...
Show More
Much of this book was a very good critique of the downfall of society through early modernism. His critique was very good in some places and a little weaker in others. The book itself did not seem to flow too well at points and some of the middle chapters were somewhat disjointed. Much of his critique can be tied back to a number of themes that revolve around the progression of naturalism/materialism, scientism, and nominalism. Its not always easy to follow but when his arguments are on point, he does a good job at picking holes in modernism and socialism.
Weaver connects the downfall of modern man to the idea of nominalism from the middle ages. That is, the separation of the universal from the particular, and the subsequent rejection of any sort of necessary transcendent link with reality. He then unfolds the logical outworking of this philosophy with the progression of scientific materialism and man becoming the measure of all things.
While this is certainly true, it seems to be missing the forest for the trees. For, what comes first in the minds of men, the denial of universals or the denial of God altogether? Granted the medieval nominalists were still theists but, still, can the enlightenment and modernity be the cause first and foremost of nominalism? Perhaps that is not what Weaver is saying, but to tie his argument to such a theory is, I feel, to tie it to a relatively small branch on a tree with thicker and deeper roots that precede nominalism in the logical progression of ideas. In other words, his thesis starts farther along this progression of ideas than he may have thought.
Nonetheless, his analysis which follows his thesis is absolutely superb and one is hard-pressed to challenge his logic.
What nominalism was was “an assault upon definition.” “If words no longer correspond to objective realities, it seems no great wrong to take liberties with words.” Words become less trustworthy vehicles of truth. One can no doubt see the connection with modern ideas of tying one’s “identity” with how they “feel” instead of what they are ontologically. For, what they are ontologically, separated from the idea of transcendent forms, is utterly unknowable and thus becomes subjective.
With the denial of transcendent ideals, coupled with the rapid progression of scientific and technological advancements, it was inevitable that the haughtiness of man would show forth in making himself the measure of all things. But then what happened? We then became “degraded without the means to measure our descent.” He even mentions the significance of doing away with the doctrine of Original Sin which is an absolutely crucial point. He says something like, “we cannot admit the existence of tragedy without the distinction between good and evil.”
The modern man refuses to believe in the degradation of society because of the continual increase of scientific knowledge over the past few centuries. For, how could our path be the wrong one in light of such advancements? Weaver questions what we mean by this “knowledge.” Weaver contends that real knowledge is not at the level of sensation but at the level of the universals behind the particular, which we have wholly lost. Particular facts have been substituted for truth when in reality you cannot make sense of the “fact” without the abstract universal principles behind them. This is the error of empiricism. The modern man fancies that, “an industrious acquisition of particulars will render him a man of knowledge.”
He also has some interesting things to say about democracy in the founding fathers.
“Simple majority rule cannot suffice because it does everything without reference. It is an expression about feeling about the moment at the moment restrained neither by abstract idea nor by precedent.” “The inability of pure democracy to stand for something intelligible leaves merely a verbal deception.”
The Constitution—"the framers purposefully placed special obstacles in the way of change. It was hoped that the surmounting of these would prove so laborious and slow that errors would be exposed and the permanently true recognized. In this way they endeavored to protect the populace of a republic, against itself. Their action is a rebuke to the romantic theory of human nature. And this will explain why the Constitution has proved so galling to Jacobins."
Again, here is shown the importance in a well ordered society the acknowledgement of our inherently sinful, untrustworthy nature.
Chap. 6
This was an extremely relevant chapter. Even more so than when it was initially written.
It's basically a critique of the modern, coddled, spoiled brat mentality of the younger generations. The product of first world comfort and technological advancement, coupled with a denial of transcendent values and an unfettered hedonism.
They are now “under the notion that progress is automatic.” The right to pursue happiness has become simply the right TO happiness. “But when he is taught that happiness is obtainable in a world limited to surfaces, he is being prepared for that disillusionment and resentment which lay behind the mass psychosis of fascism.” What Weaver may be saying here is that, the natural man, without spiritual understanding, and in a culture of pure materialistic consumerism, with no theology of work, will inevitably become disillusioned when everything isn’t handed to him. This, in turn, will naturally incline him to the empty promises of socialistic fascists.
“He [modern man] marks inequalities of condition and, forbidden by his dogmas to admit inequalities of merit, moves to obliterate them.”
“In the final analysis, this society is like the spoiled child in its incapacity to think. Anyone can observe in the pampered children of the rich, a kind of irresponsibility of the mental process. It occurs simply because they do not have to think to survive. They never have to feel that definition must be clear and deduction correct if they are to escape the sharp penalties of deprivation. Therefore, the typical thinking of such people is fragmentary, discursive, and expressive of a sort of contempt for realities. Their conclusions are not earned in the sense of being logically valid, but are seized in the face of facts. The young scion knows that if he falls, there is a net below to catch him. Hardness of condition is wanting. Without work to do, especially without work to do that is related to our dearest aims, the mental sinews atrophy as do the physical. There is evidence that the masses, spoiled by like conditions, incur a similar flabbiness and in crises will prove unable to think straight enough to save themselves. This is, in conclusion, a story of weakness resulting from a false world picture. The withering away of religious belief, the conviction that all fighting faiths are to be supplanted…..turn thoughts toward selfish economic advantage. The very attainment of this produces a softening, the softening prompts the search for yet easier ways of attaining the same advantage, and then follows decline…”
He also has a good chapter on feminism and the false hopes it gave women of finding fulfillment in occupational pursuits that had hitherto been denied them.
To think that all of this was written just after WWII is pretty eye opening to me because it shows that the seeds of what we are now experiencing were sown, watered, and sprouted sooner in time than I had initially thought. It makes me realize just how much more I need to study history to understand the development, progression, and unfolding of ideas and how they shape culture.
Weaver connects the downfall of modern man to the idea of nominalism from the middle ages. That is, the separation of the universal from the particular, and the subsequent rejection of any sort of necessary transcendent link with reality. He then unfolds the logical outworking of this philosophy with the progression of scientific materialism and man becoming the measure of all things.
While this is certainly true, it seems to be missing the forest for the trees. For, what comes first in the minds of men, the denial of universals or the denial of God altogether? Granted the medieval nominalists were still theists but, still, can the enlightenment and modernity be the cause first and foremost of nominalism? Perhaps that is not what Weaver is saying, but to tie his argument to such a theory is, I feel, to tie it to a relatively small branch on a tree with thicker and deeper roots that precede nominalism in the logical progression of ideas. In other words, his thesis starts farther along this progression of ideas than he may have thought.
Nonetheless, his analysis which follows his thesis is absolutely superb and one is hard-pressed to challenge his logic.
What nominalism was was “an assault upon definition.” “If words no longer correspond to objective realities, it seems no great wrong to take liberties with words.” Words become less trustworthy vehicles of truth. One can no doubt see the connection with modern ideas of tying one’s “identity” with how they “feel” instead of what they are ontologically. For, what they are ontologically, separated from the idea of transcendent forms, is utterly unknowable and thus becomes subjective.
With the denial of transcendent ideals, coupled with the rapid progression of scientific and technological advancements, it was inevitable that the haughtiness of man would show forth in making himself the measure of all things. But then what happened? We then became “degraded without the means to measure our descent.” He even mentions the significance of doing away with the doctrine of Original Sin which is an absolutely crucial point. He says something like, “we cannot admit the existence of tragedy without the distinction between good and evil.”
The modern man refuses to believe in the degradation of society because of the continual increase of scientific knowledge over the past few centuries. For, how could our path be the wrong one in light of such advancements? Weaver questions what we mean by this “knowledge.” Weaver contends that real knowledge is not at the level of sensation but at the level of the universals behind the particular, which we have wholly lost. Particular facts have been substituted for truth when in reality you cannot make sense of the “fact” without the abstract universal principles behind them. This is the error of empiricism. The modern man fancies that, “an industrious acquisition of particulars will render him a man of knowledge.”
He also has some interesting things to say about democracy in the founding fathers.
“Simple majority rule cannot suffice because it does everything without reference. It is an expression about feeling about the moment at the moment restrained neither by abstract idea nor by precedent.” “The inability of pure democracy to stand for something intelligible leaves merely a verbal deception.”
The Constitution—"the framers purposefully placed special obstacles in the way of change. It was hoped that the surmounting of these would prove so laborious and slow that errors would be exposed and the permanently true recognized. In this way they endeavored to protect the populace of a republic, against itself. Their action is a rebuke to the romantic theory of human nature. And this will explain why the Constitution has proved so galling to Jacobins."
Again, here is shown the importance in a well ordered society the acknowledgement of our inherently sinful, untrustworthy nature.
Chap. 6
This was an extremely relevant chapter. Even more so than when it was initially written.
It's basically a critique of the modern, coddled, spoiled brat mentality of the younger generations. The product of first world comfort and technological advancement, coupled with a denial of transcendent values and an unfettered hedonism.
They are now “under the notion that progress is automatic.” The right to pursue happiness has become simply the right TO happiness. “But when he is taught that happiness is obtainable in a world limited to surfaces, he is being prepared for that disillusionment and resentment which lay behind the mass psychosis of fascism.” What Weaver may be saying here is that, the natural man, without spiritual understanding, and in a culture of pure materialistic consumerism, with no theology of work, will inevitably become disillusioned when everything isn’t handed to him. This, in turn, will naturally incline him to the empty promises of socialistic fascists.
“He [modern man] marks inequalities of condition and, forbidden by his dogmas to admit inequalities of merit, moves to obliterate them.”
“In the final analysis, this society is like the spoiled child in its incapacity to think. Anyone can observe in the pampered children of the rich, a kind of irresponsibility of the mental process. It occurs simply because they do not have to think to survive. They never have to feel that definition must be clear and deduction correct if they are to escape the sharp penalties of deprivation. Therefore, the typical thinking of such people is fragmentary, discursive, and expressive of a sort of contempt for realities. Their conclusions are not earned in the sense of being logically valid, but are seized in the face of facts. The young scion knows that if he falls, there is a net below to catch him. Hardness of condition is wanting. Without work to do, especially without work to do that is related to our dearest aims, the mental sinews atrophy as do the physical. There is evidence that the masses, spoiled by like conditions, incur a similar flabbiness and in crises will prove unable to think straight enough to save themselves. This is, in conclusion, a story of weakness resulting from a false world picture. The withering away of religious belief, the conviction that all fighting faiths are to be supplanted…..turn thoughts toward selfish economic advantage. The very attainment of this produces a softening, the softening prompts the search for yet easier ways of attaining the same advantage, and then follows decline…”
He also has a good chapter on feminism and the false hopes it gave women of finding fulfillment in occupational pursuits that had hitherto been denied them.
To think that all of this was written just after WWII is pretty eye opening to me because it shows that the seeds of what we are now experiencing were sown, watered, and sprouted sooner in time than I had initially thought. It makes me realize just how much more I need to study history to understand the development, progression, and unfolding of ideas and how they shape culture.
