to cut off external influences given the advances in technology. As such hielding the people might only give rise to an even more susceptible public. As such the Church might come to the practical conclusion that in a free society, with religious toleration and dialogue, Christianity will flourish, precisely because it is the true religion.

      This approach would not only produce a more resilient public but will also provide a model for external states.

      I don't think any of the problems that exist in the USA today have anything to do with letting others faiths spread.

      It has more to do with nurturing and parenting.

      I don't think religious freedom is a right but I do see it as the better approach.

      I also think that it's hard to see how Integralism can even get of the ground given the Protestant Catholic divide. Indeed, I don't think it will ever get of the ground given the circumstances.







      Delete
    5. CosmicCatNovember 30, 2024 at 6:04 PM

      @Tony

      That is deep. Thank you.

      Delete
    6. TonyDecember 1, 2024 at 7:46 PM

      But the thing is that, that's just not how the world works. To be sure, I am not saying that it is correct or that it is a good thing, I am just saying that's how it is.

      Although we can expect some non-Christian states to react with strongly negative responses when Christians want to evangelize, there are explicit examples where this was tried and worked: the saintly missionary convinced the king or prince or chieftain either that Christianity was true, or that he should let the Christians try. And in other cases, the authorities simply didn't care if Christians were trying to evangelize. So, it's not like ALL non-Christian societies would be closed to missionaries.

      I agree that for practical purposes, in many places the Catholic Church will make more headway if there is a general openness to the various religions being able to evangelize. And so, for practical purposes, we ought to develop a strong working framework for this scenario. But at the same time: (1) we are not obliged to apply the same standards in every country, when the standards used are grounded in practical determinations about this particular society. Just because religious pluralism worked out rather well for American Catholics (at least after 1860 until, say, about the 1990s) doesn't mean it is the best model for every country - that's what "for practical purposes" implies. Maybe in other situations that aren't pluralistic already, conversion en masse through first converting the leaders IS the best practical approach that will have the most fruitful effects.

      And (2) it is still worthwhile, even while we elaborate a strong practical model of pluralism enabling Catholic progress in evangelization, to keep in mind the underlying principles and the theoretical best (setting aside practical constraints of these or those conditions) - e.g. if a confessional Catholic state is theoretically the best in principle (when conditions allow for it) - because the theoretical best should help inform us as to the best practical forms of pluralism we should aim toward where we have doubts about particulars, and where we have opportunity to mold the discussion. (As, for example, the Catholic teaching on just war has strongly molded public discussion of and actual decision-making in recent wars, even though none of the potential belligerents were confessional Catholic states, due to Catholics developing a robust understanding of the underlying natural law principles that could be argued without arguing religion.) So, for example, we might need to argue in favor of some broad form of pluralism that allows a wide playing field, while also arguing that the playing field should not be infinitely wide, that witchcraft and Satanism should be proscribed by even a pluralistic non-confessional state, and that position might be informed by developing a robust understanding of the best kind of state and the manner and modes by which we accept lesser conditions.

      Delete
    7. TonyDecember 1, 2024 at 10:08 PM

      The underlying metaphysical principle is that truth and error are NOT "similarly situated": the evidence in favor of truth can objectively overpower contrary arguments for error, i.e. including when the decider (e.g. civil authority) is not basing his decision on faith. And once the evidence is clear and definitive, it is no longer reasonable to withhold judgment, so neither an individual person nor a whole society should operate as if all questions must remain permanently open to debate.

      Furthermore, while pluralistic society that allows (nearly) all men free rein to market their ideas often does have many advantages for Catholic practice and faith, it must be recognized that it holds some detriments as well. Just for example, during the 1st century of the Protestant movement, it was sometimes the case that Protestant heresiarchs urged their views by, in part, mis-representing what Catholicism taught. (That's still true, but at this late date there is more reason for Protestants to do so without malice or gross negligence, because they have been taught these errors all their lives - which was not true for first generation Protestants.) Princes allowing "free play" to various claimants were - at least sometimes - doing a disservice on purely civil grounds by not enforcing better respect for the principles of honest argument. Also, a matter of "allowing a fair discussion" to those entering into adulthood and now (theoretically) able to judge on their own ignores the common benighted human condition of original sin along with 20+ years of actual sin clouding the mind, which makes for a mental field very resistant perfectly sound arguments that pose an uncomfortable conclusion - the human mind is not usually a level playing field, even if politics doesn't create the bias.

      In any case, precisely because truth and error are not similar, it should not be assumed that a civil society CAN be perfectly neutral between many opposing theories of life, the universe, and everything. The modern assumption that government ought to be so neutral (and therefore it must be possible) is a corollary built largely on the backs of modern philosophical systems like those of Descartes, Locke, and Hume, and we should not be over-ready to credit the corollary as sound. Every political society will either have some idea(s) of the end goal of such society, or that society must (eventually) plunge into disarray and dissolve. And if they have such end(s), it is impossible for that society to treat pursuing those ends as neutral when compared to contradictory ends. In the concrete, (with our country having gotten discernibly less religious with every passing decade since 1900), we are unable to prove that modeling society as if it ought to be religiously "free" without any limits or boundaries can persist without devolving into a system pursuing as its end freedom from religion, which is the current (quasi) religion of the elites, under which they are quite clearly oppressing religious people.

      All in all, while Catholicism grew in the US from 1850 to 1990, nearly all of that growth was from immigration from Catholic countries and those immigrants raising large families. Any growth by converting adults is vastly outweighed by the loss of faith of teens and young adults by reason of secular decadence and anti-religious cultural influences. If most Catholics are on the road to Hell through loss of faith and sexual license, it is not clear how to measure the advantages of a politically notional "freedom of religion" against the existing pressure toward freedom from religion that took root in the milieu of pluralism.

      Delete
  6. AnonymousNovember 29, 2024 at 12:05 PM

    Ed, Happy Thanksgiving.
    I have posted here for many years.
    I read your X about Augustine and his comment about taking one's own life. I have struggled with that for many years. I am comforted though by what the Catechism says about "salutatary repentance. ' Section 2383. Augustine is too harsh, and not just about that issue. Pray for me , but I am not sure what good prayer does. I will say I have had many people, including some fine Dominican friars, pray for me. I am 73. Tired of living. My mom passed three years ago. I wish I were with her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael CopasNovember 30, 2024 at 3:48 AM

      Dear Sir,

      Happy Thanksgiving to you. May God give you strength in your challenges and may he give you hope and peace. These gifts are also linked to faith and trusting that He is near and that He is merciful.

      There is a wonderful treatment of despair by Steven Jensen that might help with a deeper understanding of it. The book that contains this treatment is Sin: A Thomistic Psychology by Steven J. Jensen. I recently heard Jensen speak and he was clear, profound, and humble. I hope it might provide some insight into despair and provide some means of combatting it.

      I hope you continue to comment here and that the company here and the writings of our host are a source of encouragement.

      Delete
    2. NormNovember 30, 2024 at 2:17 PM

      Dr Steven Jensen is a great thomist. Delighted to see him be mentioned.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 1, 2024 at 2:40 PM

      I appreciate the reply. I am a she. I have a B.A. in philosophy from Providence College back when the dept was staffed by Dominicans. I have a M.A. in theology from St. Louis University back when the dept was staffed by Jesuits. I have a large library of phil and theo books. I live near a large university and I try to stay current with the literature. I don't think people come to God through philosophical reasoning. It's more complicated. But I wish you well.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousDecember 2, 2024 at 12:18 PM

      I see that Dr. Jensen teaches at U of St Thomas in Houston,TX. Dr Christopher Martin, whom Dr Feser has referenced occasionally, taught there for many years and recently retired. I emailed him a few times and he graciously replied. He is brilliant, kind and funny. He speaks well of Dr Feser. This is about Dr Martin and his retirement. But he won't really retire. And like a good Scotsman, he is wearing his kilts.
      https://news.stthom.edu/tenured-kilt-wearing-philosophy-professor-dr-christopher-martin-retires/

      Delete
  7. TonyNovember 29, 2024 at 1:03 PM

    I am shocked that Hume is considered "conservative" in any circles, given how radical his views on knowledge and religion in general affect political ordering. From what Prof Feser (and Zubia) indicate, it should be clear that any so-called conservative aspect of Hume's theory is purely superficial. Given that, it is perhaps totally normal that Hume might be talked about as conservative, as (a) liberals are generally superficial about what conservatism really is; and (b) even many who mostly lean away from liberal tracks tend to lean into only partial or limited reasons for conservatism, not realizing that there are profound ones based on human nature and natural law.

    About Hume's foundational skepticism: it strikes me that although his philosophical model helped (massively) give rise to the skepticism of the modern universities, at the same time most scientists (who are strongly skeptical regarding immaterial things like religion and philosophy) are NOT skeptics about physical science being able to definitively DISprove false theories. I am sure they are almost universally unaware of their own lack of consistency in imbibing Hume's skepticism on some matters but rejecting it on others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Miguel CervantesNovember 30, 2024 at 8:01 PM

    This is an interesting article. There certainly are so many connections between Conservatism and the "anti-rationalist" Enlightenment represented in figures like Hume.

    Burke shared 100% Hume's rejection of rational proofs of God arising from nature. He also shared Hume's scepticism, and the view that society's legitimacy arises from itself, not from conformity to "abstract" universal principles from beyond itself. Burke merely made society's absolute, final instance, character more extreme by divinising it, a vicious circle allowing society no appeal to anything beyond itself; Burke's God did not speak. Burke's scepticism allowed no rationally certain principles like natural law.

    Burke was more in favour of religious establishment, of course, but this was not in view of the soul's immortality (something Burke did not comment on, asserting a human right to be "consoled in death" by the ministry of religion - which can mean all kinds of things). For Burke, religious establishment was desirable to "consecrate" civil society; to make it more absolute and more able to obtain the secular ends that were his one concern. Religious beliefs could be modified by society through Parliament. Burke differs from Hume, but not in a way likely to console orthodox Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousDecember 1, 2024 at 2:38 PM

    WCB

    While Hume and Burke at all are well known, there are other persons well worth mentioning that are politically important to today's world. For example John Lilburne. Lilburne who lived during England's civil wars was one of the first to explicitly claim we are born with natural rights, that basic rights were not privileges given by kings or churches. Lilburn spent lot of time in prison for his efforts. Despite that Lilburneb became possibly the most popular man in England. Over time these views have won out in much of the Western civilizations. Goggle Wikipedia for more.

    WCB

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)