Is reverence a conservative virtue?

[tbieter]

I mailed the following letter with enclosures to Professor Woodruff yesterday. Now I'm going to browse the text for evidence showing that (1) reverence is a conservative virtue, and that (2) Saul Alinsky (Obama and Hillary Clinton's political mentor) was a barbarian.

Your thoughts?

December 12, 2014

Paul B. Woodruff
Department of Classics and Philosophy
FAC 406
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712-1738

Dear Professor Woodruff:

Please pardon the intrusion, but I am writing to praise Reverence - Renewing a Forgotten Virtue. In 2006 I cited it in a letter to the editor criticizing a thoughtless editorial in my local newspaper.

I recently reread Reverence because of a shocking discovery, to wit, that the great Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, was a close friend of the radical political activist, Saul Alinsky. I learned of their relationship from a superficial and boring book, The Philosopher and the Provocateur, (Notre Dame, 1994). In the Bernard Doering’s introduction, he cites Alinsky’s choice of irreverence as a substantive democratic value.
Whereas Alinsky stated:

“I never treated anyone with reverence. And that goes for top business magnates and top figures in the church. Some people call my irreverence rudeness and they think it’s a deliberate technique. That isn’t so. I believe irreverence should be a part of the democratic faith because in a free society everyone should be questioning and challenging”,
in Reverence you wrote on p. 39:

“No one owns reverence. It is not cruel or repressive in itself. It does not put down mockery or protect pompous fools. And most important, it cherishes freedom of inquiry. Reverence sets a higher value on truth than on any human product that is supposed to have captured the truth.”

And, to `Is irreverence ever a virtue?’ you answered “No”. p.78

Second, I disagree with your “thesis that reverence cannot be a conservative virtue” p. 208 I think that you misunderstand the necessary dynamic role of change within intelligent conservatism. I submit that reverence is a conserving virtue relative to society.

I submit that reverence is implicit, substantive, and foundational in intelligent conservatism, especially in the conservative thought of Russell Kirk. In “Why I am a Conservative” in The Essential Russell Kirk (ISI Books, 2007), Kirk wrote:

“The other principal type of New England intellect is that which I call the mind of Hawthorne. It is suspicious of change, skeptical of Progress, convinced of the terrible power of sin, in favor of human nature (flawed though it is) in its present state rather than some radical revision of human character upon a Utopian design; it is reverent toward the past, mindful of the universe as a realm of mystery, and cognizant that proliferating variety is the mark of a healthful society, while uniformity is decadence.

From the beginning, I was in Hawthorne’s camp. The modern “liberal” world, as I have come to understand it, is making its way straight toward what C. S. Lewis calls “the abolition of man” --toward a society devoid of reverence, variety, and the higher imagination; toward a society in which “everybody belongs to everybody else,” in which there exists collectivism without community, equality without love.

The intelligent conservative does not set his face against reform. Prudent social change is the means for renewing society’s vitality, much as the human body is perpetually renewing itself, and yet retains its identity. Without judicious change, we perish.

But change itself cannot be the end of existence: without permanence, we perish. Burke’s standard of statesmanship was the union in one man of a disposition to preserve and an ability to reform. In some ages, the task of reformation looms gigantic; in other times, the task of conservation takes precedence.” pages 43-44

I hope that you will reconsider and modify your thesis.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Bieter
Enclosures

_________________
“Any healthy society requires an enduring contest between its permanence and its progression. We cannot live without continuity, and we cannot live without prudent change.”
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/bookman

http://www.amazon.com/Philosopher-Provo ... rovocateur Note my review of the book.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11334

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Russell ... ted+essays

[tbieter]

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... EwZTA4YjNi

[tbieter]

One of these days I'll write to the professor and advise that the correct concept is "reactionary" rather than "conservative."

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RzA ... 4Jl2Q/edit

[prof]

Hi,, Tom

You ask:

Re: Is reverence a conservative virtue?

How do you define "conservative"? What do you men when you use that word?

Are you able to adapt to the accelerating change we see today in the world or are you overwhelmed by it? Do you like a world full of sin - and sinners - the human conduct practiced widely today, for that is what Hawthorne and Kirk say they favor -'human nature as it is - or would you rather work for policies that would arrange it otherwise?

If someone, like me, is an advocate of the conservation of human and natural resources, would you call them "a conservative"?

Not only did Jacques Maritain admire Saul Alinsky but so did Dorothy Day. I met her and discussed things with her. It was a vivid experience encountering a commune full of people willing to accept voluntary poverty and the simple life.

Alinsky wanted Social Justice, wanted to organize people in their neighborhoods to work for it. The current Pope, I believe values social justice too.

Alinky's organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America. Conservative author William F. Buckley said he was "very close to being an organizational genius."

Are you willing to share your good fortune with those who need a hand? Do you want to see upward mobility? If so, you want progress. Conservatives, for the most part, have the attitudde: "Don't rock the boat while I'm comfortable!"

[tbieter]

Hi,, Tom
Hi prof,
I thought of you the other day. I was hoping that your silence on the forum was not due to ill health - a concern of old farts! Its great to hear from you.

You ask:

Re: Is reverence a conservative virtue?

How do you define "conservative"? What do you men when you use that word?
What I mean by the word "conservative" is thought reasonably related to Russell Kirk's " Ten Principles of Conservatism"
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/det ... rinciples/

Are you able to adapt to the accelerating change we see today in the world or are you overwhelmed by it? Yes, for example, I changed my mind from indifference to favoring same sex marriage after reading the book, "Darwinian Natural Right" and corresponding with the prof/author.
As I read the book, I began thinking about the issue. Upon completion, I wrote to the author inquiring if the evidence marshalled in his book favored and justified gay marriage. He responded that it did.
http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Natural ... ural+right prof, you would love the book because its about ethics.
Do you like a world full of sin - and sinners - the human conduct practiced widely today, for that is what Hawthorne and Kirk say they favor -'human nature as it is - or would you rather work for policies that would arrange it otherwise? Kirkian conservatives don't "like" sinful human nature, but accept it as reality. We oppose government "social engineering" policies; we favor individual liberty. See Kirk's sixth principle, the principle of imperfectibility http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/det ... rinciples/ An outstanding book on the subject, THE PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN by an outstanding philosopher is available to read for free here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/670

If someone, like me, is an advocate of the conservation of human and natural resources, would you call them "a conservative"? Yes, conservatism is about tendencies, not ideology.

Not only did Jacques Maritain admire Saul Alinsky but so did Dorothy Day. I met her and discussed things with her. It was a vivid experience encountering a commune full of people willing to accept voluntary poverty and the simple life.

Alinsky wanted Social Justice, wanted to organize people in their neighborhoods to work for it. The current Pope, I believe values social justice too. I suspect that Alinsky, a communist, saw Day, Buckley, and Maritaine, all religious people, as "useful idiots" who could be manipulated.

Alinky's organizing skills were focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America. Conservative author William F. Buckley said he was "very close to being an organizational genius."

Are you willing to share your good fortune with those who need a hand?yes Do you want to see upward mobility? yes If so, you want progress. Yes, prudent change. Conservatives, for the most part, have the attitudde: "Don't rock the boat while I'm comfortable!" Not Kirkian conservatives.

[prof]

Hi,, Tom
Hi prof,
I thought of you the other day. I was hoping that your silence on the forum was not due to ill health - a concern of old farts! Its great to hear from you.

You ask:

Re: Is reverence a conservative virtue?

How do you define "conservative"? What do you men when you use that word?
What I mean by the word "conservative" is thought reasonably related to Russell Kirk's " Ten Principles of Conservatism"

I'm brimming over with superb health. That is because I have a concern about getting and staying healthy; that has been the case since I was 18, when I became a vegetarian. Since you asked, I'll speak a bit about it. This is about the health effects of eating fresh, raw, in season, fruits and vegetables. I partake of a selection of whole fruits along with raw unsalted nuts for brunch, and a variety of vegetables in a salad along with a vegetable stew, and baked potatoes or baked squashes at night for supper. Same menu every day of the year, but no two meals ever the same. My meals are filled with a variety of colors and I eat with gusto! Also take lots of supplements, vitamins and enzymes. I get B12 that dissolves in the mouth. I prefer the stuff distributed by Life Extension. Now I'm 85 but don't fart much due to taking a probiotic. The color is coming back into my hair. I used to be an old fart but I grew out of it. I'm looking forward to another 28 years of glowing health. [ This is not about me, though, but about self-improvement, and about applying the Axiom of Ethics to the individual. As you recall, it says Make things better. We can apply it to ourselves.


IMHO, in my opinion ten principles employing vague words is not a suitable definition. To define a word is to limit the description of its meaning down to a concise concept: to give, so to speak, as they do in taxonomy, its species and its differentia but be brief about it. Sum it up in a formula or in a sentence or two. {{For example, "music" is the Intrinsic valuation of sound.}

[tbieter]

Hi,, Tom
Hi prof,
I thought of you the other day. I was hoping that your silence on the forum was not due to ill health - a concern of old farts! Its great to hear from you.

You ask:

Re: Is reverence a conservative virtue?

How do you define "conservative"? What do you men when you use that word?
What I mean by the word "conservative" is thought reasonably related to Russell Kirk's " Ten Principles of Conservatism"

I'm brimming over with superb health. That is because I have a concern about getting and staying healthy; that has been the case since I was 18, when I became a vegetarian. Since you asked, I'll speak a bit about it. This is about the health effects of eating fresh, raw, in season, fruits and vegetables. I partake of a selection of whole fruits along with raw unsalted nuts for brunch, and a variety of vegetables in a salad along with a vegetable stew, and baked potatoes or baked squashes at night for supper. Same menu every day of the year, but no two meals ever the same. My meals are filled with a variety of colors and I eat with gusto! Also take lots of supplements, vitamins and enzymes. I get B12 that dissolves in the mouth. I prefer the stuff distributed by Life Extension. Now I'm 85 but don't fart much due to taking a probiotic. The color is coming back into my hair. I used to be an old fart but I grew out of it. I'm looking forward to another 28 years of glowing health. [ This is not about me, though, but about self-improvement, and about applying the Axiom of Ethics to the individual. As you recall, it says Make things better. We can apply it to ourselves.


IMHO, in my opinion ten principles employing vague words is not a suitable definition. To define a word is to limit the description of its meaning down to a concise concept: to give, so to speak, as they do in taxonomy, its species and its differentia but be brief about it. Sum it up in a formula or in a sentence or two. {{For example, "music" is the Intrinsic valuation of sound.}

This will have to do: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative?s=t

[prof]

That's much better. Now I know where you stand.

A conservative is defined as follows:

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low.

So one who is a conservative, as perhaps you are, would like to hold back some of the rapid change that is now taking place in the world, such as climate changes - floods, droughts, cyclones, etc. - and the conservative is "slow" but purposefully so.


Everyone, even Progressives and Populists, are for prudent change. The difference is that they do not want to "preserve existing conditions" when those conditions are miserable: millions today in the United States live in poverty. Homeless people can be housed. Social security can easily be extended as solvent beyond the 17 years that it now is well-funded by merely raising the cap of those who pay into F.I.C.A. so that someone who earns over $300,000 a year would also contribute. It seems that the super-wealthy are greedy and do not want to part with even a bit of their money for the strengthening of the common good. They regard themselves as "Conservatives." ....Do you side with them??

They do not know their Ethics - which teaches that life is more about giving than getting. We are all better off, and happier, and healthier, when we give more than we receive.

[tbieter]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
Is a slavery institution, here a plantation, entitled to reverence?

[tbieter]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
Is a slavery institution, here a plantation, entitled to reverence?

I have sent an email to Professor Melton in which I advance two criticisms. Here is the second one:

"Second, in your article you imply a cause and effect relation between chattel slavery in the U. S. and some current conditions:

"It is always easier for a nation to recognize atrocities committed elsewhere than to claim its own, especially when its reverberations are are still being felt."

"Whitewashing our history of slavery is not only dishonest but also allows for a disconnect between the horrors of slavery and the current entrenchment of inequality."

In the philosophically useful Summary of Scholastic Principles 3, under "Cause in general" there is the following basic metaphysical principle:

46 Cause as causing and effect as originating or as depending are simultaneous in being.
VARIANT A cause must be (actual) when it is causing.

I contend that since chattel slavery, in law and in fact, no longer exists in the U.S., it obviously cannot contribute to any current societal effects that you mention."
Do you, forum people, agree or disagree with my argument?

[tbieter]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
Is a slavery institution, here a plantation, entitled to reverence?

I have sent an email to Professor Melton in which I advance two criticisms. Here is the second one:

"Second, in your article you imply a cause and effect relation between chattel slavery in the U. S. and some current conditions:

"It is always easier for a nation to recognize atrocities committed elsewhere than to claim its own, especially when its reverberations are are still being felt."

"Whitewashing our history of slavery is not only dishonest but also allows for a disconnect between the horrors of slavery and the current entrenchment of inequality."

In the philosophically useful Summary of Scholastic Principles 3, under "Cause in general" there is the following basic metaphysical principle:

46 Cause as causing and effect as originating or as depending are simultaneous in being.
VARIANT A cause must be (actual) when it is causing.

I contend that since chattel slavery, in law and in fact, no longer exists in the U.S., it obviously cannot contribute to any current societal effects that you mention."
Do you, forum people, agree or disagree with my argument?

I received this email today from Professor Woodruff. Note that he certainly does not agree with Professor Melton's reverence for slavery:

Woodruff, Paul B
To Thomas Bieter Today at 11:42 AM
Thanks so much for sending me this. Yes, I added three chapters to the 2d edition. I hope the book is helpful. I astonished that anyone would consider the trappings of slavery worthy of reverence. They represent wrongs for which we should grieve.

Paul

And I have just ordered the second edition of Reverence in the inexpensive kindle mode on Amazon. I suggest, dear reader, that you do likewise.

[tbieter]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
Is a slavery institution, here a plantation, entitled to reverence?

I have sent an email to Professor Melton in which I advance two criticisms. Here is the second one:

"Second, in your article you imply a cause and effect relation between chattel slavery in the U. S. and some current conditions:

"It is always easier for a nation to recognize atrocities committed elsewhere than to claim its own, especially when its reverberations are are still being felt."

"Whitewashing our history of slavery is not only dishonest but also allows for a disconnect between the horrors of slavery and the current entrenchment of inequality."

In the philosophically useful Summary of Scholastic Principles 3, under "Cause in general" there is the following basic metaphysical principle:

46 Cause as causing and effect as originating or as depending are simultaneous in being.
VARIANT A cause must be (actual) when it is causing.

I contend that since chattel slavery, in law and in fact, no longer exists in the U.S., it obviously cannot contribute to any current societal effects that you mention."
Do you, forum people, agree or disagree with my argument?

I received this email today from Professor Woodruff. Note that he certainly does not agree with Professor Melton's reverence for slavery:

Woodruff, Paul B
To Thomas Bieter Today at 11:42 AM
Thanks so much for sending me this. Yes, I added three chapters to the 2d edition. I hope the book is helpful. I astonished that anyone would consider the trappings of slavery worthy of reverence. They represent wrongs for which we should grieve.

Paul

And I have just ordered the second edition of Reverence in the inexpensive kindle mode on Amazon. I suggest, dear reader, that you do likewise.

This was the featured letter to the editor in my newspaper:

Pioneer Press
After reading the Monticello column Aug. 19 ("Monticello's whitewashed history"), I'm wondering why this was even printed. As noted Civil War historian and professor Gary Gallagher has said repeatedly, we cannot view past activities through contemporary eyes. Of course slavery is wrong! So wrong, in fact, that the United States led the world in ending slavery as an accepted practice with the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. It does nothing positive to degrade the founding fathers of the greatest nation ever created by man because of evolving contemporary views.
2015-8-25 11:01:00 P.M.
After investigating, I sent Professor Gallagher an email. I received his reply this morning:

Gary Gallagher
To Thomas Bieter Aug 27 at 10:00 PM
Dear Professor Bieter,

I thought Melton’s piece was distinctly unfair to Monticello and to the undeniable effort its staff makes to present slavery as an important element of Jefferson’s story. It seems to me that Melton arrived at Monticello with her preferred narrative already fleshed out.

Best regards,
GWG
Gary W. Gallagher
John L. Nau III Professor of History
Corcoran Department of History
PO Box 400180
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia 22904-4180
(434) 924-6908
gwg2n@virginia.edu
So, we now have a classics professor and a professor of history criticizing the article of a professor of philosophy.

Does anybody in this forum have an opinion on Professor Melton"s article?

[tbieter]

My project during the past few days:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19m- ... lBKl3U/pub

[tbieter]

When I was growing up, churches were sacred places. They were always open. We were encouraged to enter quietly and pray. Now, they are locked. And they are burglarized.
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_2875 ... ued-at-18k

[tbieter]

My project during the past few days:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19m- ... lBKl3U/pub

I recently discovered the following article by Professor Melton:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1 ... 3.11413669
A publicly announced bisexual, she is alienated from virtually all groups, especially white males, and is comfortable only with other black bisexuals. In view of the Catholic theological and philosophical ( from which she is alienated) traditions, and The Great Tradition, one wonders how she can teach at a Catholic university.