Sunday, 17 November 2019

The Progressives Seek an Earthly Paradise

In his November 15, 2019 lecture, William Barr says that the difference between the progressives and conservatives is that the former treat politics as their religion and their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake men and society and create an earthy paradise, while the latter restrict themselves to preserving the proper balance of freedom and order to enable the development of a healthy civil society in which individuals can thrive.

Here’s an excerpt from Barr’s lecture:

“In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion.  Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection.  Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end.  They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications.  They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

“Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise.  We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing.  This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard.  The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?

"For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means.  And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy war, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.”

Saturday, 16 November 2019

Is Liberty a Cult?

The philosophy of liberty is fully compatible with irrationality, cultism, and utopianism. We can draw this inference from history of the philosophical movements that have been devoted to liberty in the last 2500 years. There is as much irrationally, cultism, and utopianism in the pro-liberty movements as there is any theocratic movement. In Ancient Greece, Epicurus established a movement called epicureanism which asserted the value of human freedom and individualism, but the epicureans used to worship the hero cult of Epicurus and they pined for a utopia. In the last 100 years there have been two movements dedicated to liberty: the first is libertarianism and the second is a tiny movement called objectivism which was founded by Ayn Rand. Both libertarianism and objectivism are irrational (in several aspects), cultist, and utopian.

On Master Morality and Slave Morality

In his two books Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche argues that there are two fundamental types of morality: master morality and slave morality. Both the moralities, he says, originated in ancient societies of Greece and Rome. The ancient masters belonged to aristocratic families and were strong, creative, wealthy, and powerful; they viewed themselves as just and moral and they ruled the ancient world with an iron hand, even during the period when Greece and Rome were democracy or republic.

The slave morality, on the other hand, originated among the people in the ancient world who were slaves and servants. They were weak, powerless, lacking in education and intellect, and had no hope of ever enjoying the good life that was being enjoyed by the master class. The relentless oppression that they suffered from their masters had turned them into servile, reactionary, and resentful creatures. While they regarded the virtues of their masters as evil, they had a low opinion of themselves because they believed that they, in some way, deserved their fate.

The masters became the fountainhead of the notion that wealth, glory, ambition, and excellence are compatible with a moral way of life. The thinking of the slaves gave rise to the idea that denial of desire, renunciation, and self-sacrifice are a necessary condition for being moral. Thus master morality is based on self-actualization and slave morality is based on self-denial.

According to Nietzsche, slave morality has been the popular principle for more than 2000 years and the modern age is its climax. However, master morality has not vanished—it continues to exist in peoples minds as a bad conscience which often asserts itself in form of a conflict between things like excellence and mediocrity, pride and humility, selfishness and selflessness, desire and renunciation. Nietzsche imagines that evolution may give rise of the Übermensch who is an expression of master morality and also contains the speritualized elements of slave morality.

Friday, 15 November 2019

Individualism is Not a Political Concept

Individualism is not a political concept; it is an attribute of human psychology that enables a man to be independent and use his own mind for making his choices. A man, depending on his mindset, can be an individualist in a communist country—capitalism is not a necessary condition for individualism. An individualist, like any collectivist, can be moral or immoral—individualism has nothing to do with morality.

Politics is by nature social and collectivist; it cannot be individualistic because the formation of groups with some sort of common agenda is a necessary condition for political activity. The idea of having a political movement of individualists is vacuous and incoherent. Unless people can find ways for collaborating and cooperating with each other and develop a basic understanding about the political outcomes that they want to achieve, they won’t have a political movement.

The individualists must develop the capacity for empathizing and communicating with other minds if they want to have an impact on their nation’s politics.

The Incoherent Dream of The Enlightenment

In the final paragraph of his essay, “Vico and the Ideal of the Enlightenment,” Isaiah Berlin talks about the incoherence in the dream of the Enlightenment. Here’s an excerpt:

"To a disciple of Vico, the ideal of some of the thinkers of the Enlightenment, the notion of even the abstract possibility of a perfect society, is necessarily an attempt to weld together incompatible attributes—characteristics, ideals, gifts, properties, values that belong to different patterns of thought, action, life, and therefore cannot be detached and sewn together into one garment. For a Vichian this notion must be literally absurd : absurd because there is a conceptual clash between, let us say, what gives splendour to Achilles and what causes Socrates or Michelangelo or Spinoza or Mozart or the Buddha to be admired; and since this applies to the respective cultures, in the context of which alone men's achievements can be understood and judged, this fact alone makes this particular dream of the Enlightenment incoherent. The scepticism or pessimism of a good many thinkers of the Enlightenment—Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon, Grimm, Rousseau—about the possibility of realizing this condition is beside the point. The point is that even they were animated by a conception of ideal possibilities, however unattainable in practice. In this, at least, they seem to be at one with the more optimistic Turgot and Condorcet. After Vico, the conflict of monism and pluralism, timeless values and historicism, was bound sooner or later to become a central issue."

The dream of the Enlightenment was based on the notion that human progress is certain and that human history will take a particular path. But Berlin rejects determinism and the possibility of a perfect human life. He points out that indeterminacy and pluralism, which are the essential features of human nature, make it impossible for any philosopher or historian to predict the future.

Thursday, 14 November 2019

On The Problem of Evil

Diamonds are not forever, but evil is. Evil cannot be abolished. There can never be a society that is free of evil because all men (even the saintly ones) have the potential for being evil, just as they have the potential for being good. But this philosophical point is ignored by the modern leftists, liberals, and the neo-conservatives who are convinced that a society free of evil (a paradise) can be created through reason. They inflict utopian policies on their nation and launch wars for creating a paradise in other nations. Most of them are atheists, but they have a “blind faith” in reason; they are convinced that their domestic and foreign policy is perfect.

Wednesday, 13 November 2019

The Subversive Philosophy of Isaiah Berlin

John Gray, in his Introduction to his book Isaiah Berlin, says that “Berlin’s work is animated by a single idea of enormous subversive force. This is the idea, which I call value-pluralism, that ultimate values are objective but irreducibly diverse, that they are conflicting and often uncombinable, and that sometimes when they come into conflict with one another they are incommensurable.” According to Gray, the political implication of Berlin’s thought is that “the idea of a perfect society in which all genuine ideals and goods are achieved is not merely utopian; it is incoherent.”

Tuesday, 12 November 2019

The Problem of Modern Philosophy and Science

The purpose of philosophy is to establish certainty; the purpose of science is to establish empirical facts. But the modernist thought developed during the Age of Enlightenment has turned the traditional view of philosophy and science on its head. The “enlightened” modernists view philosophy as a political tool for imposing an atheistic worldview on the people—and they see science as a tool for creating an idea of progress which owes nothing to traditional knowledge and values. Due to their efforts, atheism has become a project that is devoted solely to creating new materialistic religions (which come with a complete paraphernalia of earthly gods, virtue-signaling rituals, and the promise of an earthly paradise). By suppressing traditional knowledge and values, they have ensured that the progress achieved through science does not lead to intellectual and spiritual advancement in the people; it leads to nihilism.

Hegel’s God and Kierkegaard’s God

While he was a student in Berlin, Søren Kierkegaard had studied with Friedrich Schelling who has denounced G. W. F. Hegel as a negative thinker. Kierkegaard too disliked Hegel’s philosophy because he found in it a paradigm of collective and rationalist thinking, and an idea of god that was incompatible with his own idea of god. He developed a philosophy that is essentially non-Hegelian—its focus is on the individual and not the collective.

In Hegel’s philosophy, we find a grand historical dialectic which leaves little room for the individual, as it seeks to prove that history and humanity have an ultimate purpose. His dialectic defends the idea of a collective world-spirit (or Geist), which is identical with human consciousness and the world. The Hegelian god or Geist is inseparable from his creation and human beings. According to Hegel, human beings can rationally comprehend the Geist, but they cannot confront it as they are themselves a part of the Geist.

Kierkegaard, a profoundly devout man, was appalled by Hegel’s view of god, and he viewed Hegel as an atheist. He rejected not only the collectivity of the Hegelian Geist but also the idea that god can be rationally comprehended. He says that the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved. In his works, he introduces a god that has the power to induce “fear and trembling” and who exists separate from his creation and human beings, thus making a personal confrontation between god and man possible.

In Hegelian dialectic, history proceeds through confrontation, but in Kierkegaard’s dialectic there is no scope for confrontation as it is focussed on the individual. Kierkegaard is primarily interested in two issues: the choices that man faces and the modes of his existence (or lifestyle). He identifies three modes: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. But he notes that there is no rational standard for preferring one mode over the other two.

Monday, 11 November 2019

On The Political Significance of a Nation’s Traditions

A nation’s tradition does not concern only its past; rather, tradition is a cultural and political principle that distributes authority between the past, present, and future. It is a principle that takes into account the three possible cultures: the culture that existed in the old times, the new culture of the contemporary period, and the culture that is possible in the time that is yet to come. By distributing authority between the past, present, and future, the principle of tradition prevents a nation’s politics from taking a totalitarian turn. A consensus between the past, present, and future cannot be achieved by a totalitarian regime—only a democratic or republican government, elected by popular mandate, may achieve it. That is why the nations where politics is dominated by conservative and nationalistic groups which respect tradition are always democratic or republican and tend to enjoy a high level of liberty and free market.

Theists Versus Atheists

Being an atheist is not a sign of a person’s individualism, rationality, and pure moral sentiments but a philosophical position, which is a subject of contentious debate because it can never be proved to be right or wrong. The idea that atheism goes hand in hand with individualism, rationality, and morality is an Enlightenment claim, but there is no philosophical or scientific evidence to back this claim. There is also no evidence to back the claim that the atheists are happier than the theists—in most countries surveys have shown that the theists are generally happier and have a longer average lifespan than the atheists. Then there is the claim that the atheists are likely to be in favor of liberty—this claim is false. In fact, most countries ruled by atheistic doctrines are totalitarian. Even in free countries, the atheistic institutions and groups are mostly hierarchical and cultist—they take a doctrinal approach to political and cultural issues because of which they tend to deny freedom of free expression to their members.

Sunday, 10 November 2019

People Need Religion Because Philosophy is Subjective

Human life is a paradox which cannot be resolved by reason alone; it also demands some sort of contact with a religion that is rich in theological philosophy. The paradox in life is one of truth—there are the fundamental truths that you accept because your senses tell you that these truths are part of the objective reality. But several of these fundamental truths cannot be proved by science and mathematics; you have to go to philosophy for finding arguments to substantiate your belief in these truths. Philosophy, however, is grounded in both objectivity and subjectivity.

A good philosophy is never wholly objective—science is wholly objective, philosophy isn’t. In philosophy the subjective element, as well as the objective element, have a role to play. A philosopher’s work is an outcome of his own subjective thoughts, his reflections on the concerns of the world in which he exists. When there is a subjective element, the aspect of rationalization will be there. But rationalization entails faith—it can be faith in your own mind, that of someone else, or in a mystical entity. The idea of faith brings us to theological philosophy, which is religion.

On Existentialism

Philosophers with existentialist sensibilities can be found as far back as ancient times. Existentialist way of thinking has been identified in Heraclitus, Socrates, and even Augustine. Modern existentialism is generally identified with the thought of five thinkers: Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Albert Camus, and Jean-Paul Sartre. The wide difference in the religious and political thought of these five philosophers is something that makes it impossible to see existentialism as a school of philosophy. Modern existentialism is not a set of doctrines; it is a movement based on certain sensibilities regarding individualism and human freedom. Kierkegaard was profoundly religious, whereas Nietzsche and Sartre were atheists. Kierkegaard would have nothing to do with politics, he was disgusted by it, but Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger were not only political theorists but also political activists. Sartre was a Marxist; Camus was a staunch anti-Marxist and identified as a humanitarian; Heidegger, it is alleged, was close to Nazism. The philosophy also includes popular authors like Fyodor Dostoevsky and Franz Kafka.

Saturday, 9 November 2019

Socrates: The Ugly Philosopher

Socrates was ugly and that made him unhappy. His ugliness was a cause of unhappiness for him because in Ancient Greece ugliness was regarded as a refutation. He hated the people of Ancient Greece because he could see that they were rejecting him because of his ugliness and he devoted his life to philosophy with the aim of overturning Greek culture. This is one of the points that Friedrich Nietzsche makes in his critique of Socratic philosophy.

On The Importance of Man’s Absurdity

Thomas Hobbes describes in Leviathan, an ideal commonwealth that can be established through a social contract and mimics a human body which has at its head, a sovereign with absolute power over the masses. Every person living in the commonwealth has a fixed role to play, like the organs in a human body.

Is it possible for human beings to live in a society where they play fixed roles and have no freedom? Hobbes does not rely on morality to keep the masses in place—he thinks that people will enter into a social contract with one another to establish a commonwealth ruled by a sovereign because they want stability and peace more than anything else.

But Hobbes undermines much of the thesis that he has presented in Leviathan in a passage in Chapter 5 where he acknowledges that human beings have the tendency of exhibiting absurd behavior. He writes, “the privilege of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject, but man only.” His utopia is not feasible because men have the tendency to speak words without meaning and act in absurd ways.

I think that man’s freedom is rooted not only in his reason and intelligence but also in his aptitude for thinking and acting in nonsensical and unpredictable ways.

Friday, 8 November 2019

The God of the Libertarians

The libertarian thinkers deny god of religion because they think that they possess a better god. The free market is the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god that they believe in. They give short shrift to the historical issues, cultural issues, and geopolitical issues. They think that the free market god is the best solution to most of the problems that mankind faces. But the problem with the libertarian vision is that their god of free market is badly articulated—free market will never be achieved by the intellectual and political methods that they are using.

Political Ideology Versus Political Activity

In his essay, “Political Education,” Michael Oakeshott rejects the supposition that political ideology inspires political activity. He points out that the exact opposite is true, it is political activity that is the father of political ideology. Here’s an excerpt:

“So far from a political ideology being the quasi-divine parent of political activity, it turns out to be its earthly stepchild. Instead of an independently premeditated scheme of ends to be pursued, it is a system of ideas abstracted from the manner in which people have been accustomed to go about the business of attending to the arrangements of their societies. The pedigree of every political ideology shows it to be the creature, not of premeditation in advance of political activity, but of meditation upon a manner of politics. In short, political activity comes first and a political ideology follows after; and the understanding of politics we are investigating has the disadvantage of being, in the strict sense, preposterous.”

He illustrates his point by reflecting on the relationship between scientific hypothesis and scientific activity:

“Let us consider the matter first in relation to scientific hypothesis, which I have taken to play a role in scientific activity in some respects similar to that of an ideology in politics. If a scientific hypothesis were a self-generated bright idea which owed nothing to scientific activity, then empiricism governed by hypothesis could be considered to compose a self-contained manner of activity; but this certainly is not its character. The truth is that only a man who is already a scientist can formulate a scientific hypothesis; that is, an hypothesis is not an independent invention capable of guiding scientific inquiry, but a dependent supposition which arises as an abstraction from within already existing scientific activity. Moreover, even when the specific hypothesis has in this manner been formulated, it is inoperative as a guide to research without constant reference to the traditions of scientific inquiry from which it was abstracted. The concrete situation does not appear until the specific hypothesis, which is the occasion of empiricism being set to work, is recognized as itself the creature of owing how to conduct a scientific inquiry.”

Here's his outlook on the relationship between cooking and a cookery book:

“…consider the example of cookery. It might be supposed that an ignorant man, some edible materials, and a cookery book compose together the necessities of a self-moved (or concrete) activity called cooking. But nothing is further from the truth. The cookery book is not an independently generated beginning from which cooking can spring; it is nothing more than an abstract of somebody's knowledge of how to cook: it is the stepchild, not the parent of the activity. The book, in its tum, may help to set a man on to dressing a dinner, but if it were his sole guide he could never, in fact, begin: the book speaks only to those who know already the kind of thing to expect from it and consequently bow to interpret it.”

Thursday, 7 November 2019

The Myth of Scientific Worldview

The notion of a scientific worldview is a myth that was first propagated in the 18th century by the Enlightenment philosophers who wanted to elucidate a totally materialistic doctrine of the universe.

The truth is that science is a method of inquiry into the nature of particular things or phenomena—and no amount of scientific knowledge will give us a view of the “whole” or the entire world. The belief that the universe originated from Big Bang is a philosophical speculation. The belief that the universe was created by a god or an unmoved mover is a religious speculation. These are not scientific facts. Science has no way of proving or disproving the theories that are universal in scope. Through science we cannot even prove that everything in the universe is composed of matter—this is a metaphysical speculation.

Only philosophy and religion can provide a worldview. When people embrace a worldview, they don’t do it on the basis of scientific facts—they do it for ideological or religious reasons.

On The Purpose of Freedom

The purpose of freedom is not to make human beings rational, moral, knowledgeable, or civilized. Freedom has only one purpose—it is to enable human beings to live in society without meddling in each other’s lives. The inner freedom of the mind (that Socrates and Plato have talked about) could be more important than political freedom.

Wednesday, 6 November 2019

Secularism Leads To Multiple Personality Disorder

Secularism is a political doctrine that seeks to banish religion from public life while allowing it to stay alive in private life. But by dividing a man’s life into public life and private life, secularism leads to the creation of a sort of multiple personality disorder in the people. Men become split into two identities: the public man, or a man who engages in political and social activities during his work hours; and the private man, or a man who in his free time attends to his personal needs.

The public man and the private man have to coexist, since they have one body and one mind, but their opinions and way of life are often dissimilar. Secularism commands the public man to be atheistic in his outlook, while the private man is allowed to be religious, if that is what he wishes to be. But a man cannot lead a fulfilling life when his mind is a battleground of two contrasting versions of his own personality—the public man inside him wants him to become a total atheist, while the private man inside him won’t allow him to give up his religion.

Since people are incapable of living with a split personality, the secularist agenda of restricting religion to private life can never succeed. In many secular countries, religion continues to play an important role in politics.

Related: On The Myth of Secularism

Totalitarianism Versus Anarchy

The worst enemy of liberty is not totalitarianism—it is anarchy. No totalitarian regime can constrain a nation’s freedom in every possible way, because to do so it would have to put all its people in chains and herd them into a concentration camp, but if every man in the country suffers the same fate, then there will be no one left to run the economy and the regime will collapse. Most totalitarian regimes leave majority of the citizens untouched—they go after the individuals and groups that they regard as a political threat.

When there is anarchy, there is a power vacuum which turns the society into a battleground of competing faiths and ideologies. The masses get tossed around in this battle for political supremacy; instead of one totalitarian, they have to deal with a whole host of them. They may have to run around to save themselves from the sectarian death squads (some of which may claim a divine right to rule) which prefer to use terror as a tool for grabbing political power. In the chaos and violence that ensues, the masses forgo of their psychological incentives for exercising any kind of liberty. They are not in chains, they are not herded in a concentration camp—but they have no liberty.

Therefore, an individual living in a society that is in state of anarchy is worse off politically than an individual living under a totalitarian regime. In anarchy, there is less liberty because the masses are enchained by fear and confusion.

Tuesday, 5 November 2019

On The Myth of Minimum Government

The libertarians talk about returning to the era of minimum government. But what “era” are they talking about? Minimum government is an imaginary concept. Even in the 18th century, when the USA was founded, the government there was quite big, relative to the nation’s population, the area that it controlled, and the revenues that it received as taxes, and since then the government in this nation has been growing at a brisk pace.

Human beings do not know how to create a minimum government paradise. In the last 2500 years there has not been a single good nation with minimum government—the greatest innovations in philosophy, science, and technology have been made in nations with big governments. Can a nation with libertarian style minimum government survive, if by some kind of miracle it comes into existence? I doubt it. Minimum government is a utopian goal—it will never be achieved. It sounds good in theory, but it is not realizable.

A campaign for minimum government can never succeeded—that is why the libertarian political parties never get more than a handful of votes. If the libertarians want people to take them seriously, they should start talking about things that are achievable by the “imperfect” human beings who live in imperfect nations. Instead of minimum government, they must talk about the ways by which the government institutions can be made more honest, efficient, and accountable.

On The Philosophy of War

There are three philosophical positions on ethics of warfare: pacifism, realism, and just war theory. The liberal political groups are generally inclined towards pacifism or just war theory depending on their political agenda. The conservative groups reject pacifism as a utopian ideal—they are inclined towards realism but they may also espouse a just war theory in certain circumstances.

Pacifism rejects all violent actions—some extreme pacifist groups advocate peace initiatives even when the nation is under direct attack. The pacifist groups are inspired by the teachings of Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. In the time of the Soviet Union, the communist groups made use of pacifist rhetoric to create antiwar sentiments in the countries that they planned to attack. I think pacifism is an immoral doctrine because it constrains the nation from retaliating when its own interests are under attack.

The realist view entails that a nation has the right (and the moral obligation) to defend its interests. According to the realists, if need arises, the nation should go to war against an enemy power, but only after making an objective analysis of its own military power. The realists (who as I said earlier are mostly conservatives) generally believe in maintaining peace through a balance of power among the nations.

The just war theory is divided into two branches: jus ad bellum, which examines the moral and political principles for deciding whether it is just to participate in a war; and jus in bello, which seeks to ensure that the war is conducted ethically. In some cases, jus in bello seeks to constrain a nation from undertaking military action that will lead to civilian casualties in enemy territory, even if the avoidance of such military action will endanger the life of the nation’s own soldiers—this viewpoint is rejected by the conservatives.

In his 1977 book On Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer, an important leftist intellectual, rejects both pacifism and realism. He says that a war can only be justified on the basis of the just war theory. He approves the Israeli military action during the Arab-Israeli Six Day War of 1967. However, the purpose of his book is to justify his opposition to the Vietnam War. He makes a number of assertions which smack of liberal pacifist thinking. For instance, he writes, “It is a crime to commit aggression”.

He also says, “Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act… Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international society.” But such arguments will lead to the utopian conclusion that war is essentially a bad thing.

Monday, 4 November 2019

Survival Strategy for Empires and Republics

A good nation must be both: an empire and a republic. This means that the nation should be founded on republican values while retaining the ability to act like an empire. The history of last 2500 years shows that if a republic lacks the ability to act like an empire, then, within a few decades, it either gets ripped apart in a civil war or is conquered by an outside force. The same goes for empires which are not republics—they too have a short life.

The successful republics cum empires in history are—the Roman Republic/Empire, the British Monarchy/Republic/Empire, and the American Republic/Empire.

The Roman Republic, within a few decades of its inception in 509 BC, developed a lust for being an empire. Starting from the city of Rome, it gradually gained influence over much of the Mediterranean world. After 27 BC it got transformed into an empire with republican roots—the Western Roman Empire lasted till 480 AD and the Eastern till 1500 AD. The British Empire was officially a monarchy, but it was founded on republican values —it lasted for almost 400 years (16th century to 19th century), and at its peak it controlled 25% of the planet.

America was founded on republican principles, but like the Roman Republic, it quickly developed the ability to act like an empire. Jefferson and Hamilton were enthusiastic about the prospect of their nation becoming an empire. After the First World War, America discarded all pretentions of republican isolationism—it became an empire with the messianic agenda of using its military, political, and economic power to assert its hegemony over the entire planet.

The republics that lack the ability for acting like an empire fail within a few decades—example, Ancient Athens, Renaissance Florence, etc. The empires that are not founded on republican values also fail in a few decades—example, the empires founded by Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan splintered after their death; the Soviet Communist Empire was finished in just 70 years (1922 to 1991); the Japanese Empire lasted from 1868 to 1947.

Hegel: Philosophy Comes in the End

Hegel, in his Preface to Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820) writes that the “owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.” This is his way of saying that philosophy comes in the end when the world has reached a mature state of development, or after the shape of life has grown old. Here’s the complete paragraph from Hegel’s Preface:

“Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.” (Translation by S W Dyde, 1896)

Sunday, 3 November 2019

Modern Atheism: The Lure of Manmade Heaven

The concept of “heaven” plays a vital role in modern atheism. All modern atheistic movements have enticed followers by promising them a shortcut to a manmade heaven. The jacobins (during the French Revolution) promised to turn their country into a heaven of reason and science where there would be total equality and all would prosper. Auguste Comte’s positivists promised a heaven of altruism and humanism. Lenin and his communist revolutionaries promised the Russians that they would bring salvation to all (except the bourgeoise and the kulaks) by creating a heavenly dictatorship of the proletariat. The nazis promised to create a heaven by deploying the principles of scientific racism. The logical positivists declared that linguistic concepts of god and belief in god are meaningless, but they promised a heaven through reliance on empirical knowledge. Ayn Rand enchanted her tiny flock of objectivists by creating a godlike character called John Galt (in her novel Atlas Shrugged) who would lead the chosen ones to a “rational” heaven called Galt’s Gulch. The libertarians believe that liberty and free-markets are attractive to all people and the world is destined to become a libertarian heaven. The liberals promise to create a heaven on earth by crushing capitalism and imposing a socialistic welfare model on society.

The Importance of Culture

Michael Oakeshott’s central insight in his essay, “Rationalism in Politics,” is that liberty is not an ideal that can be exported from one culture to another, rather it is a practice that germinates in a certain type of culture under historical circumstances that are extremely rare. Therefore, an attempt by the free nations to use their military or economic power to export the ideal of liberty to the unfree nations will mostly end in a disaster. The interesting thing is that Oakeshott, a conservative scholar, presented this insight in 1947, more than four decades before the neo-conservatives took control of western conservatism and began their project for transforming the Middle East into a paradise of liberty and free-markets. Oakeshott’s insight is also fatal to the doctrine of multiculturalism—because it proves that when it comes to ideals like liberty, all cultures are not equal.

Related: Oakeshott’s Critique of Libertarian Politics

Saturday, 2 November 2019

Tyranny is More Popular Than Liberty

The vision of a world in which every man’s rights are respected, and there is universal democracy and free-markets, is a utopian dream. In foreseeable future, the world will remain divided into nations with different kinds of political systems with varying degrees of freedom and tyranny. A nation’s political system is dependent on its culture—very few cultures in the world like liberty, most cultures are nihilistic and inclined towards tyranny.

The libertarians say that there is great attractiveness in the ideas of liberty and free-markets, but there is great attractiveness in tyranny and socialism too. When tyranny comes gift-wrapped in moral ideals, then it becomes immensely attractive to the people. They will fight to death to defend their tyrant and if the tyrant’s regime is overthrown, they will promptly install another tyrant to lord over their nation.

Oakeshott’s Critique of Libertarian Politics

Michael Oakeshott is seen as the most thoughtful conservative of the 20th century; the rationalists that he is targeting in his 1947 essay, “Rationalism in Politics,” are primarily the liberals and the leftists. The word “libertarianism” is not there in the essay—he has, however, made a comment on F. A. Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom, noting that “a plan to resist all planning may be better than its opposite, but it belongs to the same style of politics.” In my opinion, Oakeshott's essay, “Rationalism in Politics,” can also be read as a critique of libertarian politics.

According to Oakeshott, modern rationalism emerged as a method of acquiring knowledge in the seventeenth century and within a short period of time it acquired a chokehold on politics. The political rationalists attempt to deduce abstract, universal principles through unaided reason. They are convinced that since an individual’s reason is independent, the knowledge derived through it must lead to social progress. Modern rationalism enables armchair political theorists to originate principles, which they think are most suitable for society, and impose them on the nation.

This idea that politics is the domain of technical knowledge and not practical experience is rejected by Oakeshott. He notes that politics is not something that can reduced to a set of abstract principles or a doctrine—it is something far more complicated, being dependent on the traditions and habits of the people. Therefore, politics has to be guided by practical knowledge.

The claims that the rationalists are making are mere abridgements of practical knowledge and that will not serve as a guide for a nation’s politics. To explain his point, Oakeshott offers the analogy of a recipe—he points out that the recipes that are contained in a cookery book can be useful to an expert cook as reminders. But the people who have no knowledge of cooking cannot cook like a chef if all they know is the recipe—a practical knowledge is required for being a chef. The same, Oakeshott insists, is true of politics. You can use abstract political principles as reminders, but if you have no practical knowledge, then your political ideas are of little value.

Oakeshott sees politics as the “practice” of attending to the arrangements of a given society. He rightly notes that Hayek’s plan is merely a plan or a theory—to make it work you need practical knowledge that Hayek (or any other armchair thinker) is incapable of providing. I think this is a right identification of the problem in libertarianism which relies too heavily on abstract theories and pays very little attention to the practical side of politics.

Related: The Importance of Culture

Friday, 1 November 2019

On The Myth of Secularism

Secularism is an impossible ideal. It commands man to go against his own nature, the human nature, by denying his own faith. Religion is a basic human need because man is as much a creature of faith, as he is a creature of reason. It is impossible for human beings to develop a nation that is not influenced by the knowledge encompassed in the dominant religion of the political community. The best governed republican nations in the last 2500 years were developed after rationally and fully integrating religion into the political life. If a religion has a long intellectual and cultural tradition, then it will never lead to the problem of totalitarianism.

Related: Secularism Leads To Multiple Personality Disorder

The Universe As A Library of Babel

Imagine the universe as a library spread across an endless series of hexagonal rooms—in each room there is an entrance built on one wall; on another wall, there are the bare necessities for human existence; and rest of the four walls are lined with bookshelves filled with books. The library contains infinite number of books. It has every book that has ever been written and that will ever be written—and it has every possible variation of every book that it contains. A vast majority of the books make no sense, but some of which make sense contain vital information that the human beings quest for. I am talking about the short story, “The Library of Babel,” by Jorge Luis Borges.

Here’s the final paragraph from the story:

“I have just written the word "infinite." I have not included that adjective out of mere rhetorical habit; I hereby state that it is not illogical to think that the world is infinite. Those who believe it to have limits hypothesize that in some remote place or places the corridors and staircases and hexa­gons may, inconceivably, end-which is absurd. And yet those who picture the world as unlimited forget that the number of possible books is not. I will be bold enough to suggest this solution to the ancient problem: The Li­brary is unlimited but periodic. If an eternal traveler should journey in any direction, he would find after untold centuries that the same volumes are repeated in the same disorder-which, repeated, becomes order: the Order. My solitude is cheered by that elegant hope.”

Wednesday, 30 October 2019

Political Norms Are Not Universal

The libertarian view is that political norms are universal and can be justified independent of cultural differences. But this is not correct. The terms “liberty,” “democracy,” “justice,” and “rights,” are political concepts, and their actualization and justification is contingent on the culture of a political community (nation). In order to figure just what liberty, democracy, justice, and rights look like in a given society, we must become acquainted with the local culture. This means that political norms cannot be universal; they have to be contextual—or developed in relation to a political community. In order to give a logical description of liberty, democracy, justice, and rights, the philosopher must begin by describing the political community in context of which he is philosophizing. The political community forms the foundation of all political norms—and the purpose of political norms is to explain the political and moral values of a particular political community.

On The Limitations of Originalism

The traditional conservatives have faith in originalism because they are convinced that the constitution is adequate for defending people’s rights and freedoms, and preserving their way of life, but here they show a characteristic disregard for history which shows that the constitution always changes with the regime. They don’t seem to realize that for the liberals, the constitution is merely a tool for transforming society into a progressive utopia—when the liberals are in power they do their best to change the constitution by passing new laws and getting rid of the old constitutional guarantees. They politicize the judicial system to rig the kind of verdicts that they want. Originalism might be a good way of interpreting the constitution, but it often deludes its conservative followers into putting too much faith in the constitution and adopting a weak political strategy, which is ineffective against the maneuvers of the liberal activists.

Tuesday, 29 October 2019

The Pitfalls of a Borderless Utopia

A borderless world is utopianism of the most primitive kind—it presumes that people can live in harmony with everyone. The truth is that human beings have a natural desire to live in the company of people with whom they share some qualities and interests. That is why we prefer to live in political communities. But for building a political community, it is necessary to place restrictions on the entry of people who are, for some reason, incapable of being part of that community. Therefore, it is imperative for a political community to regulate immigration.

A nation is a political community—in order to perform the function of a political community it has to have borders and a system for controlling immigration. If a nation is forced to have open borders, then its political community will get disrupted. Its citizens will start feeling insecure and they will react by organizing themselves into non-national political communities which are based on regionalism, race, religion, and economic and political status—walls will come up around many towns and cities to regulate the entry of outsiders. There could be a massive rise in the number of gated communities within the cities and towns.

If the political campaign for open border and a universal right to immigrate is successful, it will lead to an ironic outcome—instead of freeing the nation of borders, it will give rise to a plethora of borders within the nation.

Unlimited Freedom Leads to Unlimited Despotism

The intellectuals and politicians who propose that the western countries should use their military power to force countries in the Middle East to accept a liberal form of governance are like the deluded revolutionaries that Fyodor Dostoevsky has described in his book The Possessed. These revolutionaries think that they can establish a paradise after overthrowing the existing regime through a violent revolution. Shigalyov, the intellectual character in The Possessed, who is a historian and social theorist, and a key thinker for the revolutionaries, has developed a plan for post-revolution reorganization of mankind. But the realization dawns on him that the reorganization of mankind will entail a huge cost—more than 100 million people will be killed and many more will be enslaved in the attempt to create a paradise. He confesses, "My conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism.” This has an important lesson for the Middle East: Political liberty and free market cannot be established in most countries in this region. Here the choice is between secular despotism and theocratic regime.

Monday, 28 October 2019

A Perfect Society Cannot Be Conceived

All philosophies which describe a perfect society are utopian and bogus. A perfect society cannot be conceived by the human mind. This is because the structure of any society is based on two theories: legal theory and ethical theory. The arguments in both ethical theory and legal theory are interminable. People will never have a consensus on the best constitution and good moral behavior. Since it is not possible to conceive of the final form of legal theory and moral theory, a perfect society is beyond the reach of the human mind. Imagining a perfect society is like imagining the Kingdom of Atlantis. We will never know what a perfect society is, and what we don’t know we can’t create.

On Fukuyama’s Idea of End of History

In his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama presents his end of history thesis. He says that in future there will not be any conflict about the most legitimate type of government because it is now established that the liberal type of government is the final form. Later he denied that he believed in the end of history. But in his book he has written these lines:

“What we may be witnessing in not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. This is not to say that there will no longer be events to fill the pages of Foreign Affairs's yearly summaries of international relations, for the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in the real or material world. But there are powerful reasons for believing that it is the ideal that will govern the material world in the long run.”

Fukuyama is making two important claims: first, history has reached its end point (at least, in the area of political theory); second, liberal democracy is now the final (or the most legitimate) form of government. But it is not true that history has reached an end point— Fukuyama does not offer any argument to back this claim. The idea that liberal democracy is the final form of government is crackpot neo-conservative utopianism. There is no evidence to suggest that political liberty and free-markets are suitable for every nation in the world. A liberal form of government cannot be achieved everywhere.

Sunday, 27 October 2019

On the Utopianism of the Libertarians

The libertarian defense of liberty and free-markets smacks of scientism. They describe the irrationality of big government, but they fail to notice that liberty and free markets are an artifact of nationalism and state power. Without nationhood and state power, liberty and free markets cannot exist. The libertarians detest nationalism; history for them is a one-way street which, they believe, will end (in a Hegelian fashion) with the establishment of a global utopia of free-market and liberty.

But it is unlikely that the globe will ever become a libertarian utopia. This is primarily because in different countries, the forces of nationalism interact with modern technology to produce different kinds of free-market systems. Today the world is home to not one but several variants of free-markets. There is no conformity among people in different nations on the issue of free-society and free-market. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that liberty and free-markets are equally good for people in all cultures. The libertarians have nothing to say about those cultures in the world that are incompatible with liberty and free-markets.

The problem with the libertarians is that they lack skepticism—the libertarian cliches are for them the eternal verities.

On Reason and Emotions

Emotions are as innate to man as reason is. A man of reason, who has suppressed or overcome his emotions, is usually a totalitarian and a dogmatist. A good human being is a man of both, reason and emotions. Reason cannot be trusted when it operates without regard for emotions. Likewise, emotions cannot be trusted when they operate without regard for reason. Both reason and emotions are fallible, but when they work together in a man’s mind, then he has a better chance for making the right choices. I often come across philosophers who invoke reason to attack emotions. But an examination of their philosophies will show that their ideas are bogus. Reason is ineffective if it does not have access to the common sense that is reflected in a man’s emotions.

Saturday, 26 October 2019

On Conservatism’s Decline into Progressive Utopianism

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, instead of leading to the end of socialism, led to the weakening of the conservative movement. The 1990s saw the rise of a new breed of conservative politicians and intellectuals who viewed traditional conservatism as an obstacle to electoral success. Under their leadership, conservatism’s links with ancient and medieval knowledge, which is essential for making it a coherent project, was severed. Conservatism ceased to be conservative in the traditional sense; it is now a modernist movement—a vehicle for progressive utopianism.

On the Doctrine of Historical Teleology

Hegel believed that history ended in 1806 when Napoleon marched into Jena, a point of time, when he, Hegel, finished writing his The Phenomenology of Spirit. 1806 was, according to Hegel, the year when mankind had experienced all the stages of mental and political evolution. The future, he believed, would not bring any further transformation in human mentality and political systems. On the back of Napoleon’s army there had arrived in Jena, the idea of a society of freedom, law, and equality based, not on religion, but on science, and from Hegel’s Phenomenology there came the ultimate philosophy. Nothing else was required.

In the 20th century, Hegel’s doctrine was used by the communists to make a case for “historical teleology.” They saw history as a process with communism as its built-in goal. The collapse of communism did not lead to the end of the doctrine of historical teleology, which was picked up by the neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives who were motivated by the utopian vision of turning the entire world into a free-market and democratic paradise. In his 1992 book on political philosophy The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama asserted that the Western liberal democracy was the final form of government for all nations and it represented the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution.

Margret Thatcher, who was a traditional conservative, untouched by utopian revolutionary ambitions, rejected Fukuyama’s thesis with these words: “The end of history! The beginning of nonsense!”

Friday, 25 October 2019

On The Four Types of Conservatism

The term “conservative” generally refers to anyone who stands for small government, free-markets, respect for religion and culture, and strong law and order. There are four types of conservatism: first, free-market conservatism, which is focused on free market liberalism; second, traditional conservatism, sometimes called paleoconservatism, which stands for economic and cultural nationalism and noninterventionism; third, religious conservatism, which is concerned with moral and cultural issues; fourth, neo-conservatism, which has revolutionary and utopian aspirations and stands for using the power of the government to remake the country and the world. The four types of conservatism are not separated by an unbridgeable chasm. The first three groups of conservatives agree on most issues, while disagreeing on others. But the fourth type of conservatism, neo-conservatism, is a new phenomena and it is seen as an outlier in the overall conservative movement because of its revolutionary and utopian character.

Thursday, 24 October 2019

On The Age of Enlightenment

Did the Age of Enlightenment lead to any enlightening idea? The Enlightenment is not identified with one or two great philosophers; it was a mishmash of philosophers belonging to an array of schools of thought—monarchists and republicans, atheists and deists, liberals and non-liberals, communists and egalitarians, free-marketers and socialists, anarchists and statists, humanists and racists. They had bitter disputes with each other on a range of political and ethical issues, but the doctrine with which the Enlightenment is generally associated is a totalitarian one: that the human race can be perfected and a good society can be created by using political power.

Neo-Conservatism: Modernity’s First Religious Utopian Movement

The Age of Enlightenment bequeathed to the world the notion that men of reason and science (who are free of religious beliefs) can use political power to improve human race and create a perfect society. The first political movement inspired by the radical enlightenment doctrine was the French Revolution of the 18th century—the atheistic jacobins began the era of mass murder in the name of spreading enlightenment.

The Enlightenment doctrine didn’t disappear with the failure of the French Revolution. In the 20th century, the communists led by Lenin were motivated by the vision of unbounded human possibility that could be unleashed by the implementation of utopian ideas. In the 1930s, the nazis and the fascists used the idea of scientific racism (which was developed during the Age of Enlightenment) to create a perfect society.

All political movements in the last 250 years that were inspired by the Enlightenment vision of human perfectibility and the possibility of perfect society were atheistic and anti-tradition—all except one, the neo-conservatives. They are very religious and traditional, but they hanker for goals that are as utopian as the goals that motivated the jacobins, communists, nazis, and fascists. With the rise of the neo-conservatives, utopianism has taken root in the conservative mind.

Related: The Utopian Mission of Liberals and Neo-Conservatives

Wednesday, 23 October 2019

The Utopian Mission of Liberals and Neo-Conservatives

The failure of the Nazism, Fascism, and Communism did not destroy the doctrine of human perfectibility which found a way of migrating to other movements. The liberals were the first to be infected by this doctrine—in the late 1940s, a few years after the Second World War, the liberals became obsessed with the idea of creating a perfect global society. They started drawing the blueprint for a new utopia which would span the planet—a global democracy and free market under the benign command of enlightened progressive rulers. But the liberals could not take their agenda forward because of strong opposition from the conservatives.

After the 1990s, a section of the conservatives too became infected with the doctrine of human perfectibility. They called themselves neo-conservatives and were inspired by the idea that, with the use of military power, people in other countries can be perfected. The neo-conservatives joined hands with the liberals and they launched their first major utopian experiment in the Middle East. Their plan was to use military power to turn the Middle East into a democratic and free market paradise. The Middle Eastern experiment has had catastrophic consequences—it has cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars, and none of the utopian goals have been achieved.

For a war to be moral, its goals must be achievable; if the goals are utopian and not achievable, then the war is immoral. The wars orchestrated by the liberals and the neo-conservatives in the last four decades are utopian and immoral.

Isaiah Berlin On Utopianism

In his essay, “The Apotheosis of the Romantic Will,” (The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas; By Isaiah Berlin; Page 219 - 252), Isaiah Berlin sounds a warning against the moral and political cost of utopianism. Here’s a paragraph from the essay in which Berlin equates utopianism with totalitarianism:

“All the utopias known to us are based upon the discoverability and harmony of objectively true ends, true for all men, at all times and places. This holds of every ideal city, from Plato’s Republic and his Laws, and Zeno’s anarchist world community, and the City of the Sun of Iambulus, to the Utopias of Thomas More and Campanella, Bacon and Harrington and Fenelon. The communist societies of Mably and Morelly, the state capitalism of Saint-Simon, the Phalansteres of Fourier, the various combinations of anarchism and collectivism of Owen and Godwin, Cabet, William Morris and Chemyshevsky, Bellamy, Hertzka and others (there is no lack of them in the nineteenth century) rest on the three pillars of social optimism in the west of which I have spoken: that the central problems — the massimi problemi — of men are, in the end, the same throughout history; that they are in principle soluble; and that the solutions form a harmonious whole.”

Tuesday, 22 October 2019

Conservatives Versus Liberals

Populism and nationalism are fundamental to the conservatives. Intellectualism and globalism are fundamental to the liberals. The conservatives base their policies on the feedback that they have from the masses. The liberals enact their policies on the basis of the advice that they have from the “liberal experts,” who have contempt for the masses. The conservatives believe in equality before the law. The liberals believe in equality of wealth and resources.

Conservatism leads to good outcomes only in nations that have a sense of connection with the great civilizations of the past and have a rich tradition of liberty, morality (religious and secular), individualism, and interdependence. Liberalism operates by demolishing a nation’s traditions—to attain and retain political power, the liberals must force the masses to reject their traditions and rely on the doctrine developed by the “liberal experts.”

John Gray on Ayn Rand’s Cult

In his book Seven Types of Atheism, John Gray offers a devastating four page (Page 48 to 51) critique of Ayn Rand’s philosophical movement objectivism. He notes that objectivism is a farrago that Rand created by mixing her version of Nietzsche and American folk-mythology with her borrowings from Aristotle and John Locke. She tried to sell objectivism as an atheistic and individualistic philosophical system, but the school is organized like a cult—most objectivists worship Rand as their goddess. Here’s an excerpt (Pages 50 - 51):

"Rand’s cult aimed to govern every aspect of life. She was a dedicated smoker, and her followers were instructed that they had to smoke as well. Not only did Rand smoke, she used a cigarette-holder—so that when she addressed large audiences of the faithful, a thousand cigarette-holders would move in unison. It was not for nothing that the ultra-individualists who became Rand’s disciples were described within the movement as ‘the Collective’. The selection of marriage partners was also controlled. In her view of things, rational human beings should not associate with those that are irrational. There could be no worse example of this than two people joined together in marriage by mere emotion, so officers of the cult were empowered to pair Rand’s disciples only with others who also subscribed to the faith. The marriage ceremony included pledging devotion to Rand, then opening Atlas Shrugged at random to read aloud a passage from the sacred text.

"Rand pronounced on a wide range of issues, including what was the best kind of dance. Only one type of dancing was truly rational. Some – like the tango – were low-level, semi-instinctual physical performances lacking any intellectual content. Others – the foxtrot, possibly – she rejected as being too cerebral. What then was the only dance that, combining mind and body, could be approved as being truly rational? Tap-dancing. Fred Astaire may not have known it, but he embodied the opposing forces of reason and instinct in an ideal synthesis. Tap-dancing was the cultural form that Nietzsche had been searching for in his first important work, The Birth of Tragedy: a fusion of Dionysian vitality with Apollonian harmony.

"It might seem unlikely that a cult of this kind could exercise any public influence. But the maddest ideas are quite often the most influential, and Rand’s cod-philosophy has had a discernible impact on American politics."

Monday, 21 October 2019

Religion is the Master of Politics

A people will never change their political and cultural views until they are inspired or forced to reform or reject their religious convictions. This inference can be drawn from the political history of last 2500 years which, as it turns out, is analogous to the history of religion. The periods of great political upheavals are the periods of tectonic changes in matters to faith. A transformation in religious belief always breeds political and cultural upheaval.

The atheistic revolutions of the last two centuries morphed into earthly religious movements, because the atheists realized that without an earthly religion they cannot make an impression on the masses. The communists preached faith in their doctrine of historical materialism, the nazis preached faith in scientific racism (eugenics)—the liberals (who are the descendants of the communists and the nazis) preach salvation through enlightened progressivism.

The Dream of a Ridiculous Man

In his short story, “The Dream of a Ridiculous Man,” Fyodor Dostoevsky looks at the issues related to human perfectibility and the possibility of a utopia. The story’s unnamed narrator thinks of himself as a ridiculous man and he is convinced that others see him in the same way. He decides to commit suicide and buys a gun with the intention of shooting himself in the head. But the chance encounter with a troubled girl makes him postpone his suicide.

That day when he falls asleep, he dreams that he has shot himself in the heart and has died. However, he continues to be aware of his surroundings. There is a funeral and he is buried, after an unknown period of time, his body is exhumed from the grave by a mysterious figure who soars with him into the space. They go to a new planet which is like earth in most respects—the only difference is that here the human beings are perfect creatures and they lead a happy, blissful, sinless life in a utopia. One day the narrator accidentally teaches them the way of lying and then starts the process of corruption of the utopia which soon becomes exactly like earth.

Here’s an excerpt from Dostoevsky's “The Dream of a Ridiculous Man”:

“Then there arose men who began to think how to bring all people together again, so that everybody, while still loving himself best of all, might not interfere with others, and all might live together in something like a harmonious society. Regular wars sprang up over this idea. All the combatants at the same time firmly believed that science, wisdom and the instinct of self-preservation would force men at last to unite into a harmonious and rational society; and so, meanwhile, to hasten matters, ‘the wise’ endeavored to exterminate as rapidly as possible all who were ‘not wise’ and did not understand their idea, that the latter might not hinder its triumph.”

Sunday, 20 October 2019

Libertarianism is a Child of Conservatism

Karl Marx has proclaimed that a socialist utopia can arise only in a society where the capitalists (by implication, the conservatives) have done their work. The libertarians have not made a similar proclamation, but their tiny movement has evolved only in countries where the politics and culture is dominated by free-market oriented conservatism. There is no trace of libertarianism in the countries which are being ruled by a communist or religious fundamentalist regimes.

It’s notable that in the last 100 years, the libertarians have been pontificating about liberty and free markets only in countries where liberty and free market already exist, primarily due to the efforts of the conservatives. Libertarianism is like a creeper that survives by attaching itself to the trunk and branches of the giant tree of conservatism. They are both movements which appreciate the fruitfulness of unplanned processes and are averse to the idea of big government.

Libertarianism cannot have an impact on culture and politics until the libertarians start acknowledging the conservative roots of their ideology

Why are Marvel Movies Popular?

In his article, “Masculinity and the Marvel movies,” Edward Feser writes:

“People will yearn in at least an inchoate way for the traditional institutions and ideals without which they cannot fulfill their nature, even when they are told they ought not to and have halfway convinced themselves that they ought not to… I would suggest that the Marvel movies have the appeal they do at least in part precisely because they both convey these traditional ideals, but do so in a way that is fantastic enough that the offense to political correctness is not blatant.  A film series whose heroes are a square patriotic soldier, the son of a heavenly Father come to earth, and a strutting capitalist alpha male sounds like something tailor-made for a Red State audience, and the last thing that would attract A-list actors and billions in investment from a major studio.  Put these characters in colorful costumes, scenarios drawn from science fiction, and a little PC window dressing (such as portraying their girlfriends as a soldier, a scientist, and a businesswoman, respectively), and suddenly even a Blue State crowd can get on board.”

However, the future of the Marvel movies enterprise is not clear, as Feser notes:

“I submit that its complex portrayal of these competing models of masculinity is part of what makes the Marvel series of movies a genuine exercise in imagination rather than fantasy, in Haldane’s sense of the terms… One wonders, however, whether this will last.  A few years ago, Marvel’s comics division notoriously reoriented their titles to reflect greater “diversity” and political correctness – an experiment that critics labeled “SJW Marvel” and that resulted in a dramatic decline in sales.  The trend has been partially reversed and did not at the time affect the movies, where much more money is at stake.  But there are signs that a milder form of the “SJW Marvel” approach will make its way into the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the next phase of movies.”

Saturday, 19 October 2019

On Kant’s Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant has argued for only one categorical imperative which is best known by this formulation: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

The Kantian categorical imperative is a product of reason alone. Kant understood reason as the faculty that discerns and dictates universal laws. He posits that if reason dictates a moral law, then that law will be capable of being universalized—it would necessarily dictate that you must act according to the universal law, or in accordance to the maxims that you can universalize.

With his categorical imperative, Kant is not preaching a moral law which may dictate your acts—he is giving you the freedom to make your own choices. He is saying that you can act according to your own reason, and that it is your task to figure out what the rule of your reason is. There is only one caveat—you can act only as you would will all others to.

On Clausewitz’s Philosophy of War

The wars of ancient and medieval periods were mostly localized conflicts as the nations didn’t have large standing armies. The scope of their wars, fought mainly through mercenaries and aristocrats, was constrained by all kinds of rules and the ideas of chivalry. But the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, and the rise of nationalism led to a transformation in warfare. When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812 his Grande Armée had a strength of 685,000 men. This was the largest land army that Europe had ever seen.

Carl von Clausewitz was serving as a military officer in Jena when Napoleon invaded Prussia in 1806 and defeated the Prussian army, taking more than 25000 prisoners, including Clausewitz. After being held in France for two years, when Clausewitz returned to Prussia, he participated in several other military campaigns. His book On War (which he wrote between 1816 and 1830) is a systematic and philosophical examination of modern (or nationalist) way of warfare.

Along with being an officer in Prussian military, Clausewitz was also versed in German philosophy. He takes a Kantian approach to warfare and defines two kinds of wars: a real (empirical) war and a pure war. A real war, he says is continuation of state policy by other means and is an act of force that compels the enemy to do our will; whereas a pure war is concerned with only the military aspects of war—deployment of troops, topography of the area where the battle is fought, the arms and ammunitions to be used, the strategies, the maintenance of supply lines, and so on.

The two, real war and pure war, he says, have to be analyzed separately because if political considerations behind the war are mixed with the methods used to fight the war then the military analysis may turn out to be faulty. Real war, he notes, is political, which means it is motivated by political considerations, but a pure war is not concerned with politics—it is focused only on the militaristic considerations that can lead to victory.

Clausewitz makes an important political point—he notes that the success of Napoleon’s war machine in European conflicts is a sign that in future the wars will tend towards being pure wars, because the resources that the nations will pour into the war effort will be much greater than what was possible in the Ancient and Medieval periods. This will lead to the wars become less chivalrous, more violent, and less concerned with political considerations.

Friday, 18 October 2019

Nationalistic Conservatism is Anti-Racism

Nationalistic conservatism means that people should rule themselves and it’s inherently anti-racism. Both nationalism and conservatism are modern phenomena. They are the political outcome of the two 18th century revolutions: The American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789.

People have always lived in groups formed by the bonds of kinship, race, location, and dialect. In Ancient Greece, Roman Era, and Middle Ages, people didn’t identify with their country (they didn’t have the concept of a country with definite borders); they identified with their king, their racial or ethnic group, their small town, and their dialect. The rise of nationalistic conservatism, after the two 18th century revolutions, has allowed tens of millions of people (in countries with large populations) to transcend their racial and ethnic identities, and identify with their nation and its culture.

I am not saying that a supporter of nationalism and conservatism cannot be a racist—a follower of any ideology can be motivated by racism. My point is that as a political system or movement nationalistic conservatism tends to look at issues primarily from a national perspective, and it usually operates by downplaying the issues related to racial and ethnic identities.

Edmund Burke’s Critique of the Social Contract

In his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), Edmund Burke predicts with amazing prescience that the French revolutionaries would destroy their country because they were motivated by the idea obliterating the political, social, and theological institutions and redistributing wealth. He also offers a good critique of the Social Contract theory. He points out that society is not an outcome of contract that people enter into at a particular moment. The contract among the people (if there is indeed a contract) is eternal and unstated and it includes the dead and the future generations. According to Burke, a political society is like an organism that exists over a period of time—it gains legitimacy through its traditions. The local loyalties of the people—the collectives like family, neighborhood communities, and the religious institutions—are the glue that hold the organism called society together.

Here’s an excerpt from Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France:

“Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure—but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place.”

Burke warns against the intellectuals who are backed by men who have acquired new wealth and have little respect for traditions and institutions. He says that these intellectuals are  determined to reform society according to abstract principles of reasoning. But their doctrine of “rule of reason” is actually a kind of despotism.

Thursday, 17 October 2019

The Voice of Reason is The Voice of Totalitarianism

The conservatives do not look at “reason” for deducing their political norms—they look at historical practices and institutions. I support the conservative method, because the history of last 250 years shows that the movements that are based on reason tend to become totalitarian. One man’s reason can be, and often is, in conflict with the reason of other men and this inevitably leads to a conflict of wills within the movement. There is a temptation in the leader of such movements to project himself as a perfectly rational being. To overcome the conflict of wills in his movement, the “self-proclaimed perfectly rational leader” propagates the view that he is the voice of reason, and all those who oppose him are the enemies of reason—thus he establishes a totalitarian enterprise. The conservative way of treating the historical practices and institutions as the fountainhead of political norms usually leads to much better outcomes for a nation.

On Montesquieu’s Republicanism

Montesquieu was a popular philosopher in 18th century French, but his political theory had a great impact across the continent, in America. In his 1748 work The Spirit of the Laws, he makes an important claim about the separation of powers between different arms of a republican government that proved crucial to the leaders who founded American in 1776. The great debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in the United States in 1787 and 1788 was inspired by Montesquieu’s theory of government.

An admirer of England’s constitutionalist system with its mixed government and separation of powers, Montesquieu makes the case for a division of power between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and a bicameral legislature. He grants the executive the power to veto legislation but not to establish it, and to the legislature he grants the power to review the executive but not to disarm it. The outcome of his theory is four agencies—the executive, judiciary, House of Lords, and House of Commons—which act as a check on one another’s powers.

Montesquieu is an advocate of the view that a government with internal political limits and whose parts are in competition is a necessary condition for preserving the liberty of the citizens. But he insists that if a republic is too large, it’s likely to become corrupted. He says that a large republic should adopt a federal structure (a federation of small republics) to avoid the pitfalls of size.

Wednesday, 16 October 2019

On History and Politics

The principle by which liberalism (nihilistic leftism) rules is ignorance and fear of history. The principle required for nationalism (constitutionalist conservatism) is knowledge and honor of history.

On The Political Implications of Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy

Immanuel Kant has not written directly on political issues; much of his work is on epistemology, moral theory, and aesthetics, and since his writing style is highly abstract, it is difficult to connect him to any political movement. Some of the letters that he wrote in the early years of 1790s suggest that the failure of the French Revolution had the effect of awakening him from his “dogmatic political slumbers,” and he was inspired to write a Fourth Critique, which might have focused on political theory. But in the 1790s he could write only a few minor essays.

However, if we see philosophy as a practical implication of ethical philosophy, then we can try to find out how Kant’s deontological ethics informs his politics. One of the versions of his categorical imperative is close to republicanism. This is the version that states that one must act in accord with the idea that every rational will is a universally legislating will, and one must treat every person, including oneself, with the respect owed to someone who is a universal moral legislator.

This version of the categorical imperative implies that Kant (like Locke and Rousseau) believed that people are free while they obeying the laws of society, as long as they have participated in the formation of the laws that they are obeying. We show our moral obligations to all rational beings when we participate in the formulation of laws which we must ourselves obey. According to Kant, freedom is autonomy, which is the rational self giving itself the law. But morality too is the rational self giving itself the law. Therefore, freedom and morality are same for Kant. You are free only when, you are acting morally.

In the 19th century, political theory has become based on ethics—the two dominant ethical theories of this period are John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian ethics and Kant’s deontological ethics. So there are several political theories in the 19th century which acknowledge a debt to Mill’s utilitarianism or to Kant’s deontology.

In his shorter essays, Kant has made some comments on political issues. In his essay on universal history, he notes that the great problem that civil society faces is the “unsocial sociability” of man, which while making us inherently social also puts us in competition and conflict. But this feature of man is conducive for progress. A republican political system is must suited for preserving the freedom of a creature like man. Kant expects republicanism to become universal. In his essay on perpetual peace, he notes that wars between the states can undermine republicanism, and he suggests that a federation of republican states can be created to ensure world peace.

Tuesday, 15 October 2019

On Kant’s Moral Theory

Immanuel Kant believed that moral theories, such as Aristotle’s eudaimonia, Hume’s notion of utility, or the Stoic principle of apathy, are not sufficiently general, universal, and fundamental. He was looking for a universal, a priori law of moral action that is determined solely by reason. He believed that the ultimate moral law can be a priori, only if it is a law of action free of the desire of achieving any aim or good.

In the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant writes, “There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.”

In this statement, he is positing that there is no state, goal, or object that can be regarded as intrinsically or universally good—everything, including happiness, love, intelligence, or health, is compatible with moral wrong. Kant notes that in moral and political theories there is a divide between theories that are based in the right and those that are based in some ultimate good or value that our actions ought to maximize. The aims for achieving good outcomes like love, happiness, health, or anything else cannot dictate our moral ideas.

What is morally right can be understood only in terms of a rule. We have to do what is right, not because it is expected to lead to a good end, but because it is right. Moral actions are not only according to duty, but also because of and from duty. In judging morality of actions or social policies, consequences are irrelevant.

Hume’s Influence on Einstein

David Hume has had a massive influence on all areas of philosophy and a variety of scientific and economic disciplines. Several prominent philosophers, scientists, and economists have acknowledged that they owe a debt to his philosophy. Here’s an excerpt from Matias Slavov’s essay, “No absolute time,” which is on the influence that Hume has exercised on Albert Einstein’s conception of time and his theory of relativity:

“Einstein learned an empiricist theory of concepts from Hume (and plausibly from Mach and the positivist tradition). He then implemented concept empiricism in his argument for the relativity of simultaneity. The result is that different observers will not agree whether two events are simultaneous or not. Take the openings of two windows, a living room window and a kitchen window. There is no absolute fact to the matter of whether the living room window opens before the kitchen window, or whether they open simultaneously or in reverse order. The temporal order of such events is observer-dependent; it is relative to the designated frame of reference.

“Once the relativity of simultaneity was established, Einstein was able to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable aspects of his theory, the principle of relativity and the light postulate. This conclusion required abandoning the view that there is such a thing as an unobservable time that grounds temporal order. This is the view that Einstein got from Hume.”

Monday, 14 October 2019

Nationalism is Close to Classical Liberalism

The modern nationalists are the true inheritors of the classical liberal political theory that was developed in the 17th and 18th centuries by philosophers like John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Montesquieu, David Hume, and Adam Smith. Classical liberalism and nationalism are historical in character—they are motivated by the aim of preserving the liberties of the citizens within the context of social and cultural systems which have evolved organically over a period of several centuries. Since they are built on a multitude of political, cultural, and theological philosophies, it seems that both classical liberalism and nationalism have erected a Tower of Babel which continues to grow because new theories keep getting invented.

On The Self-Love Of The Libertarians

Jean-Jacques Rousseau has described two kinds of self-love: amour de soi (self-love based on the desire of preserving the self) and amour propre (love of self as it is seen by others that has the potential for leading to envy, vice, and misery). I am of the opinion that amour propre is the right term for describing the self-love that the libertarian intellectuals feel for themselves.

The libertarians are narcissistic—they are convinced that their solutions for political, economic, and moral problems are always moral and correct. I think that every time they look into the mirror, they imagine a halo of saintliness on their head. Many libertarians seem convinced that others see them as they see themselves, and if there is a person who does not believe in their perfection, then there must be something wrong with him, either he is ignorant or irrational or both.

Every libertarian intellectual yearns for the approval of other libertarians; it is praise of the peers that they most value. They have no time or energy to try to understand the concerns that are driving the political opinions of vast majority of people in their country who are not libertarians. They are clueless about what is really going on in their country—that is why their opinions on the pressing political problems make very little sense.

Sunday, 13 October 2019

The Four Political Forces Of Modern World

The four political forces—capitalism, nationalism, socialism, and progressivism—have acquired a pole position in human affairs between 16th century and 19th century. The duel between these political forces dictates the politics of almost every nation today. The nations where capitalism and nationalism are dominant, and socialism and progressivism are subdued, are the successful nations. The nations where socialism and progressivism manage to subdue the forces of capitalism and nationalism are the failed nations. Capitalism is an antidote to socialism; nationalism is an antidote to progressivism. Capitalism and nationalism walk hand in hand, for the same reason for which socialism and progressivism walk hand in hand.

On The Jacobin Religion Of Reason

Their atheism notwithstanding, the Jacobins were a barbaric cult. The human cost of their atheistic revolution runs into hundreds of thousands. In his 1794 speech, Robespierre declared the Jacobin principle: “Pity is treason.” Alexis de Tocqueville describes the religious passion of the Jacobins in his book The Old Regime and the Revolution. Here’s an excerpt:

“The French Revolution acted, with regard to things of this world, precisely as religious revolutions have acted with regard to things of the other. It dealt with the citizen in the abstract, independent of particular social organizations, just as religions deal with mankind in general, independent of time and place. It inquired, not what were the particular rights of French citizens, but what were the general rights and duties of mankind in reference to political concerns.

“It was by thus divesting itself of all that was peculiar to one race or time, and by reverting to natural principles of social order and government, that it became intelligible to all, and susceptible of simultaneous imitation in a hundred different places.

“By seeming to tend rather to the regeneration of the human race than to the reform of France alone, it roused passions such as the most violent political revolutions had been incapable of awakening. It inspired proselytism, and gave birth to propagandism; and hence assumed that quasi religious character which so terrified those who saw it, or, rather, became a sort of new religion, imperfect, it is true, without God, worship, or future life, but still able, like Islamism, to cover the earth with its soldiers, its apostles, and its martyrs.”

The Jacobins established an atheistic religion called the Cult of Reason, but when it didn’t have the desired impact, they came up with another atheistic religion, the Cult of the Supreme Being. They used to hold religious ceremonies called Feast of Reason throughout the country. They converted the traditional places of worship into the Temples of Reason in which they installed the statue of Goddess of Reason, clothed in Roman style robes.

One thing is clear from this: “Reason” is a word with a bad history.

Saturday, 12 October 2019

A Good Politician Does Not Need the Intellectuals

The support of the intellectuals and mainstream media is not necessarily a sign of a government’s popularity, stability, and strength—it can be a sign of weakness and corruption.

When the intellectuals and mainstream media are in their pocket, the members of the government become complacent—they start believing that they can get away with anything. They lose touch with the masses and they fail to see what is going on in the economy. They make all kinds of political blunders and indulge in corrupt practices. All this leads to a decline in their popularity and ensures their loss in elections.

An antagonistic intellectual establishment and mainstream media is better for a government because when the intellectuals and journalists are raving and ranting, the members of the government are likely to do their work carefully and honestly. If the government gives better performance, its popularity will rise. Therefore, a political leader must strive to keep the intellectuals and the journalists infuriated and the masses happy.

The Flies of a Summer

Edmund Burke believed that reason alone is not sufficient to keep most men in line—this is because most men do not employ the rational faculty at all, and even those who employ it often do so without sufficient knowledge and experience. He notes that common sense and the wisdom of ancient custom (or traditions) are far more effective instruments for enabling people to come together and live with some kind of peace and harmony.

If men start altering their cultural institutions and their constitution whenever they wanted, then the present generations will lose their connection with the wisdom of the past generations—this is a recipe for tearing down a civilization. In Reflections on The Revolution in France, Burke warns the people of Britain that if, like the French, they get seduced by the ideologies which promise “liberty, equality, fraternity,” then the fire of revolution would consume Britain too as it had consumed France. He coins the phrase “flies of a summer,” to refer to a society that has developed an insatiable appetite for rapid transformations. Here’s an excerpt:

“By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often and as much and in as many ways as there are floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken; no one generation could link with the other; men would become little better than the flies of a summer.”

The idea that rapid change might not be a good thing is something that the modern conservatives have learned from Burke. The conservatives realize that hasty political and cultural innovation can lead to improvement as well as destruction—therefore, they are prudent with changes. They take  a cautious approach to reform. The liberals, on the other hand, can be compared with what Burke has called the “flies of a summer”—they have no connection with the past. They want to overthrow all past traditions and force a new utopian future on the people.

Friday, 11 October 2019

On the Theistic Projects of the Atheists

Modern atheism is a project for manufacturing new earthly religions and gods. Every atheistic movement in the last 250 years has tried to found its own earthly religion and develop its own gods. The French Revolutionaries, once they gained power, first established an atheistic religion called the Cult of Reason, and then its rival religion called the Cult of the Supreme Being. Auguste Comte established a positivist religion of humanity in which he was revered as a godlike figure. In the former Soviet Union, the atheistic communists indulged in an orgy of self-deification—they deified Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and several other communist icons. Despite her claims for being a stickler for reason and logic, Ayn Rand established a cult called objectivism whose followers worship her as the final authority on everything. The present day liberals, who are mostly atheistic, make massive misuse of the mainstream media for self-deification.

Dostoevsky On The Revolutionary Demons

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons is an attack on atheistic and nihilistic political movements. The book shows that atheistic and nihilistic philosophy can lead to suicide and murder. This is the story of high-minded intellectuals who are attempting to spark a revolution, even though they are clueless about the consequences of a revolution. But the intellectuals are not the demons that Dostoevsky describes in the novel—the demons are the atheistic and nihilistic ideas by which the intellectuals are possessed. (The book is also known as The Possessed.)

Dostoevsky offers a masterful description of the extent to which Alexei Nilych Kirillov, a character in the novel, is possessed by the revolutionary ideas. Kirillov, an engineer in the small town where the story is set, is deeply influenced by Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin, one of the leaders of the secret revolutionary society. Kirillov is determined to kill himself at the opportune moment when his death will be useful for sparking the revolution. He explains his motivation in these words:
“So at last you understand!” cried Kirillov rapturously. “So it can be understood if even a fellow like you understands. Do you understand now that the salvation for all consists in proving this idea to every one? Who will prove it? I! I can’t understand how an atheist could know that there is no God and not kill himself on the spot. To recognize that there is no God and not to recognize at the same instant that one is God oneself is an absurdity, else one would certainly kill oneself. If you recognize it you are sovereign, and then you won’t kill yourself but will live in the greatest glory. But one, the first, must kill himself, for else who will begin and prove it? So I must certainly kill myself, to begin and prove it. Now I am only a god against my will and I am unhappy, because I am bound to assert my will. All are unhappy because all are afraid to express their will. Man has hitherto been so unhappy and so poor because he has been afraid to assert his will in the highest point and has shown his self-will only in little things, like a schoolboy. I am awfully unhappy, for I’m awfully afraid. Terror is the curse of man.… But I will assert my will, I am bound to believe that I don’t believe. I will begin and will make an end of it and open the door, and will save. That’s the only thing that will save mankind and will re-create the next generation physically; for with his present physical nature man can’t get on without his former God, I believe. For three years I’ve been seeking for the attribute of my godhead and I’ve found it; the attribute of my godhead is self-will! That’s all I can do to prove in the highest point my independence and my new terrible freedom. For it is very terrible. I am killing myself to prove my independence and my new terrible freedom.” 
Dostoevsky was of the view that atheism is essentially a project for self-deification. When human beings discard the idea of divinity, they pave way for some of them to come forward and make the claim that they are themselves divine. That is why the atheistic revolutions which try to obliterate notion of god in heaven, end up deifying their own leaders as the new gods.