Monday, December 03, 2012
Evolutionary Conservatism
I approach philosophy and politics as
both evolutionary and religious, hoping that it can lead to the
recovery of both.
We require a proper balance between
order and evolution. If we are closed to evolution we can become
stagnant, if we are closed to order we can become chaotic. We need a
balance of order and evolution, and this is the basis for
evolutionary conservatism.
We can affirm the Enlightenment, unlike
old conservatism, as helping to balance the tension between evolution
and order, by making evolution more practical and order more
theoretical.
The destruction of reason and the
denial of objective standards of right and wrong by the moderns suggests
far more freedom than human nature and natural law allow. We cannot
legitimately be morally relative as long as we are alive. As long as
we are alive we are alive with a human nature that affirms natural
law derived from our bio-social human nature, and from nature itself.
I think the revival of human nature and
natural law by sociobiology is superior to the classical natural
rights promoted by Leo Strauss, and it supersedes or reforms Christian natural
law. In the theological materialism of the Theoevolutionary Church natural law includes our evolution to Godhood, so it can affirm
the rational science inherent in classical natural law as aiding in our evolution to Godhood. Natural law in evolutionary
conservatism brings a conservatism grounded in the transcendent order of
evolution to Godhood, which counters both the stagnation of
traditional conservatism and the nihilism of modern thinking.
Natural rights suggest that all men are
born with the desire to survive and reproduce successfully but
natural rights do not guarantee results, since evolution cannot
always guarantee results. This suggest that it is best, or most just, for us to
live in a variety of small states, or ethnostates, protected with a
light federalism, where we can evolve according to our own needs,
which are not identical. Ideally, light federalism can provide a
guarantee of cooperative competition. Imperialism, or one-race
supremacy, never lasts long and always breaks down into small states.
Small states and light federalism suggest the prudence and
moderation of conservatism.
Did Strauss have a bias against
traditional conservatism (Burke) because he feared the rise of a
future volkish German-type revolution and he therefore emphasized
natural rights over (volkish) conservatism? If he did have such a
bias it is a bias that a great philosopher should not have had, even
if we sympathize with him. It is a bias that probably led to the
marauding neoconservatives trampling over the traditions of other
nations.
The tension that Strauss and Eric Voegelin
worried about between the community and the philosopher, between the
divine and the city, happens more when the philosopher thinks he is
beyond the community or freer than he actually is. We can search for
truth as much as Socrates wanted us to, but we remain attached to
life, instincts, and human nature, and nature itself, and even great
philosophers should not overlook this natural foundation.
I agree with Voegelin that philosophers
and theologians engage in much the same enterprise, revelation is
not unlike hypothesis. Both Godhood and the Spirit-Will which
activates material life, before life is shaped by evolution, could be
seen as revelation-hypothesis, which science may one day affirm. I see life as a religious drama where
the goal is our evolution to Godhood, which involves human
consciousness in ways that effect philosophy and politics. The two
realms can be reconnected because politics does have an
eschatological dimension when we are evolving to Godhood. But this
does not lead to a utopian heaven on earth.
The need for order is based on the
needs of evolution, since we have a very long way to evolve. This
suggests evolution within the forces of conservatism. Anglo-American
conservatism had a balance between evolution and revolution perhaps
because it was developed mainly by classically educated men who knew old civilizations. Revolutionaries often deny the natural law
inherent in human nature and traditions.
We are “in-between” the beast and
Godhood so we cannot claim to be divine. This should give us a more humble
balance between moral certitude and moral uncertainty as we evolve.
This puts conservative limits on the divine path of evolutionary politics
and religion.
(A response to “Strauss,
Voegelin, and Burke: A Tale of Three Conservatives” by Robert
Kraynak in "Modern Age", Fall 2011)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment