Philosopher Ed Feser argues that the new “higher gnosis” of woke ideology, pseudo-religion and anti-politics is a lot like an older gnosticism which was once defeated — and can be again.
I really enjoyed that. It seems we are not that unique, and like previous generations we too are deluded into believing nonsense disguised as something new: a red herring.
I always learn some new stuff in every one of Ed’s pieces. I love how he digs way back in history and makes it relevant today. Ive been reading a bunch of Voegelin’s work and writing pieces on how it corresponds with our new form of gnosticism, but of course Ed puts it in concise terms here.
Disaffected and doubting liberal here. I'm a fan of Christopher Lasch. I'm sympathetic to postliberal critiques. I share Tom Holland's disposition toward Christianity. I was baptized Catholic as an infant but raised outside the church. I'm extremely worried by the revolutionary fervor of Progress that has taken hold in American institutions. I say all that to try to certify that I'm not some kind of left-wing troll... I hope what I write next does not come across that way.
The arguments of this piece are cogent. But I also worry that they sound a lot like a domestic policy version of the neoconservative argument for invading Iraq in 2003. They're a recipe for a massive campaign of state coercion, founded on completely optimistic assumptions, without serious attempt to consider the costs and unanticipated consequences.
The Trump campaign, along with its donors and allies, seem to be planning exactly the kind of state-sponsored crackdown against wokeness that Ed Feser advocates in this essay. I think such planning fails to grapple in any way with the costs of such a militant offensive, measured here and now, in American society as it currently exists, rather than with reference to medieval religious crusades in societies utterly unlike our own.
In the context of today's America, I also wonder how a campaign of federal coercion against human beings who disagree with the government, who will in many cases be family members and colleagues of postliberal conservatives, can possibly be consistent with the command to love our neighbors and our enemies.
I wonder how it can be consistent with moral virtue as the free choice of an individual. Once the military federal campaign against wokeness is won, by defunding institutions, by law enforcement surveillance and sanctions, by mass violence deployed against inevitable street protests, how will the new system of federally enforced moral virtue to uphold the natural social order be implemented? How will administrative lawmaking and coercive force be deployed in a way that treats human beings as children of God embodied with dignity and free will?
I would guess that Feser's reply would be something along the lines of: sometimes, in the broken world as it is, unpleasant and coercive means must be employed, to restore conditions of social harmony under which human beings can flourish, with less coercion or no coercion.
In that case, I still would ask for a careful consideration, prior to a federalized postliberal offensive against wokeism, of what the American future will look like after victory. How will taking away the livelihood of political enemies, throwing them in jail, and otherwise employing coercion on a massive scale result in a better situation than we have now?
I would advise you to read up on postliberal positions, as they answer basically all of your questions. The main point is that law is *always* coercive of action, and there is nothing unjust about this. Just as a parent can lovingly punish a child for disobeying, so can the state punish its citizens. This is in line with the moral command to love one's neighbors and enemies, and it would often be unloving to let them continue in their folly. This of course doesn't mean all vice can or should be punished by the state (see Aquinas for more on that).
You are right that careful consideration should be taken, and no solution that locks up half the country would be desirable. But mild coercive measures and punishment for those who inordinately perpetuate the problem is totally normal politics--it is how we deal with murder, assault, illicit drug use, sex-trafficking, treason, and so on.
Wayward, good post, but you seem squeamish about power. That’s a bad thing. You need to embrace the violence. Violence is our natural condition and needed.
“Kill them all, the Lord will recognize his own”, Armand Amaury, the siege of Bezaire France1209, 7000 were killed.
Feser and Pillington are fine writers and I have enjoyed their articles. But when I began subscribing to PLO s few months ago I did so in the expectation that I would be reading regular postings by Deneen, Vermeule and Pecknold, the founders of the site. That has not happened. In fact, there has been one article, by Deneen, from the collective three in the past ninety days.
I understand that this is not some blog where new material is posted daily. But compared to any comparable site I can think of the content, especially from the main guys, seems to me exceedingly minimal and becoming more so all the time.
I loved this article. You commented on how the Crusade and the Dominicans helped to fight the Cathari, but can you say something about how the medieval inquisitors helped to completely kill it (at that time anyways)?
It is the “heresy of a thousand faces” with one diabolical face behind them all.
I really enjoyed that. It seems we are not that unique, and like previous generations we too are deluded into believing nonsense disguised as something new: a red herring.
I always learn some new stuff in every one of Ed’s pieces. I love how he digs way back in history and makes it relevant today. Ive been reading a bunch of Voegelin’s work and writing pieces on how it corresponds with our new form of gnosticism, but of course Ed puts it in concise terms here.
Excellent.
Disaffected and doubting liberal here. I'm a fan of Christopher Lasch. I'm sympathetic to postliberal critiques. I share Tom Holland's disposition toward Christianity. I was baptized Catholic as an infant but raised outside the church. I'm extremely worried by the revolutionary fervor of Progress that has taken hold in American institutions. I say all that to try to certify that I'm not some kind of left-wing troll... I hope what I write next does not come across that way.
The arguments of this piece are cogent. But I also worry that they sound a lot like a domestic policy version of the neoconservative argument for invading Iraq in 2003. They're a recipe for a massive campaign of state coercion, founded on completely optimistic assumptions, without serious attempt to consider the costs and unanticipated consequences.
The Trump campaign, along with its donors and allies, seem to be planning exactly the kind of state-sponsored crackdown against wokeness that Ed Feser advocates in this essay. I think such planning fails to grapple in any way with the costs of such a militant offensive, measured here and now, in American society as it currently exists, rather than with reference to medieval religious crusades in societies utterly unlike our own.
In the context of today's America, I also wonder how a campaign of federal coercion against human beings who disagree with the government, who will in many cases be family members and colleagues of postliberal conservatives, can possibly be consistent with the command to love our neighbors and our enemies.
I wonder how it can be consistent with moral virtue as the free choice of an individual. Once the military federal campaign against wokeness is won, by defunding institutions, by law enforcement surveillance and sanctions, by mass violence deployed against inevitable street protests, how will the new system of federally enforced moral virtue to uphold the natural social order be implemented? How will administrative lawmaking and coercive force be deployed in a way that treats human beings as children of God embodied with dignity and free will?
I would guess that Feser's reply would be something along the lines of: sometimes, in the broken world as it is, unpleasant and coercive means must be employed, to restore conditions of social harmony under which human beings can flourish, with less coercion or no coercion.
In that case, I still would ask for a careful consideration, prior to a federalized postliberal offensive against wokeism, of what the American future will look like after victory. How will taking away the livelihood of political enemies, throwing them in jail, and otherwise employing coercion on a massive scale result in a better situation than we have now?
I would advise you to read up on postliberal positions, as they answer basically all of your questions. The main point is that law is *always* coercive of action, and there is nothing unjust about this. Just as a parent can lovingly punish a child for disobeying, so can the state punish its citizens. This is in line with the moral command to love one's neighbors and enemies, and it would often be unloving to let them continue in their folly. This of course doesn't mean all vice can or should be punished by the state (see Aquinas for more on that).
You are right that careful consideration should be taken, and no solution that locks up half the country would be desirable. But mild coercive measures and punishment for those who inordinately perpetuate the problem is totally normal politics--it is how we deal with murder, assault, illicit drug use, sex-trafficking, treason, and so on.
Wayward, good post, but you seem squeamish about power. That’s a bad thing. You need to embrace the violence. Violence is our natural condition and needed.
“Kill them all, the Lord will recognize his own”, Armand Amaury, the siege of Bezaire France1209, 7000 were killed.
You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Feser and Pillington are fine writers and I have enjoyed their articles. But when I began subscribing to PLO s few months ago I did so in the expectation that I would be reading regular postings by Deneen, Vermeule and Pecknold, the founders of the site. That has not happened. In fact, there has been one article, by Deneen, from the collective three in the past ninety days.
I understand that this is not some blog where new material is posted daily. But compared to any comparable site I can think of the content, especially from the main guys, seems to me exceedingly minimal and becoming more so all the time.
True enough, but at least these intellectuals are getting out from their cloisters and making their knowledge comprehendible. I find that very useful
Dr. Feser,
I loved this article. You commented on how the Crusade and the Dominicans helped to fight the Cathari, but can you say something about how the medieval inquisitors helped to completely kill it (at that time anyways)?