Has anyone read Joseph de Maistre? I find much of his thinking sensible, especially on constitutions. I also find him to be a fruitcake (in the first dialogue of St. Petersburg Dialgoues, in his defense of execution by horrific torture, de Maistre notes the charge that inevitably innocent people will be torturted to death; his rebuttal is simply that even if they innocent of the charge, they are probably guilty of *something* anyway, and so their torture to death is no great crime). A important thinker, but I take him with a grain of salt. Although some have suggested he says certain things to be provocative (I find this in the translator's introduction), yet I am not sure I see substantiation of that. Joseph de Masitre's bloodthirsty conservativism only appears to clash with his unimpeachably moral life to the liberal, but from de Maistre's perspective I think they would be perfectly consistent.
I'd also like to ask if anyone has read The Benedict Option? I see it as very important for cultural conservatives. Rousseau said, "There is no doubt that people are in the long run what the government make out of them," a cancerous thought to be sure. A thought which unforunately has infested the right, who now use the term "conservative" in a meaningless way. The government should certainly support moral and religious order (I don't think there is any classical conservative who beleives "freedom of speech" protects pornography--the law of "freedom of speech", after all, came from British parliament, and was merely broadened in its scope to cover all citizens; no one in his right mind would think being an MP means you can show a pornographic video in parliament). Nonetheless, no classical conservative could believe that social engineering is the state's duty; that is what is foundational in our break with liberals over what education should be. Classical conservatives tend to support a liberal education, whereas liberals see public education primarily as a tool of social engineering. While we must support a moral state, the idea that a state can engineer is a moral society is simply incorrect; moral society is engineered by the family, the community and the Church.
Those in previous threads who have supplied titles for a classical conservative reading chart I greatly thank. I am working on it. Feel free to suggeest more titles from the Anglo-American, Continental and Slavophil schools. To the fellow who suggested Gottfried, I will heed your wishes and place him among the Continental school.
Tradcon General
Well thought out and written post. Problem is, there are no memes.
Meme de Maistre here for awhile and you might get some feedback.
I recommend drawing a De Maistro Pepe, memers love Pepe
I've read most of his work. In regards to what you brought up, I disagree strongly with the assertion that the state is incapable of engineering morality; this is the basis of the Aristotelian state that informed many of canon law theorists, including Boniface who's Unam Sanctum serves as the intellectual groundwork for much of the Papal-centered hierocratic thought that de Maistre champions. The teleological nature of the state may supplant the family and Church, but that is the nature of the state should cultural homogeneity be protected through political power. It is impossible to imagine a culturally conservative society that does not employ some form of cultural self-preservation through state authority.
I do not want pure meme'ers because their posts have no content, they are incapable of critical thought, and they lower the level of discourse.
Explain why Augustine and Aquinas believed prostituion should be legal.
Births out of wedlock in England in 1650 were under one percent. By 1820 they were over 25%. The first figure had zero to do with state engineering
You mean when the Church was stripped of political authority and could no longer enforce its morality? Gee I wonder...Almost as if you are proving my point.
>. It is impossible to imagine a culturally conservative society that does not employ some form of cultural self-preservation through state authority.
I agree with, btw, but I also disagree that it can or should engineer human nature
I think it had more to do with urbanization and enclosure
Sure, that's definitely be true, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the intrusion of state authority into morality, which the other fella seems to think.
Look at Titian's Magdelene. Look as the Sistine Chapel. At the Pornocracy. Trying to be a state engineering tool can actually destroy religion's efficacy. Savanorola was the true prefigurement of religious conservativism, and the Pope killed him.
>Explain why Augustine and Aquinas believed prostituion should be legal.
Wasn't it because they thought it wasn't the Churches job to punish sinners, that job ought to be left up to the secular police and because they don't punish people for many many things considered immoral/sinful it makes no sense to draw the line at prostitution?
I am the other fella, the OP. I do not, as I said in the OP, oppose a moral state. Only I think it is not how you create a moral society, only how you regulate it.
No, they opposed it being illegal by the state as well, believing that banning it would take fornication out of the brothel to run amok in society
This entire statement is predicated on the assumption that the state's interests are opposed to the Church's. In Islamic countries we see the success of a synthesis of religious and secular authority, insofar as religious morality is desired by state authority. If the state is actively working against the Church you are of course correct, but that was not you're initial statement.
You are arguing that the state cannot successfully create a moral society. It is not the source of morality, but can clearly engineer the state to fit the parameter os existing morality. ALso, how do you differentiate between regulation and engineering? Seems like you agree with me.
The state working with it is fine for the Continent, yes, of course. But I am an American so that is not a consideration for us, we have waaay too many sects
>but can clearly engineer the state to fit the parameter os existing morality.
Aye.
Enigeering is making people moral
We must begin to see the family as the primary unit of society rather than the individual.
Then what is the disagreement? I fail to see, if you concede that the state should be allowed to engineer society to make people moral, how your beliefs are incompatible with mine. Your OP post made it seem like you were opposed to any state intervention.
DIS ID GOOD IDEA
LIBERALS B T F O
I was opposed to viewing the state as a source of morality, as our tool to make people moral. It can't. This was in defense of The Benedict Option because it has been criticized.
>While we must support a moral state, the idea that a state can engineer is a moral society is simply incorrect; moral society is engineered by the family, the community and the Church.
Sounds like you're moving the goalposts.
Sad.
In other words I am saying the state can guard, but not PRODUCE, morality.
This is exactly what was attempted in the USA until the civil war. Eventually the state will make demands of what it protects.
We have a duty to the state. It just can't replace the smaller things