Alas, poor Burke. He could be perceptive, but his creepy infatuation with Marie Antoinette, so extravagantly expressed, makes him appear, ultimately, to be a ridiculous figure.

As for this bit, Aristophanes did this sort of thing much better, but Aristophanes had a sense of humor and it's unclear whether Burke did. This complaint has a long, long history. As a result, I think it's more tedious than insightful. — Ciceronianus the White

Did you know Cicero was a conservative Ciceronianus? ;)

I disagree with you about Burke - whose favorite philosopher was none other than Cicero in fact. Burke supported the French monarchy because replacing it by force and all of a sudden instead of gradually would cause more chaos and suffering than anything else. And it did - it gave rise to Napoleon Bonaparte who re-established it, as Trump said, bigger and better than ever before - he made Monarchy into Imperial Dictatorship. Burke prevented the same thing from happening in England by fighting against both Monarchy, AND the revolutionaries who wanted to do away with religion and traditions, and yes monarchy.

And thanks for the suggestion of Aristophanes - I wasn't aware he was a conservative :) .

after WWII, when many many Marxist professors, and other radicals fled from Europe to the US, and took positions there — Agustino

I was fortunate to escape the baleful influence of decadent continental intellectuals by attending a small state college in the midwest starting in 1964. "They" weren't here in that time, in this place. The English Literature faculty were all solidly pre-postmodern pre-continental infestation. The Social Science faculty were, maybe, a bit more secularized. But the most non-conformist history professor derived his non-conformity from his Unitarian church.

"The Beat Generation" ("beat" derived from "beatitude") of people like William Burroughs, Jack Kerouac, Allan Ginsberg, and the like were the home-grown American decadent immoral set -- I don't think they were brought into being by European decadence. I found them challenging enough in the 60s, though I like their poetry and novels now.

Maybe you have read some of them.

Did you know Cicero was a conservative Ciceronianus? ;)

I disagree with you about Burke - whose favorite philosopher was none other than Cicero in fact. Burke supported the French monarchy because replacing it by force and all of a sudden instead of gradually would cause more chaos and suffering than anything else. And it did - it gave rise to Napoleon Bonaparte who re-established it, as Trump said, bigger and better than ever before - he made Monarchy into Imperial Dictatorship. Burke prevented the same thing from happening in England by fighting against both Monarchy, AND the revolutionaries who wanted to do away with religion and traditions, and yes monarchy.

And thanks for the suggestion of Aristophanes - I wasn't aware he was a conservative — Agustino

I was reacting to Burke's comment about philosophers, not to conservatism or his status as a conservative icon. Aristophanes famously made similar criticism of Socrates and others in his play The Clouds. Later, in Roman times, Lucian wrote a satire against philosophers as well. Criticism of philosophers for undermining morality has been around a long time, and was old long before Burke. Whether Cicero is properly considered a "conservative" according to current definitions, I don't know, nor do I think it's very useful to indulge in that speculation. I'm fairly comfortable with the claim that we have nobody of Cicero's quality around these days, though.

Burke had an unfortunate tendency to be sentimental, as evidenced by his rapture over Marie Antoinette and his excessive reaction to her death as the death of chivalry. Even his friends told him he made a fool of himself.

You have to do a calculation in that case. Is it worth it to die in the fashion of Jesus himself or of Socrates to teach a valuable lesson to your brothers and sisters in moral courage and resolution in opposing evil, and the triumph of the human spirit? Or is it worth saving yourself by lying for example, in order that you may protect your family from being killed as well? — Agustino

I do still have a dash of the moral romantic in me (though I can't deny it may be nothing more than the final limp twitchings of a deep-seated neurosis). So, though voluntary crucifixion would certainly be beyond the reach of my flailing moral imagination, I might yet be induced to drink the hemlock if it were in the cause of rescuing mankind from terminal ethical degeneracy. (Only on the proviso my tormenters agreed to leave my family out of it though, and this reprobate atheist was guaranteed a place in the history books to compensate for his certain lack of heavenly award).

I was fortunate to escape the baleful influence of decadent continental intellectuals by attending a small state college in the midwest starting in 1964. — Bitter Crank

Probably you also found the local atmosphere to be more decent and welcoming than a large metropolitan college would have been

But the most non-conformist history professor derived his non-conformity from his Unitarian church. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think this happened?

"The Beat Generation" ("beat" derived from "beatitude") of people like William Burroughs, Jack Kerouac, Allan Ginsberg, and the like were the home-grown American decadent immoral set -- I don't think they were brought into being by European decadence. — Bitter Crank

I only know of William Burroughs in more detail from the three - from memory I remember that he came from quite a wealthy family and went to a private boarding school. He was a homosexual from school, but I don't think homosexuality in itself is necessarily a vice (and even if it is, it would be a minor one) - if by that we mean attraction to the same sex. It's about how one uses their sexuality that I would count as the source of the main sexual vices (as nothing can be a vice which isn't in one's control). However - he was shaped by the time he spent in Europe, if I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), after college - which seemed to be very significant for a large share of his views. The other two I don't know much about.

No, I think it's more that in any society you're going to have a core of people who that society 'is for,' who are at home in it and feel they were raised in it, and so belong to it and are invested in its continuance. Then you'll have people who are there basically by accident and along for the ride, who will never feel comfortable there, and that all things considered the society itself would be more comfortable without. It's the former people's problem, not the latter's, how the society is supposed to continue, because the latter have no stake in it and can't be expected to cultivate something that is hostile or alien to them, or that they have no interest in maintaining.

The problem is that as the core of culture erodes, and we're left only with competing subcultures, the latter group grows larger while the former group disappears, and soon you have a collection of people that form a society 'for nobody,' that nobody is obligated to maintain. The solution is not to rally individuals to fight for something they have no stake in, and in fact once a society is 'for nobody,' it may very well not be worth saving.

I would say though that the moral imagination is largely a product of, and constrained by (sensibly I would contend) the moral environment. — Baden

The "moral environment", in both the broadest global and the narrowest local senses, is obviously influential on both the individual development, as well as the average level to be found in societies, of moral imagination. But it is not on its own sufficient to account for the vast differences to be found in the qualities of people's moral imaginations, and the differences in the degrees to which they possess and use moral imagination.

A society that was genuinely "for nobody" would mean a society that was equally for everybody. Why should we expect to enjoy anything more than a situation that provides a range of possible means of livelihood and a social structure wherein the companionship and love of a few friends and family is possible? What has society failed to give those who "never feel comfortable" and how is it "alien and hostile to them" except in their own imaginations?

a social structure wherein the companionship and love of a few friends and family is possible? — John

Divorce rate: 50%+
Out of wedlock birth rate: 40% (in some populations even higher 70% in blacks)
Infidelity rate: 50%

Family is becoming increasingly difficult in such an environment, and will become increasingly rare in the future. Friendship is also becoming rare, when everyone is driven to compete against one another principally driven by greed. This generation, who are now in their 20s, some of them may still get away with things, and sneak through all the difficulties. But the problem is for coming generations - they will feel it in a big big way. Oh and real love - yes, maybe in the afterlife, that has already become almost impossible down here amongst us Western mortals :)

In short, culture. Men don't live on bread alone. A society considered merely as an abstract multicultural material superstructure isn't livable. A body can live in it (maybe), not so much a person.

Modern secular humanism's vision of a human being as an abstract particular with material desires and preferences, devoid of religion, history, culture, and nationality is a vision of the human as non-human. It is possible for materially functioning society to be spiritually bankrupt in this way. We are not just things plopped here out of nowhere, but what we come from informs who we are. The message of a modern Western state is: "you are no one."

Those statistics you cite are merely that; statistics, and they don't necessarily reflect the status of love and friendship in the vast lebenswelt. I am not as pessimistic about it as you apparently are. I think genuine love has always been difficult and a rare thing to achieve. In any case as I see it the primary duty of the individual is to love and take care of those close to him or her, including him or herself, in the best way possible.

That is to say the duty of the individual is only the ethical one concerning his or her spiritual development; whether to neglect it or cultivate it; and if the latter, then how to cultivate it. The only hope for humanity consists in the spiritual development of individuals not in the imposition of social or moral orders on others, by those who are not themselves spiritually up to the task. I don't believe that you or I, or possibly anyone, no matter how spiritually developed they may be, knows what is coming.

'In the nineteenth century Burke was praised by both conservatives and liberals.[5] Subsequently, in the twentieth century, he became widely regarded as the philosophical founder of modern conservatism.'

~ Wikipedia.

I think the secular state should work together with all major religions present in the country to form a community which is friendly to the believers, and not antagonistic. — Agostino

The original motivation behind the secular state was to provide a framework within which one was free to practice any religion or none. However 'secular philosophy' is nowadays often interpreted to imply that 'none' is better than 'any'.

I agree with much of what you say about the importance of tradition, but I'm divided over conservatism.

In short, culture. Men don't live on bread alone. A society considered merely as an abstract multicultural material superstructure isn't livable. A body can live in it (maybe), not so much a person.

Modern secular humanism's vision of a human being as an abstract particular with material desires and preferences, devoid of religion, history, culture, and nationality is a vision of the human as non-human. It is possible for materially functioning society to be spiritually bankrupt in this way. We are not just things plopped here out of nowhere, but what we come from informs who we are. The message of a modern Western state is: "you are no one." — The Great Whatever

I actually agree very much with this, and I wasn't implying that I think modern Western culture is not teeming with existential and spiritual problems. On the other hand, in terms of sheer accessibility for those that will, there is much more culture today than ever before. Globalizing tendencies have meant a shift away from the kinds of 'village cultures' of 'belonging' in which traditional tutelage is very strongly, sometimes even rigidly, retained, but where the expression of the individual may be severely restricted. So, as much has been gained as has been sacrificed, and I tend to see the development of modern culture to have been a kind of dialectical, developmentally logical necessity in any case.

I think that's is misreading given by those who identify with past traditions or the idea of being more than oneself. Secular humanism (at least once we get past Modernism and Classical Liberalism) views the individual as part of a culture of humans as they exist. It's doesn't say you are "no-one" ( well, except to those who thinks of themselves as nobodies, who are fooled by their expectation to be something other than themsleves), but rather "there is nothing necessary about you."

The message of the modern Western state is: "You will not necessarily be anything or anyone." It severs the myth that logic forms us. We are known to have an uncertain future.

Nah, cultures are literally dying off by the year.

I don't really believe i the 'expression of the individual,' I guess, in that there is no individuality to express outside of a heritage. I'm not saying any individual culture is guaranteed to be great or even not horrible to some individual or class of individuals. But what we're seeing is the option of having a culture essentially forcibly removed. And Hegelianism is bunk.

In the context of philosophy, secularism basically amounts to none.

(A) religion is altered from a giver of insight and wisdom to anyone, to nothing more than the personal outlook without any more force than something like a piece or entertainment or commentary.

Secular humanism (at last once we get past Modernism and Classical Liberalism) views the individual as part of a culture of humans as they exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It does not. The point of 'humanism' is the value of the human in the abstract. There is no human in the abstract. Equality = leveling off. Cultures are permitted to exist under secular humanism only as trivial consumer choices.

I don't really believe i the 'expression of the individual,' I guess, in that there is no individuality to express outside of a heritage. — The Great Whatever

I think what you say here is very one-sided: there could be no heritage absent the presently available expressions of unique past individuals.

But what we're seeing is the option of having a culture essentially forcibly removed. — The Great Whatever

I''m not sure what to make of this. I agree that there are forces at work against all aspects of culture that deserve the name. But this 'deculturating' tendency has by no means brought about any fait accompli as far as I can see. What do you have in mind?

Hegelianism is bunk. — The Great Whatever

So says the great pontificator! Why would you say that? Do you honestly believe there is no evolutionary logic to historical development?

Only if you are thinking in modernist terms. For those who come after (i.e. post modernists, post-structralists, those interested in the interaction of biology and culture, etc.,etc.), the individual is always comes from, is embedded and is creating culture.

Equality does equal a levelling off-- there is no culture which saves one from themselves or grants certainity of meaning-- but this does not equal the meaningless of culture or the individual. It only amounts to the absence of the abstraction of meaning-- the myth our meaning is given outside the expression of ourselves.

So says the great pontificator! Why would you say that? Do you believe there is no evolutionary logic to historical development? — John

At best, it can only act as retrospective apologetics, which is what Hegel was interested in. Granted, whenever something happens, it always seems necessary in retrospect, due to natural solipsism / lack of imagination. The same solipsism that leads to humanism I guess.

I think what you say here is very one-sided: there could be no heritage absent the presently available expressions of unique past individuals. — John

I think the more you look at a tradition, the more the illusion that any one individual is important to it dissolves. Geniuses are few, and culture arises without being able to say who wrote the folk song or invented the tradition, etc., because no one did. This is not to say individuals are secondary or have no values, for the simple reason that there cannot be a culture without individuals. But I don't think the notion of a society constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual makes sense, except insofar as this is something the culture privileges. This is not IMO the modus operandi of secular humanism, which is interested in the destruction of culture through multiculturalism, not in maintaining a coherent culture of liberty.

Of course if a person wants to operate entirely freely, outside of a tradition, I think this is possible insofar as 1) they grow up in some tradition to begin with, to be a coherent human being, and then 2) abandon it in favor of being a 'lonely soul' (think Emil Cioran or Ralph Ellison). Even here one's loneliness tends to be a reflection of the previous culture, although I think works of genius are especially likely in this space.

Postmodernism is largely a reaction to, as well as a symptom of, humanism and secularism, part cry for help, part nihilistic game, part genuine observation on what happens in a world that starts losing its cultural bearings and is forced to see itself in terms of shifting demographics (and so the notion of prefacing speech acts with 'as an X...' and the notion of a demographic for one's sexuality, and the notion of intersectionality and kyriarchy, become possible).

So pomo doesn't traffic in culture so much as the reflection of it.

At best, it can only act as retrospective apologetics, which is what Hegel was interested in. Granted, whenever something happens, it always seems necessary in retrospect, due to natural solipsism / lack of imagination. The same solipsism that leads to humanism I guess. — The Great Whatever

Seems a bit superficially dismissive. And I don't think apologetics of any kind was what Hegel was actually interested in.

Have you actually attempted to read Phenomenology of Spirit or Science of Logic or even done significant reading in the secondary literature?

Geniuses are few, and culture arises without being able to say who wrote the folk song or invented the tradition, etc., because no one did. — The Great Whatever

Not true, for every folk song or tradition there was an individual that came up with the original melody or lyrics or idea.

But I don't think the notion of a society constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual makes sense, except insofar as this is something the culture privileges. — The Great Whatever

I don't understand this at all. A society could not be "constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual" "except insofar as this is something the culture privileges", so I don't know waht you are trying to say here.

Of course if a person wants to operate entirely freely, outside of a tradition, I think this is possible insofar as 1) they grow up in some tradition to begin with, to be a coherent human being, and then 2) abandon it in favor of being a 'lonely soul' (think Emil Cioran or Ralph Ellison). Even here one's loneliness tends to be a reflection of the previous culture, although I think works of genius are especially likely in this space. — The Great Whatever

Again I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that because they were "lonely souls" that they were geniuses in a special sense beyond all the other less lonely geniuses? In order to be thought a genius at all there work would have be (at least) culturally relevant, wouldn't it. This would not seem to be possible if they truly operated "entirely freely, outside of a tradition". I haven't read Ellison, but I have Cioran; and I would say there have been many greater geniuses, and that in any cases his work owes much (if not to any others) to the works of the traditionally canonized figures Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

Then you'll have people who are there basically by accident and along for the ride, who will never feel comfortable there, and that all things considered the society itself would be more comfortable without. It's the former people's problem, not the latter's, how the society is supposed to continue, because the latter have no stake in it and can't be expected to cultivate something that is hostile or alien to them, or that they have no interest in maintaining. — The Great Whatever

Unless we're misanthropes, we would get involved in social affairs (for ethical reasons) if we cared about the people who were part of society. We need not care about the culture for us to care about the people subjugated within the culture.

From my perspective, it's that we're a part of society whether we like it or not. Nobody asked us if we wanted to be born, nobody asked us if we wanted to be a part of the world, and yet here we are. Furthermore, we also have a certain amount of compassion mixed with rationality that leads to a compelling sense of obligation towards others.

So when someone says it's "not their problem", this, to me, comes across as ignoring what other people are feeling. Not caring. At what point does someone else's problem become your problem?

Seems a bit superficially dismissive. And I don't think apologetics of any kind was what Hegel was actually interested in.

Have you actually attempted to read Phenomenology of Spirit or Science of Logic or even done significant reading in the secondary literature? — John

I don't care. I'll be dismissive of what I think deserves to be dismissed. Hegel was certainly an apologist, if you've read Phil. of Right.

I've read the Phenomenology.

I don't understand this at all. A society could not be "constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual" "except insofar as this is something the culture privileges", so I don't know waht you are trying to say here. — John

Modern secular humanist society tries to maximize the freedom of the individual by treating the individual as nothing but an abstract particular, a human. It provides no avenues for being free, but merely tries to make freedom in virtue of destroying cultural bonds that might stop this abstract human from developing in whatever direction it pleases. It's the difference between an absence of culture, only being able to see culture as restrictive, and a positive commitment to liberty as a culture.

In order to be thought a genius at all there work would have be (at least) culturally relevant, wouldn't it — John

No. Genius is independent of cultural merit and needs no approval.

All true: it's a study of culture and it's logical relationship to it, rather than many individual cultures themsleves (though it is its own culture too).

My point was that it represents an understanding culture is lived. It's knowledge, unlike the study of culture that preceded, that one's meaning cannot be separated form the expression of oneself.

Unlike Classical Liberalism and Modernism, where the human is understood as an abstracted being (effectively as God or tradition were before it), it understands humans are always come from and are embedded within culture.

Rather than the individual being important to culture, the individual is the means by which culture manifests-- discourse speaks through indivduals.

The uncertainty of postmodernism is precisely because it avoids abstracting culture. Since culture manifests in how individual act, it cannot have a presence outside them. Traditions of the past (even those of modernist humanism) are revealed to be myths. We cannot have certainly in meaning because all it takes is a change in how we exist. Since we cannot eliminate the possibility of different culture, we cannot ever be sure ours will remain.

The assertion of tradition, from ancients to modernist humanism, is a falsehood. Those were always abstractions rather than the living human culture.

Yet, this is of no consequence to the ability of our culture to be present. That we might possibly act otherwise or could mean differently does nothing to eliminate the culture we have.

Post-modernism is not just a reaction against modernist humanism. It's a reaction against the abstraction of culture, the idea our culture is expressed outside ourselves, which has characterised philosophy for pretty much the rest of history.

It takes out all tradition, for tradition (everyone will necessarily do this) is recognised as the abstraction of culture: the idea culture manifests outside how people live, such that it must always be.

Unlike Classical Liberalism and Modernism, where the human is understood as an abstracted being (effectively as God or tradition were before it), it understands humans are always come from and are embedded within culture. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It isn't much different, in that instead of an abstract human, we have an abstract conglomeration of demographics, and those demographics just proliferate and proliferate endlessly though none of them mean anything.

Only if you're a traditionalist who thinks meaning is in the abstraction of culture into infinity, as opposed to living it: someone who doesn't realise the demographics are an expression of living people and so discount their lives and culture.

If you are concerned with culture as it is lived, there is no issue at all. The demographics proliferate endlessly and that is enough-- the lived culture for those who are living it.

No. Genius is independent of cultural merit and needs no approval. — The Great Whatever

I found nothing to respond to in what you wrote except this. How do you determine genius in the absence of any criteria of cultural value? Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in apparently valorizing genius as being beyond all culture and yet denying the importance of the unique individual.

Many of your comments seem to me relentlessly offhand and facile, even perverse. They seem more to be expressions of your dissatisfied temperament than to be well-considered expressions of the intellect.

I found nothing to respond to in what you wrote except this. How do you determine genius in the absence of any criteria of cultural value? — John

Why would cultural value be relevant? Does approval of something make it genius? Clearly not. Does disapproval of something make it not genius? Clearly not. The point of genius as I understand it is that it seems to come from nowhere, from resources that can't be reduced to its environment. Genius by definition can't be predicted, and so it is unbound by the way in which it assimilates into its prior context in a way that non-genius material isn't. To that end it's indifferent whether the surrounding culture assimilates and understands it. It might very well do so, but in doing so the culture yields to the genius; the genius doesn't yield to the culture. And if the two never hit, then the genius is still so on its own terms.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in apparently valorizing genius as being beyond all culture and yet denying the importance of the unique individual. — John

What I said was that the unique individual is generally not important to a culture; I then mentioned genius explicitly as an exception to this in noting its rarity.

Many of your comments seem to me relentlessly offhand and facile, even perverse. They seem more to be expressions of your dissatisfied temperament than to be well-considered expressions of the intellect. — John

Tbh it would help if you read more carefully before responding. I'm fine with these sorts of criticisms but e.g. the 'contradiction' you thought you found above could have been remedied by paying attention to the post.

Why would cultural value be relevant? Does approval of something make it genius? Clearly not. Does disapproval of something make it not genius? Clearly not. — The Great Whatever

To that end it's indifferent whether the surrounding culture assimilates and understands it. It might very well do so, but in doing so the culture yields to the genius; the genius doesn't yield to the culture. And if the two never hit, then the genius is still so on its own terms. — The Great Whatever

From a purely cultural point of view something is only genius if it is judged to be so. Something cannot coherently be said to be genius from 'an absence of any point of view'. So what point of view would you say exists outside the cultural, given that you seemed to be saying before that the point of view of the unique individual is irrelevant?

I agree that the culture yields to the genius; that is precisely what I was saying before about how the most significant aspects of culture find their origins in the works of geniuses as well as the genius of lesser creators (unique individuals one and all). Perhaps the idea of the 'undiscovered genius' is not totally incoherent or express the impossible, but how could you ever know?

What I said was that the unique individual is generally not important to a culture; I then mentioned genius explicitly as an exception to this in noting its rarity. — The Great Whatever

So, now you are saying that genius is important to culture; I can't keep up. Surely the works of individuals that are less than genius are only less important in proportion to their distance from genius?
Anyway, it sounds kind of elitist; don't you think everyone has something to contribute in their own way, and the more so the more that they are authentically as opposed to merely biologically unique individuals; that is the more they have freed themselves from the normalizing dictates of any mob mentality?

Tbh it would help if you read more carefully before responding. I'm fine with these sorts of criticisms but e.g. the 'contradiction' you thought you found above could have been remedied by paying attention to the post. — The Great Whatever

Fair enough; I went too far with that in a moment of peevishness. I do acknowledge that you often have much of interest and subtlety to say. Although I stand by my criticism as I explain above; i think there is some inconsistency, even if not downright contradiction, in what you have been saying about the relation between culture and the individual.