tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post8336683552045845784..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Burke's Two Kinds of ConservatismLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-66669275763408799062008-11-06T15:47:00.000+00:002008-11-06T15:47:00.000+00:00I am only beginning to read DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM...I am only beginning to read DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM, it is true. Nevertheless, your response has avoided my small point: Burke would reject completely Darwin's understanding of what makes us human, and what is the guiding hand in that. And when you got rejected by Burke, you got a rejection that would last a lifetime and beyond.<BR/>That Hayek and Kirk both saw themselves in Burke is not due to a tension in Burke, but a misunderstanding of Hayek. What Hayek saw as adaptive evolution is only another human choice made within what is Goethe saw already stamped within us. <BR/>I am informed by your distinction between British empirist evolutionary tradition and French rationalistic design. There are reasons, however misguided, the dreadful movements which consider Darwin their inspiration plague man continually, while none who consider Burke for inspiration do. It is the difference in attitude, of humility. <BR/>Hayek, Friedman, Darwin himself, and others who retain their humility and humanity are exceptions to atheism, not the rule. Especially in the world of great intellect. <BR/>Tocqueville--If their system could be of some use to man, it would be in giving him a modest opinion of himself. But they do not demonstrate such a truth and when they think they have done enough to prove that they are bruthish, they seem as proud as if they had demonstrated that they were gods.xlbrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931950075332608449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-3928645095444680082008-11-06T11:47:00.000+00:002008-11-06T11:47:00.000+00:00xlbri,If you read DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM, you will...xlbri,<BR/><BR/>If you read DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM, you will see that I emphasize the importance of moral custom or tradition, just as Darwin did. <BR/><BR/>Smith, Burke, and Darwin saw that morality arose from a complex interaction of moral sentiments, moral traditions, and moral judgments.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-58238556844037368762008-11-06T05:34:00.000+00:002008-11-06T05:34:00.000+00:00There is no evolutionary science of morality, beca...There is no evolutionary science of morality, because there is no evolutionary morality. <BR/><BR/>The laws of conscience, which we pretend to be derived from nature, proceed from custom--Montaigne<BR/>By nature, we have no defect that cannot become a stength, and no strength that cannot become a defect--Goethe<BR/>I short, man has no nature, but instead he has...history--Ortega<BR/>For Burke, human nature was the text, and history the comment--J R Lowell <BR/><BR/>Darwin may well have thought he continued in the traditions of Burke and Smith, but they would not have returned his good will. Burke in particular feared and detested atheists, not for their opinions on God, but of man. His experience was not theoretical. <BR/>"It is in the nature of greatness not to be exact".<BR/><BR/>So great was his reputation and his legacy, they felt it necessary to wait fifty years to tear him down.xlbrlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931950075332608449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-24917140993164058302008-10-26T18:15:00.000+00:002008-10-26T18:15:00.000+00:00Libertarians and Traditionalists may look to Smith...Libertarians and Traditionalists may look to Smith and Burke respectively. But are either camps correct? What I mean to suggest is that the compatibility--even friendship--between Burke and Smith does not prove that these strands of "conservatism" (as they understand themselves) can be brought together.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-85157990054789512062008-10-26T17:03:00.000+00:002008-10-26T17:03:00.000+00:00Excellent summary. However, it is still not clear ...Excellent summary. However, it is still not clear to me whether Burke himself ever resolved the tensions between these two strands. You seem to be suggesting he was a proto-Hayekian in his own mind, but I'm not entirely convinced.<BR/>For these and other reasons, perhaps Burke would be a good candidate for your new edition of Political Questions.Kent Guidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00119882444127499607noreply@blogger.com