Well, if you think of liberalism as a philosophy that stresses limited/divided government and a defense of rights, then neither Aristotle nor Plato have anything very relevant to say. If conservatism comes from the reaction to the French revolution, the same is true (granted, some conservatives claim to derive their philosophy from, say, Aristotle, but that's a separate kind of claim). Etc etc.
The issue for me is the relative importance of worldly and otherworldly. Plato stressed the Good as explained through the Forms. Otherworldly focus. Aristotle stressed Nature. Worldly focus. I realize I am oversimplifying here, but stay with me.
I could probably write 30 pages, if I sat down and thought about it enough, arguing that the primary contention in political theory is the relative importance of otherworldly versus worldly concerns. It's not simply ought versus is or truth versus fact, but these get entangled as well. I'd have to put something in about how circular time emphasizes otherworldly concerns, but I'm not sure how I'd argue that. As opposed to Christianity, with it's linear time that actually oddly emphasizes worldly concerns. Thought I'd have to admit my logic on that is a bit shaky at this point.
The basic idea for me is that otherworldly concerns encourage a certain sanguinity about the material world. I'd argue that modernity began with the Benedictines under the Carolingians (but that could just be my current obsession) because this seems to be the turning point where society pretty much agreed that the material world is more important than the next, but you can even see the tide beginning to turn as far back as Augustine*. This relative importance is not to be confused with piety or religiosity. Many very pious people fall into the camp of believing the material world should be of greater concern for man; for example, the strong belief God demonstrates his favor by granting wealth.
Al-Qaeda who are evil and misguided, but in all likelihood very devout, have strongly accepted the modern world's assumption that the material world is more important than the next. That God demonstrates his favor by granting wealth and power in this world to those who follow his law. When your nation isn't a world power, then it demonstrates God's disfavor.
The basic disagreement from which all political discussions flow is from whether, as Plato argued, this world is an illusion and reality is the next or other world, and, as Aristotle argued, that we only can know what we see, so let's concentrate on the nature and arrangement of this world. Perhaps this argument has been settled with the ushering in of modernity and the relative importance of the next world is doomed to an inferior level of concern forevermore, but I believe this relative importance plays out in subtle ways in all sorts of modern political discussions. But it would probably take 30 pages to explain, so I won't.
If anybody knows of somebody who wrote this already, then please let me know**.
---------------------------
* Not Augstine's arguments, but those he was refuting.
** To return to Augustine again, this isn't exactly the City of God versus City of Man, but it is most certainly heavily influenced by it.
Posts
2 comments:
One small point: the modern attitude you attribute to al Qaeda is also a pre-modern attitude, indeed perhaps more properly belonging to that period. See, for example, anything in the Old Testament, especially the reaction of Job's friends to his afflictions.
One larger point: 30 pages goes a lot faster than you might think. To break down the 50-page chapter I'm working on: 10 page intro, 10 page conclusion, 15 each devoted to Books I and II of the work I'm writing on. Those 15 pages need to include my textual analysis, links to the larger argument, and consideration of alternative interpretations. The intro and conclusion need to connect to what comes before and after the chapter, as well as setting up and summarizing the text I'm discussing.
In other words, the relevant thought unit even on a dissertation which will be 250-ish pages is about five pages long. The problem is almost never the writing per se, it's the organization, or, if you will, the architecture.
I'm gonna have to think about your Old Testament point. I want to disagree, but I can't.
On the writing, you write "10 page intro, 10 page conclusion" as if magically fairies will deliver them to me. You've read my writing. I have trouble staying coherent in the same sentence, forget 10 pages.
Post a Comment