Dec 21, 2022·edited Dec 21, 2022Liked by Adrian Vermeule
John Dewey famously said Skepticism is in its best the mark, and in its worst the pose, of a self-claimed educated mind. Which of the two fits in an instance of self-presentation could only be adjudicated based on the evidence it uses to self-justify.
In this endeavor of adjudication, words alone do not suffice. I propose in real life - the one we all live when we do laundry, fetch groceries, mate and reproduce - it is more productive to look at result or consequence of spoken words, including the words spoken by skeptics.
In this frame, a quote from Bertrand Russell comes to mind: “Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance”.
What we see in the realm of “results and consequence” in liberalism as demonstrated by both the Far L and Far R in 2022 America is a sort of perennial skepticism that directs itself to believe in nothing and commits to nothing. Except itself.
As to skepticism about a specific thing called Power. I don’t personally know any earthly person who does not covet it. The naked truth is we all need power; in a survival sense, it is sine qua non. Power over whom and what, and via what means, is the Q. This is a separate Q outside the scope of this astute Vermeule essay which points out the intellectual dishonesty inherent in the selective invocation of "skepticism".
Finally, bureaucracy, like “democracy”, is not a dirty word. The quality of a bureaucracy is no better and no worse than the quality of the people who run it.
There is a culture to bureaucracies. Having originally created to reduce corruption, or rather concentrate corruption in the hands of the govt.government., they grew to serve their own interests. This can be altered by the quality of its servants, sure, but whoever funds it will drive in their own direction. Look at IL, for example.
Point well taken. Indeed, "Who funds it?" is a Q that addresses people or individuals who are anything but skeptics, but more often than not identify with the philosophy of skeptics.
Power enabled and asserted by the ultimate resource - $ - is an in alterable given in a system of governance known as capitalism - the more pure, the more unyielding, and this extends to a taxation system that favors the status quo. I am not familiar enough of politics broken down to the state level to make a statement on IL in this regard. Suffice it to say although it's been said grass-root raw number power is an antidote to $ power, to the extent the concept and precepts that justify extreme inequality penetrates more deeply into the details in everyday life, the entire system is in an insoluble bind. I read Prof Vermeule’s work on "common good" as an attempt to resolve this bind. Ironically, the people who will benefit from the resolution are precisely the same people who entertain antagonism to it, because they see any resolution as “Illiberal” in the John Stuart sense. For evidence of this assertion, look no further than where run-amok Liberalism has taken us by 2022 (today is Dec 22, 2022).
Note: I have a habit - good or bad - of speaking my mind. I hope what I write offends no one. As I have indicated in an earlier comment post on PostLib, I am but a tiny speck in an infinitely large universe.
The system is in a bind, particularly in large blue states with deep state capture. The atomized individual cannot fight that, unless the system teeters on funding collapse. There's a great deal of ruin in a modern country though, so the main escape is to move to another state, which thankfully is an option.
Seems to me moving to another state, though a feasible option, cannot be a once-and-for-all sustainable solution, either in terms of electoral votes, or in terms of economics and/or lifestyle. After all, united states means united states, not a conglomerate of "competitive take-over" states.
Who/which/what is better/preferable/desirable, IMHO, boils down to CHOICE.
Choice is entirely personal. Of all people, folks who advocate/preach/*enforce* (note oxymoron) Individual Freedom ought to have the most thorough appreciation for this.
Example: I don't like hiphop. I should think any requirement that I MUST LIKE it as unbearable tyranny. Conversely, for many folks, listening to Bach is a pain in the butt, for yet others reading Chekov violates something most important (not sure what) to them.
Also, choice does not spring into being in a vaccuum - either of history or what is before the eyes in the present moment. Few things in life is absolute. Absolutism, in my personal philosophy (happens to be Bertrand Russell's) is both an illusion (perception of the 5 sensory organs) and delusion (cognitive processing of what is perceived). It engenders misery. FACTS, not myths, also makes more informed decisions. In any case, how many times does one or can one move - from Cal to Florida to Virginia to Montana to New Hampshire? These are just some Q's. I don't presume to know the answer.
'Skepticism about power—in particular, the exploitative power of the few over the many—is itself one of the major justifications for the administrative state."
Is Oakeshott so critical of power, per se, or simply the exercise of the Rational mind, which leads to expunging and excluding from the exercise of power common sense & folk wisdom handed down through the generations?
Please read the rest of the post. The skepticism is about the fallibility of rational exercise of power. And Oakeshott falls into the mistake I’ve criticized.
His critique of the Rational syncs with a critique with the administrative state, which is ultimately the application of the Rational mind to systematizing and problem solving every facet of life. It strikes me that his entire foundation of thinking and perceiving is to prevent bloated bureaucracy and administration; so too does the Rational mind fabricate justifications for the dissolution of mores and taboos.
Missed this sorry! I have to think about whether I agree with your empirical premises. Murder rates in Chicago e.g. suggest that your last sentence isn’t obviously true. But interesting point — thx
John Dewey famously said Skepticism is in its best the mark, and in its worst the pose, of a self-claimed educated mind. Which of the two fits in an instance of self-presentation could only be adjudicated based on the evidence it uses to self-justify.
In this endeavor of adjudication, words alone do not suffice. I propose in real life - the one we all live when we do laundry, fetch groceries, mate and reproduce - it is more productive to look at result or consequence of spoken words, including the words spoken by skeptics.
In this frame, a quote from Bertrand Russell comes to mind: “Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance”.
What we see in the realm of “results and consequence” in liberalism as demonstrated by both the Far L and Far R in 2022 America is a sort of perennial skepticism that directs itself to believe in nothing and commits to nothing. Except itself.
As to skepticism about a specific thing called Power. I don’t personally know any earthly person who does not covet it. The naked truth is we all need power; in a survival sense, it is sine qua non. Power over whom and what, and via what means, is the Q. This is a separate Q outside the scope of this astute Vermeule essay which points out the intellectual dishonesty inherent in the selective invocation of "skepticism".
Finally, bureaucracy, like “democracy”, is not a dirty word. The quality of a bureaucracy is no better and no worse than the quality of the people who run it.
There is a culture to bureaucracies. Having originally created to reduce corruption, or rather concentrate corruption in the hands of the govt.government., they grew to serve their own interests. This can be altered by the quality of its servants, sure, but whoever funds it will drive in their own direction. Look at IL, for example.
Point well taken. Indeed, "Who funds it?" is a Q that addresses people or individuals who are anything but skeptics, but more often than not identify with the philosophy of skeptics.
Power enabled and asserted by the ultimate resource - $ - is an in alterable given in a system of governance known as capitalism - the more pure, the more unyielding, and this extends to a taxation system that favors the status quo. I am not familiar enough of politics broken down to the state level to make a statement on IL in this regard. Suffice it to say although it's been said grass-root raw number power is an antidote to $ power, to the extent the concept and precepts that justify extreme inequality penetrates more deeply into the details in everyday life, the entire system is in an insoluble bind. I read Prof Vermeule’s work on "common good" as an attempt to resolve this bind. Ironically, the people who will benefit from the resolution are precisely the same people who entertain antagonism to it, because they see any resolution as “Illiberal” in the John Stuart sense. For evidence of this assertion, look no further than where run-amok Liberalism has taken us by 2022 (today is Dec 22, 2022).
Note: I have a habit - good or bad - of speaking my mind. I hope what I write offends no one. As I have indicated in an earlier comment post on PostLib, I am but a tiny speck in an infinitely large universe.
The system is in a bind, particularly in large blue states with deep state capture. The atomized individual cannot fight that, unless the system teeters on funding collapse. There's a great deal of ruin in a modern country though, so the main escape is to move to another state, which thankfully is an option.
Seems to me moving to another state, though a feasible option, cannot be a once-and-for-all sustainable solution, either in terms of electoral votes, or in terms of economics and/or lifestyle. After all, united states means united states, not a conglomerate of "competitive take-over" states.
Fair, but it is a way to escape when electoral solutions fail. And better than people in many centralized countries.
Who/which/what is better/preferable/desirable, IMHO, boils down to CHOICE.
Choice is entirely personal. Of all people, folks who advocate/preach/*enforce* (note oxymoron) Individual Freedom ought to have the most thorough appreciation for this.
Example: I don't like hiphop. I should think any requirement that I MUST LIKE it as unbearable tyranny. Conversely, for many folks, listening to Bach is a pain in the butt, for yet others reading Chekov violates something most important (not sure what) to them.
Also, choice does not spring into being in a vaccuum - either of history or what is before the eyes in the present moment. Few things in life is absolute. Absolutism, in my personal philosophy (happens to be Bertrand Russell's) is both an illusion (perception of the 5 sensory organs) and delusion (cognitive processing of what is perceived). It engenders misery. FACTS, not myths, also makes more informed decisions. In any case, how many times does one or can one move - from Cal to Florida to Virginia to Montana to New Hampshire? These are just some Q's. I don't presume to know the answer.
'Skepticism about power—in particular, the exploitative power of the few over the many—is itself one of the major justifications for the administrative state."
Is Oakeshott so critical of power, per se, or simply the exercise of the Rational mind, which leads to expunging and excluding from the exercise of power common sense & folk wisdom handed down through the generations?
Please read the rest of the post. The skepticism is about the fallibility of rational exercise of power. And Oakeshott falls into the mistake I’ve criticized.
His critique of the Rational syncs with a critique with the administrative state, which is ultimately the application of the Rational mind to systematizing and problem solving every facet of life. It strikes me that his entire foundation of thinking and perceiving is to prevent bloated bureaucracy and administration; so too does the Rational mind fabricate justifications for the dissolution of mores and taboos.
Missed this sorry! I have to think about whether I agree with your empirical premises. Murder rates in Chicago e.g. suggest that your last sentence isn’t obviously true. But interesting point — thx
Here’s their contact page - cheers! https://iusetiustitium.com/contact/