....vs. pop-culture, the infatuation of the hour.
"Burke’s affection for prejudice and prescription was not new in English thought. Chesterfield had written, “A prejudice is by no means (though generally thought so) an error; on the contrary, it may be a most unquestioned truth, though it bestill a prejudice in those who, without any examination, take it upon trust and entertain it by habit.... The bulk of mankind have neither leisure nor knowledge sufficient to reason right; why should they be taught to reason at all? Will not honest instinct prompt, and wholesome prejudices guide them, much better than half reasoning?”
This is precisely what Burke meant. [...] Courage was required to make declarations in defense of prejudice; in a lesser man, such an attitude would have met with the contempt of the literary public. Burke they could not scorn, however; for reason was as conspicuousin him as in any man in England. [...]
Does the observance of prejudice and prescription, then, condemn mankind to a perpetual treading in the footsteps of their ancestors? Burke has no expectation that men can be kept from social change; neither is rigidity of form desirable. [I.e., the Amish, etc.]
Change is inevitable, he says, and is designed providentially for the larger conservation of ociety; properly guided, change is a process of renewal. But let change come as the consequence of a need generally felt, not inspired by fine-spun abstractions. Our part is to patch and polish the old order of things, trying to discern the difference between a profound, slow, natural alteration and some infatuation of the hour. By and large, change is a process independent of conscious human endeavor, if it is beneficial change. Human reason and speculation can assist in the adjustment of the old order to new things if they are employed in aspirit of reverence, awake to their own fallibility.Even ancient prejudices and prescriptions must sometimes shrink before the advance of positive knowledge; but the Jacobin[Leftist] mind is unable to distinguish between minor inconvenience and actual decrepitude. The perceptive reformer combines an ability to reform with a disposition to preserve; the man who loves change is wholly disqualified, from his lust, to be the agent of change."
(The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot. Seventh
Revised Edition. (Regnery Publishing: 1985) :43-45)
5 comments:
Change is inevitable, he says, and is designed providentially for the larger conservation of ociety; properly guided, change is a process of renewal. But let change come as the consequence of a need generally felt, not inspired by fine-spun abstractions. Our part is to patch and polish the old order of things, trying to discern the difference between a profound, slow, natural alteration and some infatuation of the hour. By and large, change is a process independent of conscious human endeavor, if it is beneficial change. Human reason and speculation can assist in the adjustment of the old order to new things if they are employed in aspirit of reverence, awake to their own fallibility.Even ancient prejudices and prescriptions must sometimes shrink before the advance of positive knowledge; but the Jacobin[Leftist] mind is unable to distinguish between minor inconvenience and actual decrepitude. The perceptive reformer combines an ability to reform with a disposition to preserve; the man who loves change is wholly disqualified, from his lust, to be the agent of change."
(The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot. Seventh
Revised Edition. (Regnery Publishing: 1985) :43-45)
To be a reformer we must be conformed (to the image of God). We must be transformed (by the power of God). Transformed by the renewing of our minds (the Word). "DO not be conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2
It sounds revolutionary.
And Christian philosophy is, yet it is a slow revolution, a conservative revolution that tries to seek and find the Good to conserve. The Founding Fathers sound revolutionary....but it was a slow manifestation of sound ideas based on religious philosophy that were sought and found. This is quite unlike the Islamists issuing a new fatwa every other day. "Now, it is the will of God that you have your children blow themselves up this way!" Etc.
Instead, they sought and found sure transcendent principles worth fighting for with integrity, integral and integrated.
Your typical Democrat feels in simple images this way, "Claiming to know the will of God? That is just like the Taliban!" It's like a blonde fitting into a pattern saying, "Then I was like. It's like. You know, like!" Etc.
The Democrats forget that the American Republic is not an atheocracy, with an established philosophy of atheism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The philosophy it is established on, is theism. The simplistic Leftist "open-mind" equates this with the Taliban, etc.
That is because they are retards.
I agree the CHristian life is revolutionary!
That last post was from me. Forgot to sign it. Anyhow I have some questions about the original post.
How can change be a process independent of "concious human endeavor"? I do not get that! And then the next sentence says "human reason and speculation can assist in the adjustment of the old order to new things if they are employed in a spirit of reverence, awake to their own fallibility." Reverence for what? How can we be awake to our own fallibility-in other words what are the standards? How do we know what "positive knowledge" is? How does the "perceptive reformer" know what to "preserve"?
-M
"How can change be a process independent of "concious human endeavor?"
Providence.
That is the answer to most of your questions. Mainly, conservatism is founded on a respect for the Creator and trying to seek and find the created order of things. Change can be a process based on tradition and common sense acted on by reason, which is based on seeking and finding Providence.
In contrast, "reason" to the Jacobin/Leftist mind is more like a set of ratios based on human will. They do not begin with a rationale for rationality and so have no veneration for the old or ancient.
I understand that Providence is the answer--but I think this quote does not nail it down. The only way we can understand our fallibility is to know the nature of an infallible God-the God revealed to us through His Word.
~M
Post a Comment