tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post1449746635913716575..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: The Discussion of Darwinian Liberal Conservatism at George Mason UniversityLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-63448000081487092862011-04-30T22:18:13.577+01:002011-04-30T22:18:13.577+01:00Chris,
My first blog post (August 28, 2005) was t...Chris,<br /><br />My first blog post (August 28, 2005) was this FIRST THINGS exchange.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-5984749238397616482011-04-30T22:11:16.804+01:002011-04-30T22:11:16.804+01:00Dr. Arnhart,
I'm very interested in your work...Dr. Arnhart,<br /><br />I'm very interested in your work. I'm a conservative atheist. On January 6th, 2006, a person who reviewed your book, "Darwinian Conservatism", the first edition, suggested that we look up one of your debates with "First Things with Demski, Johnson et al. a few years ago." I cannot find this anywhere and would really like to watch it. Would you please post a link to this? I couldn't find another way of emailing you except through one of your blog posts. Hope you don't mind.<br /><br />Thank you. I look forward to reading the second edition of this book.<br /><br />Best,<br />ChrisChris Z.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16369852574939257489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-49804489570502125432011-04-26T23:51:33.839+01:002011-04-26T23:51:33.839+01:00One can easily misunderstand elements without misu...One can easily misunderstand elements without misunderstanding someone in general. It's highly likely we are all wrong about something, even something one has studied in depth. To argue Larry isn't likely to be wrong about something isn't an argument. In fact, it's a logical fallacy. All of my published scholarly work but one have been on Hayek's spontaneous order theory, and have dealt with some of Larry's questions directly, so I'm not entirely uninformed about Hayek and spontaneous order. And that's also not an argument, as I would be making the same logical fallacy. The point is that two experts can disagree.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-17110706534137270542011-04-25T21:14:40.622+01:002011-04-25T21:14:40.622+01:00I find it implausible to think that Larry Arnhart ...I find it implausible to think that Larry Arnhart has simply misunderstood Hayek all these years.<br /><br />In an email exchange with one of the attendees, the subject of "atavistic return" came up, but without the suggestion that Larry is misinterpreting Hayek.Kent Guidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00119882444127499607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1413926395484439282011-04-25T06:48:46.373+01:002011-04-25T06:48:46.373+01:00I have addressed the first before.
As for the se...I have addressed the first before. <br /><br />As for the second, I would point out that one can be a cultual relativist in the sense of arguing that one shouldn't try to impose one's culture on others because that causes problems (the history of such attempts should make it abundantly clear that that is correct), and still have the ability to recognize that one culture is materially more prosperous than another, or is indeed better than another on any number of measurements.<br /><br />Third, Hayek does not deny the role of reason. He argues against rationalism, which is different. One cannot create a society through the use of reason; rather, societies emerge from the bottom-up. Reason comes in through immanent criticism. Thus, there is a role for reason.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-39329960466714027982011-04-24T18:05:16.124+01:002011-04-24T18:05:16.124+01:00I haven't seen any Hayekian response to my dis...I haven't seen any Hayekian response to my discussion of Hayek.<br /><br />In DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM, I point to three problems in Heyek's account of social evolution.<br /><br />First, his Freudian understanding of civilization in a free society as a suppression of all instinctive desires makes it hard to understand why anyone would want to live in a free society.<br /><br />Second, his apparent endorsement of a radical cultural relativism makes it hard to see how he could defend the traditions of the free society as superior to alternative traditions.<br /><br />Third, his denial of the role of reason makes it hard to recognize the importance of deliberative judgment in the history of liberty.<br /><br />The response of the folks at Mason was that these criticisms were based on a misinterpretation of Hayek. It seemed that their version of Hayek coincided largely with my position.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-713860769559647572011-04-24T16:20:25.112+01:002011-04-24T16:20:25.112+01:00I have yet to see a response to your discussion of...I have yet to see a response to your discussion of Hayek in Darwinian Conservatism. Has any Hayekian written anything on this that I have missed?Kent Guidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00119882444127499607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-44710761622348716212011-04-23T06:49:38.497+01:002011-04-23T06:49:38.497+01:00Work needs to be done to clarify the issue of inst...Work needs to be done to clarify the issue of instincts in relation to spontaneous order vs. socialism. I think that Hayek is right that socialism is essentially atavistic in the way he suggests. But it is so primarily because socialism attempts to impose hierarchical network structure on society, where only scale-free networks can work. This actually gets to the knowledge problem Hayek talked about. HIerarchical networks create bottlenecks, a problem not found in scale-free networks. <br /><br />Nevertheless, work does need to be done on the expression and suppresion of instincts in spontaneous orders and organizations. Humans are full of paradoxical instincts: we are xenophobic and xenophilic simultaneously, for example. What system emphasizes one over the other? What institutions? These are interesting questions that need to be investigated.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.com