Replies

I'll want to get back to this this weekend when I have more time, but Peikoff seems to be saying the exact opposite of what I have read to have been the case in the German social setting as Naziism rose to power. Even Hayek, in the Road to Serfdom makes some points, as I recall, about the German over dependence on rationalism and the idea that reason could plan all solutions.

Likewise, as Forrest McDonald makes clear in his various analysis of the Constitution, while the members of the convention may have cited Philosphy and metaphysical reason in their various defenses of the document, they actually crafted it based upon the lessons of experience (conservatism) and the radicalism of the Revolution with a constant reliance on real-time political compromise between the various interests.

I am mindful of Novak's On Two Wings, Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding and his definition of Common Sense being made up of much more than pure reason.

The road to decadence does lay immediately ahead, and our political and social institutions are as much as driving us there, rather than steering us clear. On that we are in agreement. But I find your analysis, much more sensible than Peikoff's.

I will read, and I will ponder. I just haven't yet. I do want to reply to one thing you just said, though.

I am mindful of Novak's On Two Wings, Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding and his definition of Common Sense being made up of much more than pure reason.

Of course it is made up of much more; were it not, it would be called Common Reason. Sense is reason melded with experience.

I'll want to get back to this this weekend when I have more time, but Peikoff seems to be saying the exact opposite of what I have read to have been the case in the German social setting as Naziism rose to power. Even Hayek, in the Road to Serfdom makes some points, as I recall, about the German over dependence on rationalism and the idea that reason could plan all solutions.

What I have read supports the latter as well.

Thanks KC for flagging this from Noumenon. This is the first statement that caught my attention. The Americans are disgusted with unreason and statism. My comment may be less important than what the article argues in general, but I would revise P.'s statement in this way: Americans are in love with pragmatism. And some of that love includes a love for unreason.

In a recent post I quoted Allan Bloom from The Closing of the American Mind His comment was about democracy's particular weakness. It's weakness is disgust for the theoretical life. It's true. Americans are very allergic to examining their motivations. They "reason" like this: if it works, go for it. They are pragmatists, through and through. And that is why "statism" is in the way. But, you know, statism works for them too, when the going is good. But we should recognize that whatever P. wants to say about our disgust, the reason of unreason has a special place in the pragmatist's heart.