Jim Kalb’s critique of liberalism is what Hegel would have called a “genetic” approach, that is, one based on the examination of the origin and evolution of a particular idea (in Hegel’s case “Idea” would have to be capitalized since it refers to an absolute but also self-transforming entity). From Jim’s perspective, “liberalism” did not start as a body of opinions or sentiments the day before yesterday but goes back to what Richard Weaver and the neo-Thomists consider the “Ockhamite challenge” to the medieval Catholic synthesis of faith and reason. Once these two points of reference were pulled apart with the rise of Nominalism in the thirteenth century, a process made possible by William of Ockham and his metaphysically skeptical disciples, the stage was set for the modern enterprise in ethics and politics. Like the Nominalists, the moderns, starting with Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, and Descartes, and continuing down to such contemporary thinkers as John Rawls, took previously made assumptions about the communal, corporate nature of man as irrelevant. They also increasingly identified the Good with what isolated individuals might desire, as opposed to some ethical end that was common to all humans and which had its basis in our divine origin. Duty, deference, and piety became extraneous to social life, as liberal ideas became more prevalent; and therefore the purpose of government over time became the assisting of individual pleasure-seeker as they try to gratify their appetites. Kalb is arguing that the creation of a consumer society with disintegrating social roles and relations has developed out of a very specific conception of how humans should relate to each other and to the nature of reality. Such a society is not merely driven by the availability of malls and supermarkets and by the possibility of women being “liberated” from the home. The social and cultural developments that we see reflect fundamental changes in the way people think, and these changes have taken a long time in coming. Kalb does point to certain “conservative” forces that worked against the full unfolding of liberal atomism and acquisitiveness before the present time. Family and monarchical authority continued to operate for centuries after the erosion of classical and medieval metaphysical and ethical teachings. And for centuries Catholic and Protestant churches taught communal responsibilities and religious revelation to their followers, who continued to live in accordance with their precepts. Malgré tout the force of liberal teachings continued to gain ground, up until the present moment. By now the function of government is to make everyone feel comfortable and happy, protecting their right to material pleasure and redistributing funds to those who don’t have enough to enjoy. Indeed such a conception of government, argues Kalb, is the only one that now has popular acceptance, no matter how our civic and media leaders may slobber over “human rights” and “human dignity.” The now sacred right of women to destroy unborn children who interfere with their “lifestyles” illustrates the current notion of a “human right.” So does the right of gays and, at least in Holland, entire groups to marry each other, a right that Christians must accept in some places, under pain of being punished as criminals for not respecting it.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:57:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015