Recent posts by Patrick Deneen

Two show the influences of Strauss et. al on him? What Is Political Philosophy? and Mr. Lincoln.
Will he ever be converted to the point of view of a Southern partisan? I think the Southern political tradition would fit better with his brand of conservatism (and his Catholicism, too). Compare his praise of Lincoln with the criticisms written by the staff at Chronicles. As for his reflections on the state of political philosophy and political science in the academy, he is probably right, though I would go further to say that most professional political philosophers and departments are useless. If one wants a practical work, one should begin with Aristotle's Politics. Even if one finds his discussion of slavery offensive to his modern sensibility. It has a strong resonance with what many are trying to promote as an alternative solution these days: agrarianism, relocalization, economic autarky, sustainability. (As well as the defense of traditional ethics and culture.)

I note that his understand of political philosophy and how it should be taught brings up the contrast between modern conservative thinkers and Aristotelians who believe that politics is a true episteme.

Above all, political philosophy in its classical forms was not a domain for the special academic elect. Its foundational texts are still the texts that are regarded as essential for a well-educated - but not specialized or specially trained - human being. Plato and Aristotle; Augustine and Aquinas; Machiavelli and Bacon; Hobbes and Locke; Mill and Marx; Tocqueville and Nietzsche - these and others are the basic texts that we must all read and to some extent master to complete our apprenticeship in our fields. These texts speak in the broadest sense of the human condition, and in ways that are generally accessible to any intelligent and inquisitive human, without special training or background.

Do we really need a Great Books approach in order to acquire politike? Can such an approach be useful as a part of dialectic and the understanding of first principles? Probably. But education in politike cannot stop there, and there needs to be one master (or several) to whom we can turn to as a reliable guide.

Above all what is needed is a re-engagement with the great texts and authors of our tradition - that retrospective and serious engagement with the various alternatives that have been explored throughout human history and a deep reflection on those alternatives.

Can the moral conversion of some be brought about by being confronted with opposing points of view? Perhaps. Or maybe the moral enlightenment that can be seen in classrooms is the result of the sincere inquirer, the man of good will, being confronted with truth. This is not the same as the conversion of the vicious.

Do I see any use for students to read Mill, Locke, Kant, Nietzsche, and all the other moderns? Very little. I have been thinking that I would start them off with Bill McKibben's Deep Economy instead, along with essays and books by Wendell Berry and a few others. Before they can be confronted with the solution, they must see our problems for what they are, and the consequences of our actions and the continued existence of our political economy. Would that approach be successful? Or should one start with the more fundamental questions dealing with human happiness and virtue?

Professor Deneen's most recent post deals with the economy: It's Not the Economy, Stupid.