"It is not enough for conservatives to repeat formulae or party-line positions," Jeffrey Hart writes on OpinionJournal.com. "The mind must possess the process that leads to conservative decisions. As a guide, the books, and the results of experience, may be the more difficult way--much more difficult in a given moment than pre-cooked dogma, which is always irresistible to the uneducated. Learning guards against having to reinvent the wheel in political theory from one generation to the next." Hart's piece reminds American conservatives that Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk are heroes in the conservative tradition while Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Woodrow Wilson are not. Hart's piece is provocative. It's eloquent as it picks fights. It provides a history lesson as it comments on current events. It's a must read.

One comment I found interesting was that Roe vs. Wade has now made the position of outlawing abortion altogether a "utopian" position. I think it's somewhat ironic that Roe vs. Wade was, itself, brought about BY a utopian desire, to begin with. In other words, this "utopian position" of doing away with abortion was created by the utopian position of wanting abortion in the first place.

Other than that, I also found interesting the suggestion that William James' pragmatism is somehow compatible with conservatism. I'm not sure I buy that, either, given that some noted pragmatists, aside from James are John Dewey (who is often blamed for the sad state of American education), and neo-pragmatists, such as Cornell West, who is currently writing some of the most anti-American opinion available in the market today.

I disagree with Hart on his use of the word "utopia" in several instances in the piece, especially with regard to Roe v. Wade. I think overturning Roe is a real possibility, and even if I didn't, that alone wouldn't qualify it as "utopian." On the point about pragmatism, I think Hart may be on to something.

Agreed on Roe v. Wade. That was my point.

"On the point about pragmatism, I think Hart may be on to something."

How so, Dan?

I haven't looked into James since my college days, but being pragmatic means being concerned with the practical, allowing experience (personal and historical) rather than theory to guide. This seems to mesh with conservatism, even though the people calling themselves "Pragmatists" one hundred years ago don't.

Gary makes an excellent point. I would add that Hart's descriptions of Roe and Casey show he believes conservatives should accept "accumulating social facts." This is a pernicious, progressive attitude that accepts that technology should rule us and we do not need to rule technology.

Hart also goes very wrong when he says "stewardship of the environment is now left mostly to liberal Democrats." I infer from Christ's parable of the servants given "talents" that the good steward does not "bury" that with which he is entrusted, but uses it wisely. I do not share Hart's romantic streak that finds "untamed nature" beautiful, nor do I think that constitutes a significant part of Plato’s idea of beauty.

Both his limited defense of the illegitimate abortion license and his strong defense of environmental fetishism show Hart to be sympathetic to the kind of “pragmatism” endorsed by Dewey and James. This pragmatism was the foundation of the progressive counter-revolution against the Founders’ principles. Where the Founders believed that government could and should be structured in a way that empowered the virtuous aspects of human character and suppressed its factious elements, the pragmatists would have us build social institutions that accept humans as they are.

The Founders were idealists in the sense that they believed there were social and governmental structures that were better at promoting virtue and that reason, not just tradition, could help us identify and build such structures. I call that “American conservatism.” Hart would likely disagree.

"I would add that Hart's descriptions of Roe and Casey show he believes conservatives should accept "accumulating social facts." This is a pernicious, progressive attitude that accepts that technology should rule us and we do not need to rule technology."

I don't see anything wrong with keeping up with changes in technology, but what I infer from Hart is that he's talking about social and cultural changes, which is even more dangerous because it assumes we should assimilate everything that has been wrought by decades of leftist subversion.

DocMcG: You write that "pragmatism was the foundation of the progressive counter-revolution against the Founders’ principles." But capital P "Pragmatism" arrived toward the latter half of the progressive era. The "foundation" isn't built after the roof has been erected, the windows have been installed, and the dry wall put up.

In your last point you cite idealism, reason, and government as cornerstones of "American conservatism." No one calling himself an American conservative a quarter century ago would cite any of this as a foundation of his general beliefs. When conservatives cease conserving conservatism, they cease being conservatives. They still call themselves "conservative," because it's a popular label. But calling progressive values "conservative"--ironic, as you blast progressives in the previous paragraph--doesn't make them so.

Dan, I was afraid that's what you'd say. Better take a look at what William James himself had to say and, also, note where I found this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm

Bear in mind that the two opposing camps, Idealism (which is derived from Plato and which encompasses all the philosophies of the Left), and Rationalism (derived from Aristotle and which encompasses conservatism and libertarianism) are both rejected by pragmatism. In reading a bit of this, my impression is that pragmatism throws out all of philosophy and wants to reinvent the wheel. This means doing away with such Aristotlean concepts as the fact that reality is independent of consciousness and perception, which is opposed to Plato's epistemology, which holds that we can never apprehend reality via our senses. The Platonic stream is where the solipsist view that all reality is just a projection of consciousness and doesn't exist outside the mind comes from. I have no trouble rejecting Plato, but the Aristotlean view of reality is what our scientific method arose from; i.e., observation, hypothesis and verification. Pragmatism, it seems to me, wants to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Gary, might I recommend Coppleston's "History of Philosophy," volumes 1 (chapters on Plato and Aristotle), 4 (chapters on the Rationalists) and 8 (chapters on the Pragmatists).

Gary,

Plato's philosophy is not solipistic and he doesn't say we cannot know reality, only that knowledge of realiy -- from our senses -- isn't certain. To Plato there is an overarching reality where things exist as they are -- the world of being -- and knowledge of these "forms" or Ideals is what constitutes true knowledge.

Anyone who reads Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences or the Ethics of Rhetoric would know that Weaver is essentially a Platonist and defines conservatism as Platonism.

Eric, I know. I'm quite familiar with Plato's forms and the Allegory of the Cave, etc. That is precisely what I was alluding to. Platonic epistemology rejects direct apprehension of reality via the senses. Aristotle said excatly the opposite, that we can only know reality via the senses.

Furthermore, Platonism lies within the Idealist camp, Aristotle within the Rationalist camp. John Locke, who was one of Jefferson's influences, was a Rationalist, not an Idealist. Idealism is the source of all Leftist political philosophy. Conservatism stems from the Rationalist, not the Idealist stream. Edmund Burke, held by some to be the father of conservatism, was a Rationalist, as Jefferson and Locke were. The Enlightenment was essentially a Rationalist movement.

Pragmatism, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “first received philosophic expression" in the 1870s. While much of its most famous expressions were written at the same time that progressivism was ascendant, that does not mean its ideas were not the intellectual foundation of the movement. John Locke's Treatises are considered the definitive intellectual defenses of the "Glorious" Revolution even though they were not published until after that event.

As for the assertion that no conservative of a quarter century ago had taken the attitude toward "idealism," or "reason," or "government," that I did in my previous post, I will give two pieces of evidence.

Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address said "With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world."

My second piece of evidence is the book from just about that time called "Statecraft as Soulcraft" by George Will.

Nor did I endorse any Progressive values. The Progressive movement was differentiated from other American movements not by its idealism or by its use of reason but by its insistence that the inherited complexities in the institutions of government, society, and religion were impeding progress and, so, simple reforms that brought more direct control by the people would be effective. These "reforms" have hindered those institutions ever since.

Finally, I must comment on Gary's posts. I ask him not to get caught up in labels. Jefferson was not as influenced by Locke as most historian would have you believe. The Scottish Enlightenment, which did greatly influence Jefferson and, more importantly, the Framers of the Constitution was not a Rationalist movement in the way the French Enlightenment was. The Scots like Hume and Smith had an interesting synthesis between your conceptions of Platonic idealism and Aristotelian rationalism: There is a real world that our senses, including our moral sense, often misperceive, so reason and experience are indispensable supports for one another.

From "Dictionary of Philosophy: Eastern and Western Thought," by W. L. Reese (1980):

"Idealism: A term first used philosophically by Leibniz at the start of the 18th century. He applied the term to Plato's thought..."

"Rationalism: From the Latin, ratio ("reason"). The principle that reason is to be granted the primary role in explanation."

"In the 18th century the philosophers of the Enlightenment both in France and Germany thought of as Rationalists."

From "The Pleasures of Philosophy," by Will Durant (1981):

"The idealist argued that since the sole reality we could be sure of was the one with which Descartes had begun - the reality of thought - all other existences were real to us only as perceived by our senses and constructed by our minds; the body was a perception, and matter was merely a bundle of ideas."

From "Dictionary of Philosophy: Ancient, Medieval, Modern," by Dagobert D. Runes and 72 Authorities:

"Idealism: Idealism stresses the supra- or non-spatial, non-pictorial, incorporeal..."

"the term appeared in the later 17th century to name the theory of archetypal Ideas, whether in the original Platonic teaching or as incorporated into Christian Platonic and Scholastic theism."

"Pure Idealism...identifies ontological reality (substance, substantives, concrete individuality) exclusively with the ideal, i.e., Mind, Spirit, Soul, Person, Archetypal Ideas, thought."

I rest my case.

Doc, I believe Reagan used the term "idealism" in its popular sense, rather than as it is usually used in philosophy. George Will has also useed the term in the same popular sense that Reagan used it. I am refering to the stream or branch of philosophical thought known collectively as Idealism. Basically, all of philosophy can be assigned to either the Idealist or Rationalist schools of thought and this extends from the ancient Greeks to the present.

DocMcG: I searched online for your claim that Encyclopedia Britannica noted that Pragmatism "first received philosophic expression" in the 1870s. It turns out that you left out a few rather crucial details from EB's account. First, the "philosophic expression" that EB refers to, and you cite, took place in a small club in Cambridge, Massachusetts. EB adds: "It was in a lecture delivered 20 years later, however, that James introduced Pragmatism, then fully crediting the idea to Peirce. It was primarily James's exposition that became famous and was received by the world at large." In other words, Pragmatism came along after the progressive movement was well under way.

Gary,

Philosophy is complex enough without having to endlessly debate semantics. Dividing philosophy into two competing camps -- Idealists and Rationalists -- misses the mark. Leibniz, Descartes, Wolfe are usually known as Rationalists in which they are contrasted with Anglo empiricists, Locke, Hume, Hutcheson etc. Empricists tend to believe that knowledge is sensory and the mind a blank slate. Rationalists believe that the intellect can apprehend certain truths beyond sensory input. This would include Plato, Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, and their approach is more deductive than inductive.

The origin of Leftism is also a complicated issue but to make a facile claim that it grows out of Idealism doesn't have much credence. Richard Weaver, for instance, felt that a true conservative was essentially a Platonist and the idea that all knowledge is sensory paved the way for moral relativism. So to Weaver the critical event that ushered in moden liberalism was the overthrow of logical realism during the late Middle Ages by people like Ockham et al.

If we indentify a more modern inception for leftism, like the French Revolution or British utilitarianism, then again there's no origin of leftism in Idealism. Jeremy Bentham, JS Mill, Bertrand Russell were hardly defenders of Idealism.

"Dividing philosophy into two competing camps -- Idealists and Rationalists -- misses the mark. Leibniz, Descartes, Wolfe are usually known as Rationalists in which they are contrasted with Anglo empiricists, Locke, Hume, Hutcheson etc. Empricists tend to believe that knowledge is sensory and the mind a blank slate. Rationalists believe that the intellect can apprehend certain truths beyond sensory input. This would include Plato, Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, and their approach is more deductive than inductive."

Okay, I'll concede that much, as my own research found that, for every instance in which a source has said that Plato was an Idealist, I found at least one who said he was a Rationalist. One other distinction I noted was that, it depends upon what specific part of Plato's philosophy one is talking about, also. Epistemologically, he was certainly a Rationalist, by your definition of the term, but I have seen, as I showed, others who believe he was an Idealist, though I'm not certain in what sense they meant this. So, yes, it is rather confusing.

To return to the issue of where Pragmatism falls, ideologically, or politically, I find this to be even more muddled, but my recollections of my studies, in the eighties, are that Pragmatism was anything but a good source for conservative thought. I may be wrong on this, as well, but, in reading up on it, I find some unsettling characteristics of pragmatism (and, of course, this varies with whose pragmatism we're addressing), particularly in epistemology, that don't appear, to me , to be fully compatible with conservatism. Cornell West is called a "neo-pragmatist" in one source I found online and, if this is so, I would certainly stay away from neo-pragmatism as West is one of the racist leftists who is currently trying to deconstruct American history.

Anyway, when I studied philosophy in college, (admittedly, an overview course; I was not a philosophy or poli-sci major) I was lead to believe that the world's great political theories were on one side or the other of the Rationalist-Idealist spectrum. Admittedly, distinguishing which side each philosopher properly belongs to is made difficult, at best, by the differing opinions of authors consulted.

So, where would we properly place the Left, in terms of political philosophy, then (other than in the trash heap of history)?

Please understand that my initial misgivings about whether pragmatism is compatible with conservatism or not, and my subsequent effort to show it isn't are predicated upon the assumption that the observations I made of Cornell West are true. If such "thinkers" as West are in the Pragmatists' camp, I think caution is in order.

Perhaps the different strings of this discussion can be reconciled if we hypothesize that the origins of the left are only correlated with different epistemologies and not rooted in them. The misconception at the heart of Progressivism and other leftist theories is the belief that, unaided (or, as they would see it, unencumbered) by revelation and tradition, a “rational society” can, and likely will, have enough knowledge and power to create and maintain a free, just, stable, and coherent polity. Different philosophies are more or less compatible with this conception. My view of pragmatism is that the ideas of its most famous adherents are quite compatible with it.

Well, if we're looking for the philosopohical underpinnings of the left, there is, of course, Marx, but even prior to Marx, there is Rouseau, who was the principle source drawn upon by the French Revolutionaries. It is, afterall, the French Legislative Assembly of 1791 that gave us the term "left" as it's applied politically. The radical Montagnards sat on the left side of the assembly. The thing is, the Montagnards were laissez-faire capitalists - basically, what we would call liberatarians or conservatives. It wasn't until the twentieth century that the orginal meaning of the term "left" reversed and became associated with communism and socialism. But, as far as the philosophical roots of the left are concerned, David Horowitz has said that the Bolsheviks took their inspiration from Rousseau and the French Revolution, which they saw themselves to be the heirs of, politically.

A (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Regarding pragmatism, three things of note: (1) Hart doesn't endorse Pragmatism, but James, who isn't as bad as some of the others (e.g., Dewey, Rorty). (2) The reasons he gives for liking James are about small 'p' pragmatism and learning from experience: "...a philosophy always open to experience and judging by experience within given conditions... utopia always a distant and destructive mirage." Hart just seems to be saying that he wants what used to be called 'prudence.' Why he has to appeal to James for that is a mystery to me. There are many other, better, more 'conservative' philosophers than James who fit this description. (3) Hart's real mistake is saying this: "Any political position is only as important as the thought by which it is derived." A little help, please?

"A (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Instead of dropping one-liner insults without even stating who you're addressing, let alone what you're talking about, you might want to enlighten us all with your undoubted wealth of knowledge, Ralph. If you're saying my last post was wrong, I'd certainly like know just how it is wrong and I'd like to see some evidence that backs up your assumption.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine...."

Gary: Ralph is being too harsh. I think that his compaint is that your use of categories such a idealist and rationalist is confused. You use them as if they were opposites, whereas usually idealism is joined with rationalism. Also, types of 'empiricist' epistemological accounts are often found in people who reject metaphysical idealism, and it is commonly viewed as the opposite of rationalism. Now, these categories are probably a bit confused in themselves, so I'm sure what I've said about them here is simplified and a bit mixed-up, but it's just wrong to imply that idealism and rationalism are two basic, opposite types. Moreover, the things you say about Plato are simply false, e.g., that he is a solipsist, that we don't learn anything from the senses, that reality is not independent of our consciousness and perception. Philosophy is hard, but saying these things of Plato so wrong as to be impious.

"Moreover, the things you say about Plato are simply false, e.g., that he is a solipsist"

I didn't say Plato is a solipsist. Re-read what I actually said. I did suggest that solipsism is compatible with Platonic epistemology, but I now see that this is not necessarily so.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave was a parable to explain his concept that what we perceive with our senses as reality is just an imperfect projection of what he called the underlying perfection of the "forms" which were the basis of all things and, if I recall correctly, I believe he further stated that the forms could only be apprehended by Mind, or consciousness.

Even though Platonic epistemolgy doubts the empirical accuracy of our senses, the fact that the forms are externals would preclude the possibility of any solipsism, as the solipsist believes there is nothing external to himself that can be verified. So, you're correct that Platonism is not the source of solipsism and, in doing a little further digging on the subject I found that solipsism orginated with the pre-socratic sophist Gorgias.

Even so, I clearly recall that when I studied philosophy, I was told that Rationalism and Idealism are polar opposites and, further, that all the world's great philosophies fall within one or the other. I know I read this in more than one text. The only contradiction of this I can find lies in the fact that I have found sources that say Plato was a Rationalist and, on the other hand, I have found sources that say he was an Idealist. Given that, it would seem your contention that Rationalism and Idealism can co-exist has some merit, then.

As for Ralph, I don't know that he was really being harsh, so much as he was being rather sophomorically insulting, not to mention evasive. If he has anything more convincing to say, I'm still waiting to see it. So far, all I've seen from him is the equivalent of "you're wrong," and nothing to support that.

Bear in mind I studied philosophy over twenty years ago and I'm going by my memory of that experience, which was, as I said, an overview course. It's quite possible I don't correctly recall what I read, and I no longer have the text to consult.

Getting back to the original issue, how is pragmatism compatible with conservatism? I'm still not convinced of this. Most the Enlightment thinkers, as well as our founders, were Rationalists; i.e., they believed in the primacy of reason, whereas, Pragmatism objects to the view that human concepts and intellect represent reality, and therefore stands in opposition to the Rationalist school of philosophy. That's where I see an inherent incompatibility. I'm not certain, though, as to whether Pragmatists reject Rationalism simply because of its theoretical component, or if Pragmatists reject reason. I can find nothing that suggests that reason is either rejected or accepted.

Gary, this is what you said: "The Platonic stream is where the solipsist view that all reality is just a projection of consciousness and doesn't exist outside the mind comes from." Let me be clear: what you are saying appears in the "Platonic stream" is inconsistent with Plato's views. Period. The forms aren't dependent on our minds. Also, you can take my word for it, rationalism and idealism are not polar opposites. Just get that out of your head.

Now regarding Pragmatism and truth, you are onto something important there. I don't think that real hard core "P"ragmatists, e.g., like Dewey and Rorty, lend themselves to a conservatism-- partly because, as you say, they don't believe we know objective truth. I think what some conservatives like about "p"ragmatism is just that we are supposed to base our political programs on experience of what works. i think that's true. I don't think it goes a heck of a lot deeper than that. That's why I think the old, Aristotelian meaning of 'prudence' captures better what cons tend to like about the word 'pragmatic'.

Okay, then. I stand corrected on Platonism, Rationalism and Idealism. I have learned something and won't forget it. Thanks! (I hope Ralph is satisfied, too). I gather, then, that the idea that political philosohpies can be so neatly categorized as I had thought is also wrong? Not being sarcastic; I really want to know.

I think the "popular" (i.e., not the academic or "hard") definition of pragmatism, as you've mentioned an example of, is what conservatives find attractive in pragmatism. The popular sense of the word is, as you've said, merely seeking to be grounded in the practical; to have a framework or foundation that is based upon fact, not theory. I would tend to agree with you, as far as that goes. It does sound attractive. However, I'm cautious not to endorse an entire system of thought without further scrutiny, as there are elements of pragmatism, that when investigated fully, do not appear to necessarily coincide with what most conservatives believe. For example, in the definition I found ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism), there is the statement, "...pragmatists argue that what should be taken as true is that which most contributes to the most human good over the longest course. In practice, this means that for pragmatists, theoretical claims should be tied to verification practices--i.e., that one should be able to make predictions and test them--and that ultimately the needs of humankind should guide the path of human inquiry." To me, this sounds, in a sense, eerily close to the egalitarian idea that "needs," rather than ability, should determine economic outcomes. I can see how a pragmatist of Cornell West's variety might interpret this in that way; i.e., the Marxist idea of "to each according to his need," which is often used justify welfare statism. There is also, in this statement of pragmatism, a question that arises, and that is, who decides what the "needs" of humankind are?

To be fair, on the same page is this, under "Pragmatism in History": "American democracy (values of pluralism and consensus applied to knowledge as well as politics)...", but, then again, immediately following that are the words, "...and in particular the American Civil War (a rejection of the sort of absolutizing or dualizing claims [i.e., to Truth] that provide the philosophical underpinnings of war)," which suggests to me an inherent pragmatist aversion to war, which, to my mind would be incompatible with the view that a nation or a people have the right of self-defense.

Another thing I note is that many Christian conservatives might reject pragmatism based upon the fact that "pragmatism took form largely in response to the work of Charles Darwin (evolution, ongoing process, and a non-epistemological view of history)...". Here, I'm not sure whether that "response" was pro or con, exactly. My guess is that the author intends it to mean a pro-Darwinist approach. I would have no trouble with this, personally, as I am an agnostic, but, what about those conservatives who are Christians and who reject evolution?

The point of my inquiry is that no philosophy should ever be accepted piecemeal. The idea of philosophy is that a philosophy is (supposed to be) a complete system of thought; a system for living, and, therefore, a set a guiding principles. Any philosophy is intended to be accepted wholly, not to be scavenged from by those who agree with parts of it, but not the whole package. This is one reason why most philosophies have failed; i.e., they are not coherent systems for living when taken in their entirety. Few, if any philosophies are truly applicable to human life in every facet. This has lead many, even the great philosophers themselves, to pick and choose various parts or concepts from among the broad and bewildering array of philosophies, and to attempt to combine and synthesize them into yet other philosophies. That this has lead to still more fallacious thinking is one of the reasons most of mankind doesn't attempt to live by any one guiding philosophy today and that the whole field of philosophy has been reduced to an academic subject, and is rejected - if even acknowledged - for the most part, by the majority of humankind. Hence my caution in endorsing pragmatism as being compatible with conservatism.

Gary-- I agree with you mostly, but I disagree that each philosophy supposed to be one big perfect system that we take in one swallow. Some philosophers think of it that way, e.g., Marx and Hegel and the other real systematic guys. But if we believe that humans are fallable and that getting all peices of the truth is hard, then it seems right to pick and choose -- as long as we don't contradict ourselves. So for example, I really like Aristotle, but his theory of light is just false. Does that mean I can't find his ethics compelling? Now doesn't that mean that conservatives can like the "pragmatist" interest in what works without swallowing all the epistomological, logical, metaphysical, and ideological bathwater?

P.S. To answer your question: there is no fair way to categorize all political philosophy with such a broad brush. On the other hand, categorizing and simplifying is necessary to understand complex things. So we just have to try to be as fair as possible without getting lost in minutiae. It's a fine line.

I don't disagree with you that to pick and choose from philosophies is the best way to go. Since nearly all have failed as complete systems to live by, that is assuredly what we must do. What I was saying is that the whole point of philosophy has been exactly that all along; i.e., to provide a complete system fo thought to live by. That's what philosophy is all about and no author of any particular philosophy ever intended for people to follow some of its precepts while rejecting others. The entire enterprise of philosophy has been the quest for rational rules to live by. If you dispute this, I would recommend reading the introduction to Ayn Rand's book, "Philosophy, Who Needs It?" in which says pretty much what I just said and adds that our society is in trouble today because it lacks any coherent philosophy. A philosophy is a set guiding principles. The idea that we should choose bits and pieces from competing systems of thought and cobble them together, hoping to acheieve what philosophers have been trying to acheive for thousands of years, is ridiculous.

The idea that modern conservatism needs an infusion of ideas from a 19th century American philosophical movement that arose from the field of education is the same kind of thinking that lead to the modern Libertarian Party in the 1970s.

The Libertarian platform is a jumble of ideas grabbed from conservatism, modern liberalism and various other strains and mix-mastered together to form a hodge-podge of conflicting agendas that attracts people from both the left and the right and imagines a stateless utopian society of free individuals.

I was sucked into this intellectual morass, myself, in 1974 and didn't manage to break free of it until I'd wasted a good deal of my adult life on it. I was attracted to it by certain features that I had picked and chosen, while ignoring those that didn't conform to what I believed, and the result was that I wound up tacitly supporting those agendas I didn't subscribe to, right along with those I did subscribe to. This is the danger of trying to mix philosophies.

In short, conservatism isn't broken, so let's not try to fix it, okay?

Rand! I knew it.

Gary,

My apologies. I shouldn't be so critical. It's just that I detest Rand. Next to the thinkers she pilfers, she's an amateur.

I, of course, do not presume to be an expert on the Ancients or political philosophy, but there are some here who are. I would only caution you to tread more lightly on such difficult subjects.

Ralph, I understand your feelings about Ayn Rand. I rejected her Objectivism some twenty years ago. However, I must insist she's correct that any philosophy is a complete system of values to live by. If not, then what IS philosophy and why would so many philosophers throughout history have spent so much of their time and energy devising these? Philosophy is not some parlor game or a hobby; it is an attempt at creating a framework, a guide for living. That, along with Rand's comment that most of the world's probelms stem from the lack of any coherent philosophy (certainly any moral philosophy) is the only reason I even brought her up at all. I'm not an Objectivist.

Perhaps you might elaborate on your views a little? You've got a habit of making statements without saying what you mean by them.

Philosophy can provide "a complete system of values to live by." As such, it is called practical philosophy (ethics and politics). But there are many other areas of philosophy, as well as many reasons to study them. The primary reason is that knowledge is an end in itself.

I, for one, have very little need for or interest in philosophical ethics. Religion provides my "guide for living."

"But there are many other areas of philosophy, as well as many reasons to study them."

That I'm well aware of , Ralph, and have been for over thirty years, as I've studied them, both formally and informally.

Religion does substitute for philosophy, these days, but only to the extent that people truly adhere to the principles of their respective faiths. In a secularized society, that is rather diminished. Many who claim to be Christians, for example, don't attend church or read the Bible and, outwardly, appear to be as secular as those who say they have no religious views. But, this is not to diminish religion as a source of values to live by; rather, an observation of the status quo.

Philosophy certainly has been reduced to an intellectual pastime, a subject for academics to make a living teaching, and little else. It has become, in your words, "knowledge for knowledge's sake." But, it wasn't always so and the philosophers themselves never intended it to be. Whether philosophy can ever serve as a guide to living in the world seems to have been answered by the fact that every philosophy thus far created has fallen by the wayside, either out of indifference or outright rejection and this is why it has been reduced to its present state as an academic subject. As such, it is left for those with any interest in it at all to pick over its lifeless bones, looking for useful scraps to digest. In such a situation, it is easy for one to snatch bits and pieces from one stream of thought and attempt to cobble something new together from disparate sources. Whether the result is worth the effort is questionable.

Gary, your view is that philosophy is essentially an attempt at a complete system of how to live, and that only when it failed did it become "knowledge for knowledge's sake." If you look at the movement of philosophy, I think the reverse is more likely. Ethics is only one branch of philosophy, (one for which I have a use, even though I am religious), but it is not usually considered the meaning of philosophy. The original philosophers, and most philosophers that follow, are interested in a heck of a lot more, and tend to consider thinking about these things part of living a good life.

Let me just point out: by mocking "knowledge for knowledge sake", as you did, you are assuming that wisdom/knowledge doesn't have an essential part in the good human life.

"It has become, in your words, 'knowledge for knowledge's sake.' But, it wasn't always so and the philosophers themselves never intended it to be."

I think we can agree that Plato and Aristotle can lay claim to the title "philosophers themselves." Would it suprise you to know, then, that Plato and Aristotle believed that the best life is the life of contemplation, i.e., of knowledge for its own sake?

"Ethics is only one branch of philosophy, (one for which I have a use, even though I am religious), but it is not usually considered the meaning of philosophy."

I know it is. I didn't say a word about ethics in my last post, did I? I said "philosophy," which includes epistemology, metaphysics and political philosophy (the branch we were concerned with to begin with), as well as ethics and aesthetics. As I said - a COMPLETE SYSTEM of thought. No philosophy is a complete system if it doesn't include every branch of philosophy and it is for this reason that picking and choosing discrete elements from any philosophy does not work. Any philosophy, in order to be more than an intellectual curiousity (i.e., knowledge for knowledge's sake) must be taken in its totality. It was intended to be, no matter what philosophy we're talking about. Even Rand, whom Ralph dismisses as an "amateur" said this many times in her writings. She maintained that one cannot take what they want from Objectivism and discard what doesn't fit their particular viewpoint. I agree.

"The original philosophers, and most philosophers that follow, are interested in a heck of a lot more, and tend to consider thinking about these things part of living a good life."

Well, why do you think I was ever interested in philosophy, in the first place? For the heck of it? Again, you're not telling me anything I didn't know thirty years ago.

"Let me just point out: by mocking "knowledge for knowledge sake", as you did, you are assuming that wisdom/knowledge doesn't have an essential part in the good human life."

As for my alleged "mocking" of anyone or anything, I'm rather annoyed at your condescencion. I had been reading and studying philosophy, informally, for a decade before taking courses in college and you haven't told me anything I didn't already know. I was mocking anything; I simply pointed out that philosophy was never intended to be ONLY "knowledge for knowledge's sake." You belittle the work of every philosopher in history by saying this. Of course knowledge is "an essential part of a good life." I never said it wasn't. I'm saying that, even for the Greeks, the love of knowledge (which is the literal meaning of the word "philosophy") was not without purpose. The earliest expressions of philosophy were attempts to DEFINE what the "good life" is and should be.

Gary,

I would be interested to know what "philosophy" you think undergirds conservatism. I doubt that "conservatives" all agree on the same epistemology, the same source of ethics, the same basis or vision of a good society and even the same definition of conservatism. Some "conservatives" look to Aristotle as a guide, others to Plato, Edmund Burke, John Locke, or Thomas Jefferson. And I'm using the term conservative in its philosophical sense, not in the ordinary usage of politcs -- since the two terms have nothing to do with each other.

If we're not using the term in its modern political sense, I'd still have to credit Burke, Locke and Jefferson, as I did somewhere above, Eric. Yes, you're correct that there is no one epistemology or metaphysics, or, for that matter, any one ethics that all conservatives would agree on. I've cited Rationalism before as a source of the Enlightment thinkers, though, and that would include Burke, Locke and Jefferson. Some might disagree with that.

I still didn't get an answer as to how pragmatism is compatible with conservatism, other than in the broadest, popular use of the term pragmatism. Perhaps that sense is the only compatible feature of pragmatism.

Gary,

"Knowledge for its own sake" is not idle curiosity. Knowledge is a good, indeed, the highest good (given that it's knowledge of the highest object). Thus, the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of the highest good.

This is Plato's position. This is Aristotle's position. This is Aquinas' position, and many more besides.

Gary,

Perhaps Jefferson could be characterized as an "Enlightenment" thinker, but Burke was hardly representative of Enlightenment thinking, and Locke, while an empiricist, drew on an older natural law theory that had antecedents in Catholic theology. Rationalism and the Enlightenment, far from being a source of conservative philosophy, is largely and almost exclusively an anti-conservative movement. Great conservatives, like Joseph de Maistre, stood against all the outcroppings of Englightenment thinking.

If you believe the Enlightenment and rationalism are the parents of conservatism then your conservatism and mine are very different animals.

Ralph,

Aristotle thought contemplating God was the highest good (or end), not knowledge for its own sake, dittos for Aquinas.

""Knowledge for its own sake" is not idle curiosity. Knowledge is a good, indeed, the highest good (given that it's knowledge of the highest object). Thus, the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of the highest good."

Yes, Ralph, I know what it means (probably for longer than you've lived). I don't disagree, either. I think what you're having some difficulty comprehending is that I'm saying that philosophy was never intended to be just that. Every philosophy ever conceived of was an attempt to arrive at a system the world could actually live by. Philosophers didn't come up with these ideas soley for the sake of knowledge, whether we define that as "the higest good" or not. They meant for people to live by the principles they they authored.

Eric, Jefferson was certainly one of the primary sources of what most conservatives today would identify with; i.e., smaller government, individual rights, i.e., the best features of our constitution and the Bill of Rights. He certainly was a thinker of the Enlightenment, no doubt about it. Burke, who lived a little earlier than Jefferson, is credited by many with being the father of conservatism and he lived during the period referred to as "The Enlightenment" and shared many of its values (reason, scientific inquiry, and so on). While Locke may have drawn on Catholicism for his ethics, his political discourses were among the inspirations of Jefferson.

As for Joseph de Maistre, he argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchy, which he regarded as a divinely sanctioned institution, and for the supreme authority of the Pope in both religious and political matters. So, yes, apparently your "conservatism" certainly is different than mine.

Gary: No cheating! You asserted, repeatedly, that "the whole point of philosophy ... [is] to provide a complete system of thought TO LIVE BY" and "a guide to live by." Because the branch of philosophy that deals with the way to live well is ethics, you are defining philosophy as ethics, rather than ethics as a branch of philosophy. Now, some philosphers say this kind of thing, but it is not the standard definition of philosophy. In addition, you keep saying that knowledge for its own sake is a curiosity, an academic waste of time, picking over bones, etc.; so you are clearly implying that the only knowledge worth getting is useful knowledge-- knowledge that can guide our lives. That indicates that you think that ethics really exhausts philosophy, and that the other branches are pointless in themselves. I am not belittling philosophers by saying that they love knowledge for its own sake. You belittle them by saying that they love knowledge only when its useful.

This is really getting to be rather tiresome.

"Gary: No cheating! You asserted, repeatedly, that "the whole point of philosophy ... [is] to provide a complete system of thought TO LIVE BY" and "a guide to live by." Because the branch of philosophy that deals with the way to live well is ethics, you are defining philosophy as ethics, rather than ethics as a branch of philosophy."

Wrong again. Ethics is primarily concerned with matters of morality and, thus, it is certainly a PART of any guide to "the good life." However, as I've repeatedly stressed, any philosophy is a COMPLETE SYSTEM. It is designed to be taken as an integrated whole and, thus, no part of it may be divorced from its supporting foundations in epistemolgy, metaphysics, political philosophy or even aesthics. To say that only ethics is a guide to good living is to beg the questions, what is the basis of these ethics, and, if only the ethics are necessary to good living, why be concerned with matters of epistemology, metaphysics, politics or aesthetics? Aristotle and Plato, as well as all who came after them, never intended for anyone to disregard the bulk of their philosophy and adhere only to their ethics. Without a knowledge of the epistemology, metaphysics, political philosophy and aesthetics, one cannot begin to properly appreciate any given philosophy. Try to understand the ethics of Gorgias without first knowing what his epistemology was, for example. Until you understand that he believed the universe to be a projection of his own mind, you couldn't possibly understand why modern solipsists believe there is no such thing as morality.

"In addition, you keep saying that knowledge for its own sake is a curiosity, an academic waste of time, picking over bones, etc.;"

Actually, what I just said was this:

I don't disagree, either. I think what you're having some difficulty comprehending is that I'm saying that philosophy was never intended to be just that [knowledge]. Every philosophy ever conceived of was an attempt to arrive at a system the world could actually live by. Philosophers didn't come up with these ideas soley for the sake of knowledge, whether we define that as "the higest good" or not. They meant for people to live by the principles they they authored.

"...so you are clearly implying that the only knowledge worth getting is useful knowledge-- knowledge that can guide our lives. That indicates that you think that ethics really exhausts philosophy, and that the other branches are pointless in themselves. I am not belittling philosophers by saying that they love knowledge for its own sake. You belittle them by saying that they love knowledge only when its useful."

I said nothing of the kind. Allow me to repeat what I did say, one more time. None of the world's philosophers ever intended his life's work to be picked over like fruit at a market. They arrived, through years of painstaking thought, at whole systems of thought and they intended those systems to be absorbed as a whole. Your attitude that you can pick and choose bits and pieces of a several philosophies is exactly what is wrong with today's society and is exactly why today's society has no philosophy. My point, regarding knowledge, was that it must exist in context to something. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. Thus, a knowledge of philosophy includes a knowledge of all its constituent parts, not just ethics or politics. This is distinguished from the utility of knowledge.

Wow, Gary. Try to read the Categories as a guide to life. There really is no use for me to continue arguing because you won't listen. As Aristotle points out, if someone denies that snow is white, what he needs is not argument, but experience.

Eric: "Aristotle thought contemplating God was the highest good (or end), not knowledge for its own sake, dittos for Aquinas."

I really didn't want to turn this thread into Philosophy 101, but if I must....

Consider the following from Metaphysics A.2: "Understanding and knowledge pursued for their own sake are found most in the knowledge of that which is most knowable (for he who chooses to know for the sake of knowing will choose most readily that which is most truly knowledge, and such is the knowledge of that which is most knowable); and the first principles and the causes are most knowable; for by reason of these, and from these, all other things come to be known, and not these by means of the things subordinate to them."

That is, knowledge for its own sake is properly knowledge of first principles. God is a (the) first principle. Therefore, knowledge for its own sake is properly knowledge of God.

"Dittos" for Aquinas.

Gary,

The ideas you ascribe to Thomas Jefferson -- individual rights etc. -- properly belong to the liberal tradition. Jefferson was also an early supporter of the French Revolution, so if you wish to define conservatism as individual rights, equality etc then we could also put Condorcet, the English levellers, Voltaire et al. as representatives of conservative thought.

Conservatives value property rights, but first and foremost they defend hierarchy, order, virtue, and tradition. Your conservatism is really liberalism.

Ralph,

Aristotle's theorectical knowledge -- like math, physics, metaphyics -- was knowledge for its own sake. So yes God is part of that -- and the first principle -- but not synonymous with it.

Eric,

Of course theoretical knowledge includes more than knowing God. And while such knowledge is desirable for its own sake, it is less so than the knowledge of God.

What's more, "all other things come to be known, by reason of [first principles], and from these." Therefore, all theoretical knowledge depends on the knowledge of first principles, e.g., God.

Finally, your initial claim that "Aristotle thought contemplating God was the highest good (or end), not knowledge for its own sake...." contradicts your revision that "God is part of that."

Ralph,

Knowledge for its own sake isn't synonymous with God since it includes all theoretical knowledge. First you say knowledge for its own sake is properly God and now you say it isn't. That's a contradiction.

Eric,

Which is knowledge for its own sake to a greater extent, knowledge of God or knowledge of mathematics (e.g.), and why?

Is it possible to have knowledge of physics (e.g.) without knowing God as first principle?

What is the relationship between a first principle and the causes under it?

Find out the answers to these questions and you'll figure it out.