Ideas Have Consequences: Expanded Edition

“Surely we are justified in saying of our time: If you seek the monument to our folly, look about you. In our own day we have seen cities obliterated and ancient faiths stricken. We may well ask, in the words of Matthew, whether we are not faced with “great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world.”Well . . . it hasn’t come . . . yet.“For four centuries every man has been not only his own priest but his own professor of ethics, and the consequence is an anarchy which threatens even that minimum consensus of value necessary to the political state.’’‘His own priest’ refers to Luther’s rejection of Catholic clergy. ‘Priesthood of all believers’. Now what? No authority anywhere.When and where modernity begin this . . . this . . . decent to anarchy?“It was William of Occam who propounded the fateful doctrine of nominalism, which denies that universals have a real existence.’’(this centuries long argument about universals dominated the scholastic Middle Ages)“His triumph tended to leave universal terms mere names serving our convenience. The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of humankind. The practical result of nominalist philosophy is to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses. With this change in the affirmation of what is real, the whole orientation of culture takes a turn, and we are on the road to modern empiricism.’’(This question probably only still active in mathematics. What is the real source of mathematical truth?Are — mathematical equations, geometric proofs, algebraic formulas — discovered or invented?Is mathematics the work of humans or god? Well . . . if found, proves God exists; if man’s work, proves human reason supernatural.)How does Weaver deduce this connection?“It is easy to be blind to the significance of a change because it is remote in time and abstract in character. Those who have not discovered that world view is the most important thing about a man, as about the men composing a culture, should consider the train of circumstances which have with perfect logic proceeded from this. The denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience.’’Can personal experience confirm all the true things? Can it disprove all error?“The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably—though ways are found to hedge on this—the denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of “man the measure of all things.”What else?“The expulsion of the element of unintelligibility in nature was followed by the abandonment of the doctrine of original sin. If physical nature is the totality and if man is of nature, it is impossible to think of him as suffering from constitutional evil; his defections must now be attributed to his simple ignorance or to some kind of social deprivation. One comes thus by clear deduction to the corollary of the natural goodness of man.’’This is precisely where Diderot, Rousseau ended up. Modernity begins with a ‘vengeance’.“Man created in the divine image, the protagonist of a great drama in which his soul was at stake, was replaced by man the wealth-seeking and-consuming animal.’’1 The Unsentimental Sentiment2. Distinction and Hierarchy3. Fragmentation and Obsession4. Egotism in Work and Art5. The Great Stereopticon6. The Spoiled-Child Psychology7. The Last Metaphysical Right8. The Power of the Word9. Piety and Justice“Notwithstanding this claim that democracy is quicker to recognize native worth, every visitor to a democratic society has been struck by its jealous demand for conformity. Such spirit is an outgrowth of competition and suspicion. The democrats well sense that, if they allow people to divide according to abilities and preferences, soon structure will impose itself upon the mass. Hence the adulation of the regular fellow, the political seduction of the common man, and the deep distrust of intellectuals, whose grasp of principle gives them superior insight. This society may even pay tribute to the exemplar of easy morals; for he is the “good fellow,” who has about him none of the uncomfortable angularities of the idealist.’’Well . . . this is from seventy years ago. How did he know?Another counter-cultural criticism . . .“In reviewing the persistent tendency of the newspaper to corrupt, I shall cite a passage from James Fenimore Cooper. Though Cooper lived before the advent of yellow journalism, he seems to have stated the essential situation with a truth and eloquence impossible to improve on when he said in The American Democrat:“As the press of this country now exists, it would seem to be expressly devised by the great agent of mischief, to depress and destroy all that is good, and to elevate and advance all that is evil in the nation. The little truth that is urged, is usually urged coarsely, weakened and rendered vicious, by personalities; while those who live by falsehoods, fallacies, enmities, partialities and the schemes of the designing, find the press the very instrument that the devils would invent to effect their designs.”(falsehoods, enmities - right!)“A hundred years later Huey Long made a statement of impolitic truth when he called his tax on newspapers a “lie tax.”(Wow!)“How, in the light of these facts, can one hesitate to conclude that we would live in greater peace and enjoy sounder moral health if the institution of the newspaper were abolished entirely? Jefferson observed at one time that it would be better to have newspapers and lack a government than to have a government and be without newspapers. Yet we find him in his seventieth year writing to John Adams:“I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus and Thucydides, for Newton and Euclid, and I find myself much the happier.”Maybe we should . . .“Let us inquire whether the continuous dissemination, of news by the media under discussion does not produce the provincial in time. The constant stream of sensation, eulogized as lively propagation of what the public wants to hear, discourages the pulling-together of events from past time into a whole for contemplation. Thus, absence of reflection keeps the individual from being aware of his former selves, and it is highly questionable whether anyone can be a member of a metaphysical community who does not preserve such memory. Upon the presence of the past in the present depends all conduct directed by knowledge.’’Yep, that’s it — ‘absence of reflection’. Weaver nails it!Writing for serious reader. Not obscure, but requires some background in history of ideas. Not a bad start for a beginner, if wanting insight beyond sound bites.Mentions Plato (25), Aristotle (11), Socrates (5), Burke (9), Whig (5), Freedom (43), Yeats (7), Socialism (15), Science (41), Materialism (19), Religion (22), Government (18), History (39), Knowledge (82), Newspaper (31), etc., etc..Erudite. Insightful. Interesting. Challenging. Educational.About eighty notes (linked)Includes twenty page essay on how this book came to be written. Interesting.No charts or photographs.

ThesisThe philosophical loss of absolutes/universals ultimately results in the loss of truth, the undermining of knowledge itself, and the increase of societal chaos.SummaryThe modern world stands upon the precipice of chaos and anarchy, according to Richard Weaver. The journey to this brink of destruction began in the 14th Century with Occam's rejection of universals and advancement of nominalism. (Intro) Since that time, the practical effects of this errant philosophy gradually eroded the philosophical underpinnings of logic and epistemology. This erosion resulted in society's loss of civil order and moral certainty. (Ch. 1-3) Without transcendent truth and moral certainty, media and the arts glorify self-indulgence and ego, thus reinforcing a spoiled-child mindset. (Ch. 4-6) The right to private property constitutes the last available battlefield upon which Weaver urges his readers to fight nominalism. In defending this metaphysical right, he hopes to rebuild the clarity of language and an ultimate sense of piety and justice. (Ch. 7-9) Only in this way might we step back from the brutish fate awaiting the practitioners of nominalism.ArgumentWorldview determines practical beliefs, at least within a given framework. The nominalist worldview, with its lack of transcendent truth, uses utilitarianism and pragmatism to ground truth and morality. Utilitarianism and pragmatism frequently lead to undermining societal structure on account of its inefficiency. The resulting chaos leads to competing values, allowing the most egomaniacal people to determine the cultural climate. The media then quickly becomes a tool for the powerful, with little discretion as to its use. The end result of this chain comes in a society of spoiled children. There remains one area where society recognizes a transcendent right, however: the right to private property. Properly defended, this right may provide the means to combat the nominalist worldview.Critical AnalysisWeaver develops a cogent, though not entirely infallible argument. The argument's initial weakness lies in its sudden beginning with Occam's nominalism. Weaver assumes this beginning of society's degradation. As he deftly demonstrates in the remainder of his argument, however, no philosophy emerges in a vacuum. With that said, Weaver's inductive argument requires a starting point, and nominalism provides perhaps the most convenient one. Additionally, Weaver's assessment of the arts, as exemplified by jazz and classical music, seems motivated more by preference than by evaluation. His rapid dismissal of jazz as formless demonstrates his lack of familiarity with jazz. Additionally, modern composers still produce "higher" forms of music comparable to the classical composers. Other than these oversights, however, Weaver demonstrates effectively, through historical development, that when Man severs the ties between metaphysical reality and the material world, the foundation for knowledge itself quickly crumbles. Without transcendental truths there remains no basis upon which to build an orderly society, maintain moral standards, or distinguish between competing pragmatic perspectives. Weaver is correct in his conclusion that the existence of transcendental truth must be maintained if Man desires to have any ground for achieving order and understanding in a world of chaos and ignorance.

Inevitably, some will disagree with Weaver. Maybe even vehemently. But, in spite of his obvious disillusionment with contemporary society, Weaver has valid thoughts regarding the downward slope of modernity and ways in which he envisions the modern world could be saved. The title itself may be all some readers need to be sternly reminded of - that ideas have real consequences and one must be seriously considerate of them. I didn't agree with Weaver on his analysis of art and jazz simply because his justification doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.It's a difficult book in some senses because you have to already be aware of the context from which he writes. However, at the same time I found myself wondering if he had a window into the future as I considered his ideas in comparison with the times in which we currently live. I was thankful for the epilogue that gave some explanation of the development of the book and Weaver's background.As a Christian, I continually questioned his development of themes purely in secular terms, especially the sense of hopelessness and powerlessness that seemed to emanate from his concluding words. It is a feeling that I all too readily identify with when I have placed my confidence in things of this world and our ability as humans to change them, rather than placing my hope on Christ, the anchor for my soul. I found myself wishing I could have a conversation with Weaver to tell him, "Of course this world is going to pot. That's what sin does. Don't forget about what Jesus did to rescue us from that hopelessness."In all, I enjoyed the challenge of reading this book. I would be curious to read more from Weaver (especially his dissertation on Southern life and culture).

Fascinating. Really clarified why my mind does not want to be glued to social trends. A must for all thinking human beings!!

NO STARS.There is so much that could be said about this ridiculous book i hardly know where to start. This text explains a great deal about the false assumptions and opinions (not to say mad) on the Right today. There is no intellectual rigour at all, just slick talk about ideals and other almost Platonic rubbish (no wonder Wittgenstein ended up where he did telling us to pass over such concepts in silence.). The book is full of assertions and opinions with no solid basis in reason whatever - the usual self-deluded calling down of the modern world which tries to induce us into sympathy with Medieval thought justifying an authoritarian, aristocratic , theocratic . anti-scientific and generally awful view of the world. The author is no more a professor of anything worthwhile than the most slimy sophist apart from being full of b-s. He even wants to justify the Deep South in its worst days of slavery and he wants to defend pure ignorance to the extent of being opposed to modern education. (He wants people to work for mere love of the task not for a just wage). How stupid. And as for his attack on William of Occam, well, couldn't he have seen that the development of his precious Medieval philosophy culminated in such people as Bacon and William of Occam? I say Faith is Faith - each person to his own - it is a private matter to all who would have no Führer and a Fascist Order. The author is, as i say, trying to provide a basis for an anti-democratic order and i can hardly believe people fall for it. I'm quite angry that such a book can receive praise of any kind - it shows how empty Rhetoric can be. Further i believe that even today's disaster in American politics, what with the nasty Trump still gucking up the works, will be overcome and that is MY faith talking.

Grow your wisdom. Read this book.

This book changed the way I view the motivations behind conservatism.Incredible.

『現代アメリカ保守主義運動小史』で著者が面白おかしく紹介されていたので手に取った。「現代生活の虚偽」を糾明した、「頭は切れるが引きこもりがち」な英文学者と。英文学者ということは、日本で言う国学者のようなものだろう。そこから優れた現代批評が出てくるのは大いにありうることだ。本書は期待を裏切らなかった。そして、解説者によれば、彼は「失われた大義」を恢復して擁護した、「預言者としての著述をする批評家」であった。これは”nobility of failure”という日本の美徳にも通じるところがあると思われる。流行、世論、既成勢力、かようなものは移ろいやすい。それに惑わされて生を浪費する人間は、後世から見て滑稽である。ウィーバーのように、不易の善美を探究することに喜びを見出せた人こそが、真に人生を生きたと言うべきではないか。