Bandarlog


	Off Not that any of our readers could tell the difference, but I am likely to be off the blog for a while. Best to all. [Ben A.: 4/18/07 23:02]


	Meanwhile, At The Bottom Of The Page ... you might glimpse a headline saying that five times as many civilians were slaughtered today in Baghdad. Can't we do something to stop these slaughters, maybe send more soldiers over to police the streets, kind of like a "surge" of troops or something? [Doug: 4/18/07 10:29]


	Secure Audacity The Associated Press sums up the French presidential race: PARIS: With just four days to go until the election, France's presidential race is so close, so wide open, that candidates are willing to say just about anything to lure undecided voters. Polls suggest that as many as two in five voters have not yet chosen who they will vote for in Sunday's balloting. So candidates are reaching across the left-right divide to attract voters — and in essence, trying to be all things to all people. Socialist Segolene Royal, No. 2 in the polls, declared herself the candidate of "audacity" in an interview Wednesday with Metro newspaper. Then, perhaps wondering whether that might alienate some voters, she added, "I promise a secure audacity" — a comment as puzzling in French as in English. [Doug: 4/18/07 08:00]


	Adolescent Dictator Image Consultant This could be a highly lucrative job. (And since the natural place for its practitioners to base themselves is Paris, I should probably consider it.) Bashar al-Assad, for example, could use some surgical reinforcement for his weak chin ... ... as well eyebrow-plucking so that they tilt inward rather than out, and a general hairstyle/mustache overhaul. In Morocco one sees pictures of the young king hanging everywhere; his case is less dire but I think he could use some work too. [Doug: 4/18/07 04:51]


	Back From Baku Well, almost. I've made it to the far side of passport control, but I am not yet winging my way out of here just yet. This city is booming, much as you would expect of the capital of the country with the world's fastest growth rate two years running. I've written before about the Ataturk cult in Turkey. Here in Azerbaijan, one has the opportunity to witness the early years of a very similar personality cult, dedicated to the late president Heydar Aliyev. Talking about similarities understates the parallels. For one cannot avoid the impression that Aliyev and his handlers actively cribbed from Ataturk. Every office, public or private, has its framed picture of Aliyev, just like Turkish offices have their portrait of Ataturk. One version I saw in several place had Aliyev dressed up in tuxedo -- which is a common bit of Ataturk iconography (the tuxedo being the sartorial distillation of Western sophistication, as seen through Oriental eyes circa 1920; it makes less sense in 2007, which leads me to assume plagiarism by Aliyev). Many executives have a little office nook or bookcase dedicated to Aliyeviana: commemorative coffee-table-style photo books of the Great Man, a 16-volume hardback collection of his writings, a biography. I've seen the very same thing in many Istanbul executive suites. Of course, Aliyev is a low-rent Ataturk at best. Even your average American debunker must grant Kemal his chiseled good lucks, his piercingly intense gaze, and his impressive military successes. Aliyev's face tends to wear more of an awkward smirk; one eyelid looks a bit lazy, giving him the impression of sharing a sly wink with his people. His military resume features the loss of 1/3rd of Azerbaijan's territory to Armenia. Heydar's son Ilham now rules Azerbaijan and pretends to join the iconographic firmament heretofor reserved to his father. In a few government offices, I saw pictures of Ilham beside those of his father. If Heydar seems not quite up to snuff as the subject of a personality cult, Ilham comes off as a sort of Caspian Alfred E. Neuman. He wears a sadly sparse, pale attempt at a Borat moustache and a bug-eyed confused expression... [Ben H.: 4/17/07 21:48]


	In re: Wolfowitz, you know I don't share your views on Iraq, Doug, but for the moment let's assume you're right. That Wolfowitz should face disgrace and loss of office for a supposed breach of World Bank H/R policy relating to a relationship with a subordinate and no penalty for his role in a colossal policy failure (assuming for the moment that Iraq is such) illustrates beautifully the obsessions of our age. Judging by column-inches, sexual harassment provokes more indignation than even genocide. On the other hand, the presidency of the World Bank may constitute a special case. Given Robert McNamara's tenure in the post, one might almost conclude that the sanguinary prosecution of a losing war counts as a prerequisite for the job. [Ben H.: 4/16/07 12:53]


	Get Out The Vote Received the HAA Board of Directors ballots in the mail today. I'm recommending that you vote for Dao's sister, who is running for the first time. Also, I noticed that the ballots are secret and don't seem to have any watermarks or similar anti-duplication features. <irony>Good thing Harvard politicos are so notoriously honest or this might permit some monkey business! </irony> [Doug: 4/16/07 12:20]


	Another Unlikely 19th-Century-Literature Spin On Current Affairs Having recently read Lord Jim colors my impression of the current Wolfowitz/World Bank debate. The Jim in question demolishes his career by committing a mistake that costs ... well, the mistake is one of great cowardice, but it ends up costing basically no lives or property. The ethical code in place at the time causes him to be more or less banished from polite society. Now, the Times editorial page says, "The reason Paul Wolfowitz should resign as president of the World Bank has nothing to do with Iraq ...". Really? I know that our ideas about ethics have changed a lot over a hundred years, but I would have thought there would be a limit to how many human lives you could pointlessly snuff out (certainly less than ten thousand) and how many of your nations's dollars you could send up the chimney (certainly far less than a trillion) and still be considered for prestigious offices. [Doug: 4/16/07 11:50]


	But I heard that the priests are on strike, Doug... [Ben H.: 4/13/07 16:03]


	This Is A Short Walk From My Place (Suckers) (At the end of a grey winter here one takes any opportunity to gloat ...) [Doug: 4/13/07 12:06]


	Argentina Creditors Appeal to the Court of Public Opinion A group of disgruntled creditors of Argentina recently formed the American Task Force Argentina. After finding American courts surprisingly unfriendly to creditors of sovereign deadbeats, ATFA has opted for extra-judicial tactics. For example, check out this newspaper ad. If the deadbeat sovereigns can trot out their country's poor in an effort to defend their faithless behavior, then creditors can counter with the sob story of teachers' lost retirement savings. [Ben H.: 4/11/07 08:10]


	Makes About As Much Sense As Connecting Gambling and Indians... Oil-engorged personality-cultist Nursultan Nazarbayev has decreed a ban on casinos throughout nearly all of Kazakhstan. The measure does not caused raised eyebrows; rather, it is the measure's justification which deserves attention. He revealed that he banned casinos from big cities after reading "The Wild-Ass's Skin" by 19th century French author Honore de Balzac, a tale about a man who finds an animal skin that will grant him any wish but will eventually kill him. Who says literature has lost the power to shape events? But, seriously, out of the legion of 19th Century novels that could lead one to denounce gambling, why would one pick La Peau de Chagrin? If this work argues for any sort of ban, it would be on magic wish-granting talismans, which to the best of my knowledge (i.e. based on watching Borat) remain legal in Kazakhstan. [Ben H.: 4/10/07 08:11]


	More Evidence of Financial Markets' Center of Gravity Shifting to London I have received precisely zero calls from counterparties today. My Bloomberg traffic is running at about 10% of normal. I don't remember the Monday after Good Friday as such a dead day in year's past. It is, of course, a holiday in the London markets. Is the eerie calm here another piece of evidence that the center of gravity of the financials markets has shifted to London? [Ben H.: 4/9/07 15:07]


	Cohen The New York Times joins the party, er, funeral. [Ben H.: 4/2/07 09:20]


	Paul Cohen, 1934 - 2007 Paul Cohen has died. He basically invented the field of mathematics that I've spent the last few years working/tearing my hair out in; I believe it's a field whose importance will continue to grow regardless of whether I get anywhere with my own projects. Here is the L.A. Times obituary. Couldn't find a NYTimes one (the story may simply have too little relevance to upper-middle-class lifestyles). [Doug: 4/1/07 17:49]


	Reason 1,000,000 to hate Arab professional hyperactivists I sincerely hope each one of the plaintiffs and their family members, friends, character witnesses, etc is thoroughly vetted for immigration status and swiftly deported if out-of-status. [Ben H.: 3/30/07 19:25]


	More Reasons To Love France To be fair, this is probably better than anything by Ron Artest. [Ben A.: 3/29/07 08:19]


	Let Me Count The Ways I Love France The unemployment counselors are on strike. [Doug: 3/29/07 02:38]


	Overplayed Certain music, certain art is judged overexposed. On this view, Pachelbel's canon is played too often at weddings. Van Gogh adorns too many dormitory walls. We have all likely had these thoughts, but what is the complaint exactly? Weddings require pretty music. Walls require paintings -- and what possible objection could be lodged against Starry Night? Maybe if one went to a wedding every day, Pachelbel would begin to grate, but given how rarely one hears it, how can one explain the irritation? First explanation: Snobbery. Pachelbel is fine, but he is no William Byrd. Is this the only classical music you know, peasant? Second explanation: Dislike of inauthenticity. If you really liked art, you would not put on your wall the most popular art poster in the Western world. Rather, you deploy this poster to claim a allegiance to and interest in high culture which is fraudulent, as are you. Both these explanations have some truth to them, but neither are exactly creditable. I am looking for something more flattering. Addendum: This topic was spurred by ogged. Who, I should add, once said that critics of Journey's Don't Stop Believing "should stop trying to be cool and just be cool." A view which seems to me both true and creditable. [Ben A.: 3/29/07 00:34]


	The Insurrection Begins I remember when I lived in Soho and my whole street was shut down by what I referred to as the Feast Of San Zeppole. Are the people starting to take back the streets? Curbed reports: LITTLE ITALY -- Bad news for fans of sausage and cheap t-shirts; Community Board 2 has rejected the permit application for the San Gennaro Feast. A special Curbed Correspondent reports, "No organizers from the Feast appeared. But old-time Italians did, and spoke against it, as well as other locals, so the CB recommended to the Mayor's CSA Office that the permit be denied. It is likely the organizers will be back next month, seeking reconsideration, after having been taught some respect. Locals declared that it was better run when the Mafia organized it." [CurbedWire Inbox] [Doug: 3/25/07 08:47]


	It Can Always Be Worse You fellows know that my hawkishness, pro-market bias, and legal formalism incline me towards the right of the American political center. Nonetheless, I watched the Republicans lose the house with pleasure. "The Democrats," I told myself, "cannot possibly be worse than these venal fools." That's a bad way to think. With the Retreat From Iraq and Peanut Storage Bill of March, 2007 we may have a modern low point. [Ben A.: 3/25/07 01:42]


	A Terrible Life Choice That was a close one. [Ben A.: 3/25/07 00:05]


	Debunkers' Peril Zizek, at least, has happiness beyond any critic's reach. Does it not look like the ending of a zombie movie gone horribly awry? Addendum: The best comment on the Zizek wedding comes from shadowy internet superhero "Standpipe Bridgeplate": The best thing about that wedding photo is, the woman is actually Alan Sokal... [Ben A.: 3/24/07 22:52]


	French Politics Update Recent polls show Segolene pulling even with Sarkozy and thus comforting me in my continued prediction of her victory. It's not purely from fear of looking like a waffler that I've maintained this prediction (although given the overall randomness of this election, that is part of it). On one hand I still think the fundamentals of my analysis are correct. These are twofold: first, she gives an appearance of embodying change (a female president, how radical is that!?) which everyone here claims to want, given France's downward trajectory, while simultaneously reassuring the (frightened, risk-averse) electorate that nothing will really change in their lives personally; second, she will have success tarring Sarkozy as a closet American just as Bush tarred Kerry as a closet Frenchy . On the other hand there is the factor of spite, which is a major motivator of the French electorate. (Not to say the French tout court.) Spite towards whom? Toward "the Man", generally speaking. Perfect example: the EU Constitution referendum in 2005. The media were all sagely nodding their heads in agreement that the Constitution was an inevitable Step of Historical Progress, irrefutable arguments were put forth for the wonderful benefits it would confer, business leaders were optimistic, and Chirac was smiling with assured victory. Well, screw them!!! The current dynamic is similar. No objective change in the candidates' demeanor or positions explains the recent shift in poll numbers. Segolene has not suddenly figured out how to appear like a plausible statesperson, and Sarkozy has not figured out how to appear, well, other than he appears in the photo below. It's just that the media have started agreeing how hollow Segolene's campaign is and vaguely implying that no serious person can vote for her. "Oh yeah, you elitist media jerks? We'll see about that!" [Doug: 3/24/07 15:41]


	On Philosopher-Debunkers There are certainly worse ways to establish yourself in academic philosophy than becoming the go-to guy for debunkings of some famous thinker. This Jenny Teichman seems like the go-to girl with respect to Rorty (though I'd never heard of her before and can't comment on whether she is or should be a culture hero). Her first Google result is a debunking of Peter Singer. I think this is consistent with order in which these two guys deserve to be debunked. Our erstwhile (and who knows, maybe future) cyber-acquaintance John Holbo is a contender to be the go-to debunker of Slavoj Zizek, who is at least as objectionable as Singer. A few dangers attend this profession. If the guy you're debunking is someone whose work is totally without merit -- and my guess is that this holds for Singer and Zizek -- you risk raising their profile by attacking them. When Teichman published that anti-Singer piece, he was a professor at something called Monash; now he is at Princeton. Certainly anyone as single-mindedly anti-Christian as Singer will have significant success in the academy, but it probably took a lot of Teichman-style attacks to propel him to Princeton. Hopefully Holbo's work will not similarly propel Zizek. The other danger is that, if your target's work has some merit -- and my guess is that this holds for Rorty, if only because he's trying to live up to the example of William James -- you just add one more cycle to the endless retarded loop of academic philosophy. Rorty (and/or Kuhn) says there's no objective truth because our scientific framework always evolves and leaves our old terminology hanging in the wind. Hang on, says Jenny Teichman, total skepticism is self-refuting, and so (we are to understand) we really must possess some eternal verities. But then Rorty repeats the same arguments, which Teichman hasn't really addressed. This dynamic governs every last niche of academic philosophy -- you have two extreme and easily-refuted positions, and people go back and forth making more and more subtle versions of the easy refutations, and maybe a couple pose as level-headed sages who will reconcile the two positions (usually by making a total hash of them). (Every niche, that is, except so-called continental philosophy, where the governing dynamic is infinite-monkeys-with-typewriters.) [Doug: 3/24/07 07:47]


	Hero of Culture: Jenny Teichman Friends and well-wishers of Richard Rorty are advised to avert their eyes. All others should enjoy the drubbing. And again, with brass knuckles [Ben A.: 3/23/07 00:26]


	Great Photo Of Sarkozy And Chirac Credit: the otherwise terrible newspaper Libération (whose editor in chief wrote a classic editorial the other day, denouncing the arrest of an Italian Red-Brigade-type killer from the 70's, whose "melancholy" exile in Brasil was, he would have us believe, punishment enough). [Doug: 3/21/07 13:51]


	The Hard Problem of the Least Advantaged Great tie-back to Rawls, Ben H. One legacy of the sage of Cambridgeburg has been the definition of the least advantaged in terms of material situation and reliance on redistribution of "primary goods" as the remedy to disadvantage.* Sometimes, this legacy provides the right guidance. When a tsunami hits, the least advantaged are those who literally have nothing. This is the easy problem of the least advantaged. When people lack goods, we can provide more goods. Within wealthy modern societies, however, the problem is different. Here the least advantaged aren't, or aren't primarily, those who lack goods. Rather they are those lacking the ability to reliably convert goods into beneficial outcomes. Some children are inefficient converters of educational inputs into educational outcomes. Given paste, they eat it. That's a hard problem. *This is, I think a fair summary of "Theory of Justice." To what degree this position represents the ultimate, considered views of Rawls I don't know. One signal benefit of dropping out of grad school is that never had to read "Political Liberalism" or "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement." Hurray! [Ben A.: 3/20/07 08:23]


	Must we design our policy based on the arbitrary criterion of whether it helps or hurts the biggest doofuses society has on offer? I don't think so, but then again, I'm not John Rawls. I'm with you, Ben A. Let's explicitly reject the "minimax" condition underlying so many leftist policy arguments. I'll go further (and you can join me if you wish), the stupid, feckless, unskilled, and lazy impose an enormous direct cost on society. We oughtn't feel compelled to compound it with the indirect cost of broadly influential policies, suboptimal for society as a whole, designed with their needs in mind. And the next time somebody tries to rebut me with the plaintive wail, "what about their kids?", I will turn it right back on 'em. What about those kids? We ought to take them away from parents incapable of caring for them if we care about them so much. I call your minimax and raise you an adoption. What are you waiting for, Mr. Tenderheart? [Ben H.: 3/20/07 06:03]


	What About the Children Who Eat Paste? Elsewhere a debate rages about the virtues of allowing school vouchers. As per usual, proponents of government control trot out the worst possbile result of liberalization as the likely mode case. What, they ask, will prevent unscrupulous grifters from starting up phony academies and fleecing gullible parents? Of course, unscrupulous grifters exist aplenty in the current school system. This argument assumes that private sector schools will have more corruption, worse quality control, and less reponsive feedback mechanisms. These assumptions are merely silly. Actually offensive, however, is the idea that we must always shape policy to the benefit of the stupidest and least enterprising of our citizens. No doubt some parents really will send their children into a slaughterhouse provided "SKOOOL" has been stenciled above the doorframe. This seems less an argument for a public school monopoly than for forceable adoption. Must we really warp our eduaction policy to ensure that the most out-to-lunch parents have a marginally smaller opportunity to damage their children? [Ben A.: 3/20/07 01:01]


	Benightenment Conservatism Larison's brand of conservatism needs a name and there's my suggestion. His anti-liberal attitude reminds me of nothing so much as the anti-"libéral" attitude of French leftists. He opposes a patristic "good order" (first paragraph) to our debauched it's-all-right-if-it-feels-good society; French leftists oppose a centrally-controlled "ordre juste" (Segolene's favorite buzzword) to their debauched it's-all-right-if-it-makes-money society. A certain priggishness seems to be mixed into both attitudes. I would much prefer it if these people took a positive approach. Pro-Aristotle rather than anti-Enlightenment in one case, pro-growth rather than anti-rich-people in the other. But Larison seems to be essentially a root-and-branch man (even if he'd resent that way of putting it). And the French left is trapped in a psycho-political labyrinth that it won't emerge from for decades, if ever. I do agree fully with Larison that it would be a good thing to propagate the idea that we aren't disconnected tokens hopping around the game-board of the universe, looking to maximize our scores. I don't agree that the Enlightenment is just the negation of this idea. And I confess to ignoring what the doctrine of the Trinity in particular has to do with the issue. [Doug: 3/19/07 04:46]


	Movies to Avoid Pan's Labyrinth. Some nice visuals, but slow-moving, violent, and a real downer. Also, contains my new movie nemesis, CGI vermin. Man is now empowered to visualize any glorious thing under the sun or above it. Why do we so often choose roaches? 300 What was I thinking? Mainly that it would be fun to spend a whole day bellowing, and that perhaps I should experience it vicariously. Back to Augustine! Larison is certainly serious. And if I thought the Enlightenment enthroned utilitarianism as an organizing principles of personal morality, as I believe Larison does, I would likewise oppose it. As per usual, let me go straight to Lord Lindsay: Utilitarianism had equated human purposes with happiness. That had meant not simply that the State should take men as it found find them -- a doctrine for which much is to be said -- but that men should take themselves as they find themselves -- a very different doctrine for which there is almost nothing to be said. [Ben A.: 3/18/07 22:48]


	Movie Recommendation The Lives Of Others. At the moment, can't think of any words of praise for it that don't sound tinny and inadequate. [Doug: 3/18/07 17:28]


	Rolling Back The Enlightenment I had a reaction similar to Ben H's: this does seem like one of those authors who takes perverse pleasure in triggering jaw-dropping "surely you can't be arguing for something so extreme!" reactions in others. On the other hand, the parts of the essay I read did seem earnest and coolly reasoned. Whether the first or second of these qualities dominates the essay is probably something that depends on the reader. For me, the first (negative) quality dominated, because two years in philosophy grad school made me exquisitely sensitive to it. ("Professor x's extreme position is clearly wrong, ergo my extreme position is right" -- repeat this chant enough and you get tenure.) When you sit down to write about Christianity and the Enlightenment as sources of American culture/history, I think the starting point has to be that America's phenomenal success is due largely to its way of yoking the two together. If your nation embraces Christianity while rejecting Enlightenment-style liberties, you risk ending up like Franco's Spain. If you embrace the Enlightenment while rejecting Christianity (and related transcendental ethics), you risk ending up like today's France -- a place where all forms of pleasure and knowledge are available for the taking, but where genuine fellow-feeling has petered out into empty words like "solidarité", and jealousy and resentment dominate people's civic thoughts. Now, I think this guy Larison is right when he says that there's a deep logical incompatibility between the main themes of the Enlightenment and those of the Christian tradition. It's a hugely interesting question, therefore, how America has managed to yoke them together (certainly Protestantism is the biggest part of the answer). And it's an interesting (and harder) question whether you can come up with an intellectually coherent philosophy that combines the best of both. But this isn't what seems to interest Larison. He seems to be -- as befits a writer of rigorously reasoned abstractions -- interested just in removing the Enlightenment from the mix. "I admit this salad dressing tastes excellent. However, it is scientifically impossible to dissolve vinegar, a water-based solution, in oil. Therefore I ask that you remove the vinegar prior to dressing my salad." People with this kind of attitude are ultimately of no interest to me (which has had the consequences that you know for my academic career). [Doug: 3/17/07 13:23]


	Dingus I will comment in this essay ... please hold me to that. However, a propos of set theoretical dinguses, here's a quote from a 1984 topology paper (that turns out to have a similar construction to the one I posted here a few years ago): Note. From now on H will denote a stiff tiny fat subgroup of T. [Doug: 3/17/07 12:16]


	With respect to Point #4, Professor M has been working on an article whose thesis identifies historically deep and fairly explicit roots of the contractarian grounding of rights. To argue against the Enlightenment and for a society based on early Patristic Doctrine sounds to me like a highbrow version of an Ann Coulter provocation. Surely Larison can't be 100% on the level, can he? [Ben H.: 3/17/07 09:33]


	For Discussion: Must American Conservatism Turn Against the Enlightenment? The rejection of the Enlightenment is unlikely to be of great interest to our usual readership of classic liberals, right-wing Kantians, and the sensible center-left. Nonetheless this essay by Daniel Larison is too interesting not to pass on. In brief, Larison answers the title question in the affirmative: he views the Enlightenment as essentially anti-conservative and negative. The essay is worth your time, but for those who have set-theoretical dinguses to fabricate or currencies to short, I have provided a paragraph-to-sentence précis of Larison’s essay in 14 non-Wilsonian points. (direct quotes italicized) 1. American conservatives believe it possible to reconcile the enlightenment with conservatism. This is an error. 2. Indeed any ‘synthesis’ that tries to reconcile modernity and Christianity will fail, and any conservatism that does not ground itself in the Christian tradition implicitly accepts (false) enlightenment principles. 3. American conservatives have accepted an historical narrative of a battle between a bad, radical enlightenment vision and a good, moderate enlightenment vision: the French revolution against the American revolution. This story has blinded American conservatives to the fact that the enlightenment, even in its moderate, Anglophone form, is problematic for conservatism. 4. The mistake is understandable: at the time of the American revolution, the Whig account of English rights seemed entrenched, but in fact the contractarian and rights tradition was a fairly recent innovation. 5. As a result of the institutionalization of the contractarian and right-based Whig tradition, liberalism became the default position in Anglophone society (and incidentally was identified with Christianity via Protestantism) 6. Anglophone conservatives should not endorse the contractarian tradition, because it is mistaken and anti-conservative: “To put it bluntly, it would be just as wrong to say that governments are justly established by consent when Locke says it as it is when Rousseau says it” 7. Restating, there just is no such doctrine as “enlightenment Christian conservatism” unless by ‘doctrine’ one means ‘the results of clapping hands over one’s ears and singing loudly: The accommodation of enlightenment liberalism and Christianity only seems plausible provided that neither is taken to its logical conclusions and only so long as one does not think too hard about what both must imply about the nature of man and society. 8. American conservatives have typically distinguished themselves forcefully from Continental ‘blood-and-soil” varieties of conservatism 9. But what are Anglo-American conservatives then? “Classic liberals?” What does that mean? 10. Now it means nothing, and absent introspection and re-imagining American conservatism will become “another shallow armed doctrine.” 11. And for ‘re-imagining’ read ‘return’: Conservatives must divorce themselves from the Enlightenment and nourish themselves at the taproots of the Christian tradition. 12. This return would involve: a) “An extensive revival of a knowledge of patristic thought, especially patristic thought of the first seven or eight centuries” b) Ethics which abandons “conceptions of agency connected with notions of autonomy, self-interest and choice and affirm a morality rooted in asceticism, festivity as well as communion” c) Poltical theory which emphasizes “the proper role of government in terms of chartered liberties (as opposed to natural rights) and the government’s duty to the welfare of the commonwealth or republic.” 13. This is a theological vision. The enlightenment preaches autonomy, but autonomy is a false ideal: “autonomy is alienation from the Life and Light of God and the desire for autonomy the source of all evils in the world.” 14. Why? We are Fallen creatures, the evil is in us and our salvation is to seek the Good. There is therefore no temporizing between “the Good” and our self-interest, and the alleged middle ground of “self-interest rightly understood” is an enlightenment cop-out. Jeff Dahlmer understood his self interest perfectly well. Questions 1. What’s so bad about the enlightenment? Larison does not spell out what he considers the enlightenment’s primary failing. My read: he believes enlightenment privileges freedom over the good, and thus endorses as the highest end an autonomy that ultimately amounts to nothing more than vanity. This is a controversial reading of the enlightenment, and I would argue wrong with respect to Kant and (probably) to Locke. That said, it is certainly part of the liberal bargain to have a government that uses most of its coercive powers to secure liberty than to directly further the good. Is this a part of the liberal bargain Larison rejects? Is the contractarian tradition wrong because the consent of the governed is not necessary, or because it is not sufficient? 2 . What’s in it for Protestants? My friend T, a good Catholic, never fails to describe the Protestant reformation as “a font of heresies.” And so it was. Larison focuses like a laser on the enlightenment, but directs comparatively little fire at the reformation. Is not a hodge-podge of crazy sects and solo-bible interpretation as a threat to ‘good order’ and a conservatism based on patristic writings? Is it not a bigger threat than procedural liberalism? (More problems with the Reformation: Locke’s argument for toleration relies on broadly protestant theological assumptions. No Lockean toleration, no liberalism!) 3. Science The strongest institution of Western society is the edifice of modern science. It provides tangible Signs and Wonders. It attracts the best minds.It is increasingly replacing politics, psychology, and religion as the preferred vendor of our conception of human nature. As a cultural force it is confident, domineering, and unapologetic. It is invincible. Thus the central question for any normative doctrine, and particularly for any non-materialistic, non-utilitarian, and vaguely humane one, is: how will you effectively reconcile and guide modern science? The conservative re-imagining Larison seems particularly ill-suited to do this. Is there an angle here I am missing? [Ben A.: 3/16/07 20:50]