Thursday, August 19, 2010
The modern liberal rejection of tradition
Here is Jim Kalb, author of the seminal The Tyranny of Liberalism, on the modern liberal rejection of tradition:
Read the rest on his blog here.The problems among us today are unusually radical. People aren't dissatisfied with this tradition or that, or at a loss how to achieve old goals in new settings. Instead, they want to reject the authority of tradition as such, along with the goods it proposes. They adopt views like liberalism that claim to possess a universal rationality that trumps all tradition, and insist that the only acceptable standard for social life is giving people what they want, as much and as equally as possible. Hence the California Proposition 8 decision that declared legal recognition of marriage unconstitutional.
The current situation results from an ever-greater insistence on a clear but extremely limited understanding of rationality that tells us that knowledge and conduct must be modeled on modern natural science and technology. That understanding works well if you're putting a man on the moon, not so well if you're figuring out how to live and relate to other people. It can't deal with identities, essences, or ultimate ends, so it has no way to make sense of our lives and those of others. The result is that belief and conduct lose their ability to order human life in a satisfying and non-arbitrary way.
That means the current state of affairs isn't going to last, and we'll have to go on to something else. Some would describe the current situation as the collapse of the Western tradition. I think it's better to describe it as the distortion and suppression of that tradition as a whole by part of it that has become too dominant. The scientistic outlook has to be ditched in any event, since it's at odds with the needs of human life. Once that's done the obvious way to proceed is to stick with the remainder--actually by far the greater part--of the tradition of the West, and try to bring it into a workable form. We can't get by without a tradition, the tradition of the West is our tradition, and there's no superior one to adhere to. So isn't the way forward obvious?
Labels: conservatism, liberalism, tradition
Don't you find it sad that the only justification you can give for opposing equality for gays is to, like Tevye, shout "Tradition"!
: 10:57 PM 
I haven't searched your blog to look for your reasoning. Do you have rational, secular reasons for treating homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples? The Prop 8 proponents utterly failed to support their case at trial in California.
: 7:06 AM Yes there are, but I first want to find out why you think tradition is not a rational, secular reason.
Actually, I never so much as used the word. You all on the other hand, seem to have fixation with this particular body part.
But I hear this is just a stage and you grow out of it.
That's classic right there... you can't bring yourself to mention the word "penis" (not that you don't talk about it: "organ in question" is how you put it I believe) - but you have no problem telling people where they're ~supposed~ to put it and where they aren't.
And your suggestion that I "seem to have fixation with this particular body part" is based on ~what~? My one comment above? Show me your evidence that I'm all about the penis... go on.... I'll wait.
Besides I was not just talking about you. I said "you all" by which I was including Singring. I guess maybe Singring ups the average per line usage of the word between you though, doesn't he?
But on this one thread you have now used the word two times in two posts.
Let's see that comes to ... let's see ... one time per post.
Maybe you can not use the word in the next post and bring your own personal average down a bit.
When we are discussing the human genitals its perfectly normal to use the words that refer to them: penis and vagina. Are you so utterly repressed that you think people who use normal English words that are the dictionary terms for what we are talking about are 'obsessed' by them?
When we talk about cars, are we 'obsessed' if we use the word driveshaft as opposed to 'the part of the car in question'???
Truly bizarre to see a grown man too embarassed to use plain English words.
And I believe it's you that started discussing the "organ in question" when you claimed it should only be used to urinate or impregnate a woman...
I don't want Singring to beat me though... so... penis penis penis. Sorry for making you blush.
Indeed... until you realize this grown man believes masturbation is wrong. You know what they say: %95 of men masturbate, and %5 are liars. ;)
It's called 'Anglophones'. Or maybe I should be more precise: 'Non-repressed anglophones'
Your view of language is getting more bizarre by the minute, Martin.
"Yes there are, but I first want to find out why you think tradition is not a rational, secular reason."
Because "that's just the way it is, and some things will never change" isn't going to cut much ice with a judge in a section 1983 lawsuit.
: 8:36 AM Links to this post:
<< Home
