Wednesday, April 26, 2017
DAVID BROOKS THE CRISIS OF WESTERN CIV ARTICLE APRIL 21
Why not just go almost line by line?
His first few lines, Will and Ariel Durant...
I read parts of it when a kid. This is a classic of the Whig Interpretation of History, which I have discussed recently here, the theory of confident and progressive Western history which Brooks likes, and which he laments is dying in America and elsewhere in the West. More on that issue later.
I read parts of it when a kid. This is a classic of the Whig Interpretation of History, which I have discussed recently here, the theory of confident and progressive Western history which Brooks likes, and which he laments is dying in America and elsewhere in the West. More on that issue later.
Next, he says this story of civilization came with certain values, such as reasoned discourse...
Well, what does reasoned discourse really mean; presumably a multitude of diverse and inconsistent things and disciplines, notoriously difficult to get a handle on, bleeds over into ethics, logic, mathematics, history, politics, you name it.
Well, what else did reasoned discourse itself also come with, one might ask? I will tell you: it came with a gnawing sense of skepticism about the powers of reason and perception themselves to see or understand reality in itself.
In other words it reiterated an ancient tradition from the Greek Fifth Century Enlightenment about the elusiveness of knowledge asserted the relativity of all values, traditions, factual truths, and religions.
Well, what does reasoned discourse really mean; presumably a multitude of diverse and inconsistent things and disciplines, notoriously difficult to get a handle on, bleeds over into ethics, logic, mathematics, history, politics, you name it.
Well, what else did reasoned discourse itself also come with, one might ask? I will tell you: it came with a gnawing sense of skepticism about the powers of reason and perception themselves to see or understand reality in itself.
In other words it reiterated an ancient tradition from the Greek Fifth Century Enlightenment about the elusiveness of knowledge asserted the relativity of all values, traditions, factual truths, and religions.
He claims Western Civ set a standard for great statesmanship.
What can he mean? Moral statesmanship, whatever that means? Does he mean ancient Greek and Roman statesmen, Pericles, Alcibiades, Cicero, the Gracchi, Caesar, the ones he likes; good practitioners of raison d'etat; balance of power expertise; Machiavelli, perhaps Bismarck, Richelieu, Hitler? He doesn't say. Wouldn't it also however have correspondingly set a standard for terrible statesmanship? Otherwise, how would one know what great was? So, let's just say that maybe the West set both kinds of standards and all degrees in between.
What can he mean? Moral statesmanship, whatever that means? Does he mean ancient Greek and Roman statesmen, Pericles, Alcibiades, Cicero, the Gracchi, Caesar, the ones he likes; good practitioners of raison d'etat; balance of power expertise; Machiavelli, perhaps Bismarck, Richelieu, Hitler? He doesn't say. Wouldn't it also however have correspondingly set a standard for terrible statesmanship? Otherwise, how would one know what great was? So, let's just say that maybe the West set both kinds of standards and all degrees in between.
He next mentions a town square, and religion, in passing.
Under Brooks' whig interpretation, the Reformation and Counter Reformation were milestones in this Whig narrative of the confident march toward the progress of today. Butterfield described it very well.
Under Brooks' whig interpretation, the Reformation and Counter Reformation were milestones in this Whig narrative of the confident march toward the progress of today. Butterfield described it very well.
Next, he mentions giving diverse people a sense of shared mission, common vocabulary, common goals.
This started out as an aspiration only intended within and among diverse peoples of only the West itself. Even other countries within the West were viewed by each as in a sense barbarians, even into the 19th Century; how much more so, denizens of other civilizations. but this sense of shared mission, common vocabulary and goals, eventually became, by the force of Western ideology itself sua sponte, the dream of some Western liberals in the 18th and 19th centuries to include all people of the world.
This started out as an aspiration only intended within and among diverse peoples of only the West itself. Even other countries within the West were viewed by each as in a sense barbarians, even into the 19th Century; how much more so, denizens of other civilizations. but this sense of shared mission, common vocabulary and goals, eventually became, by the force of Western ideology itself sua sponte, the dream of some Western liberals in the 18th and 19th centuries to include all people of the world.
It had seldom been part of the Western civ concept before that time, except perhaps in terms of early Christianity being spread as a Jewish mission to the gentiles, presumably ultimately to all the gentiles in the world regardless of race religion or civilization. The idea of course had become popular among all religions which sought to convert infidels in conquered lands rather than to kill, enslave, or exile them.
Brooks then explains how this crisis of Western Civ began. It only began several decades ago he says.
I may come back to that point directly at some point below in discussing other points here.
He blames this relatively sudden civilizational crisis on academia, an institution conveniently other than journalism.
He can't very well blame journalism, too, can he?
Journalism's mission, apparently, after all, is presumably not to try to weigh in on such issues with scholarly authority in the first place anyway. Although, isn't that rather what Brooks does here himself in blaming academia, or am I missing something?
Remember that Brooks himself assured us a while back that we had finally, for several decades now (coincidentally, the ostensible length of the evolving civilizational crisis he decries), reached the stage of a meritocracy here in America.
Presumably, however, the emerging meritocracy here would also have some things to do, at some points, with academic excellence and standards, and be somehow connected with a concept of Western civ as itself a meritocratic concept, no?
So, how according to Brooks, are we both finally a meritocracy founded on mainly academic excellence and expertise, and also in a sudden crisis of Western civ brought on by academic waywardness and incompetence? How?
Maybe that is enough for one post, call it chapter one of my remarks on Brooks The Crisis of Western civ.
Brooks then explains how this crisis of Western Civ began. It only began several decades ago he says.
I may come back to that point directly at some point below in discussing other points here.
He blames this relatively sudden civilizational crisis on academia, an institution conveniently other than journalism.
He can't very well blame journalism, too, can he?
Journalism's mission, apparently, after all, is presumably not to try to weigh in on such issues with scholarly authority in the first place anyway. Although, isn't that rather what Brooks does here himself in blaming academia, or am I missing something?
Remember that Brooks himself assured us a while back that we had finally, for several decades now (coincidentally, the ostensible length of the evolving civilizational crisis he decries), reached the stage of a meritocracy here in America.
Presumably, however, the emerging meritocracy here would also have some things to do, at some points, with academic excellence and standards, and be somehow connected with a concept of Western civ as itself a meritocratic concept, no?
So, how according to Brooks, are we both finally a meritocracy founded on mainly academic excellence and expertise, and also in a sudden crisis of Western civ brought on by academic waywardness and incompetence? How?
Maybe that is enough for one post, call it chapter one of my remarks on Brooks The Crisis of Western civ.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
BROOKS WESTERN CIV CRISIS CONTINUED
Brooks points out that many academicians began teaching, only a few short decades ago, that Western civ is really a history of oppression.
I would augment the account he criticizes as follows: the West started out oppressing Western lower classes, then eventually, with the age of discovery and colonization on into the 20th Century, oppressing all of mankind, a story of ever gathering oppression which the US, as the heir of Western straight white male hegemony, perpetuates to the present day.
It is the opposite of the history of progressive improvement for all mankind to which the Whiggish Brooks, and most of his readers, including perhaps Professor Kaiser, subscribe.
The Whiggish interpretation sees Protestantism as the progressive Reformation movement, the only proper heir to the Renaissance, that threw off the regressive medieval Catholic yoke, followed by the Enlightenment as a protestant inspired movement that then finally threw off Monarchic despotic Popish and aristocratic yokes in the 16th and 17th Centuries, and then by the Democratic Revolution of the 18th, but was thrown back somewhat in the 19th when a retrograde restoration temporarily permitted the imperialism and slavery run by white men since the Renaissance to continue, but then ultimately triumphed in the wars of the 20th Century, making the world finally safe for a colorless, antireligious, and race blind single democratic market capitalist world civilization.
The Whiggish interpretation sees Protestantism as the progressive Reformation movement, the only proper heir to the Renaissance, that threw off the regressive medieval Catholic yoke, followed by the Enlightenment as a protestant inspired movement that then finally threw off Monarchic despotic Popish and aristocratic yokes in the 16th and 17th Centuries, and then by the Democratic Revolution of the 18th, but was thrown back somewhat in the 19th when a retrograde restoration temporarily permitted the imperialism and slavery run by white men since the Renaissance to continue, but then ultimately triumphed in the wars of the 20th Century, making the world finally safe for a colorless, antireligious, and race blind single democratic market capitalist world civilization.
Let's put it this way, then: the story of Western civ as an oppressive political civilization, either way, goes much farther back than a few decades of American academic history ago.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
BROOKS WESTERN CIV CONTINUED II
Brooks opines that a prevailing wind 'powering all ships' suddenly ceased to blow...
Was that wind laissez faire, LIEO?
The underlying question, which Brooks' account begs, is really whether Western civ is reducible to laissez faire, LIEO, as his account really implies? He doesn't want to get into all that.
Laissez faire has been going on since the 18th Century, (actually since the beginning of time in the forms of smuggling and piracy, under what was called mercantilism), gathered strength in the early 19th, and has dominated Western intellectual thinking and the international political and economic landscape ever since.
But no 'prevailing wind' ever powered all ships, certainly not a political military cultural civilizational or diplomatic wind.
The underlying question, which Brooks' account begs, is really whether Western civ is reducible to laissez faire, LIEO, as his account really implies? He doesn't want to get into all that.
Laissez faire has been going on since the 18th Century, (actually since the beginning of time in the forms of smuggling and piracy, under what was called mercantilism), gathered strength in the early 19th, and has dominated Western intellectual thinking and the international political and economic landscape ever since.
But no 'prevailing wind' ever powered all ships, certainly not a political military cultural civilizational or diplomatic wind.
That is only one huge problem with his account. If such a wind had long been made to blow, then why, now, should it ever have ceased? Has it really ceased?
Sunday, April 30, 2017
BROOKS WESTERN CIV CRISIS CONTD III WHIG AND FAUX TORIES
Whiggish Brooks implies a cause: suddenly unnamed enemies here and abroad of Western civ values of limitless liberty and democracy have emerged, and nobody has stepped up to defend them.
The implication of course is that this march in triumph of Western civ toward world civ has been interrupted by both internal and external forces indifferent or antagonistic to its call.
Brooks says: rise of illiberals.
How did they arise in the first place, if Whig liberalism had been lifting all boats?
How did they arise in the first place, if Whig liberalism had been lifting all boats?
Are they new rival Tory civilizations, spawn of Western liberalism, biting the hand that fed their rising boats?
He says we have entered the age of strong men. He does not want to get into a clash of civilizations account. Too much truth in it for him. The strong men story helps him stay away from that clash of civilizations tar baby.
Let's just call it Brooks' The Rise of the Tories account. Actually, now, all we have are faux tories. We got rid of almost all our aristocracies and monarchs in the flurry of Globalist Whiggism.
How about, The Rise of the New Napoleons? After all, the new whiggism of The age of the Democratic Revolution gave Napoleon his opening.
Napoleon has been the faux tory icon, par excellence, for 200 years now!
He says we have entered the age of strong men. He does not want to get into a clash of civilizations account. Too much truth in it for him. The strong men story helps him stay away from that clash of civilizations tar baby.
Let's just call it Brooks' The Rise of the Tories account. Actually, now, all we have are faux tories. We got rid of almost all our aristocracies and monarchs in the flurry of Globalist Whiggism.
How about, The Rise of the New Napoleons? After all, the new whiggism of The age of the Democratic Revolution gave Napoleon his opening.
Napoleon has been the faux tory icon, par excellence, for 200 years now!
No comments:
Post a Comment