I think the founding idea of the orthosphere can be fairly oversimplified into this sentence: “The problem with the modern world is modernity itself”. For the orthos, the philosophical core of modernity is the rejection of the Aristotelian-Catholic idea that there are objective essences and purposes in the world. Many of the orthos trace this idea back to the nominalism of late-Medieval scholastics like William of Ockham, although they would also argue that it did not culminate until the 18th century and the Enlightenment. In philosophy, this modern nominalism gave rise to the idea that the world consists of nothing but meaningless, purposeless matter, and thence to modern atheism, materialism, relativism, and finally the complete nihilism which today is increasingly engulfing America and Europe. In ethics and politics, it produced a worship of autonomy – the idea that every individual can and should define its own purpose and destiny, unfettered by tradition, authority, or higher truth – which became the founding idea of every modern political ideology, from the classical liberalism of Locke to the redistributive leftism of the modern state.Does the orthosphere start from a wrong premise, namely that there is such a thing as "modernity"? And that "modernity" is caused by the acceptance of nominalism? (Or voluntarism?) We can accept that liberalism is erroneous, but is it historically the problem that they think it is?
This is a radical idea, and it entails a radical conservatism. The orthos reject the Enlightenment project entirely, and espouse many ideas that are unfashionable even on the Right, including theocracy, censorship, and absolute monarchy. Their ideology centers around the defense of particular loyalties and moral communities, of traditional authority, traditional morality, the monarchy, the patriarchal family, the ethnos, and the Church. Many of them draw inspiration from the throne-and-altar conservatism of counterrevolutionaries like Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, and Juan Donoso Cortés, and seek to rescue the Middle Ages from the historical scrapheap. Needless to say, orthodox Christianity is central to the their thinking (hence the name) – in fact, I have yet to come across an ortho who is not a traditionalist Catholic or a conservative Protestant.
How much does this sort of traditionalism draws inspiration from throne and altar Europe? A limited version of monarchy is acceptable, like that of the middle ages, but not one based on royal absolutism. (Absolute monarchy.) Setting aside the question on whether there are limits on the authority of the ruler, how can one separate the rise of the absolute monarch from nationalism and political centralization, both of which contributed to the fragmentation and ultimately, the destruction of Christendom? Then there is also state-church relations of that time, which was arguably detrimental to the freedom of the Church.
Once power has been consolidated, can it ever be given up?
It may be right to respond against the errors of the Enlightenment and liberalism, but one cannot take the arguments of traditionalists like de Bonald and others as the final say; one must return to Catholic political theology (not necessarily the same as Catholic Social Teaching).
How much of Bellarmine's development of Catholic political theology is good? (e.g. the origin of political authority) How different is English republicanism (whether in its original form or as it developed in the 17th century) from "classical" republicanism? (Against Throne and Altar: Machiavelli and Political Theory Under the English Republic [Hardcover] by Paul A. Rahe)
The common good must be a limit on all forms of human authority (not just monarchy), and tied to the common good are the limits to the size of a community. The question of whether there is a limit to authority (Is the ruler was answerable to anyone else? Is he above all human law?) was a crucial question during the history of Christendom.These traditionalists seem to prefer one answer, but I question whether it is the right one.
The group blog, The Orthosphere.
Related:
Something at Counter-Currents on de Bonald.
No comments:
Post a Comment