I just wanted to share this great book I've been reading. Scruton makes the case (quite convincingly imo) for the environmental crises of today being serious conservative issues, and for conservative solutions and approaches being the best solutions to these challenges.
As I've been reading it, I've been reminded of Laudato Si over and over again, and it seems to me that this book really helps to clarify the ideas found there, and show real ways forward which respect the principle of subsidiarity. In fact, I wonder if Scruton's book influenced the encyclical.
Near the start he talks about nature as a homeostatic (self maintaining) system, and how homeostatic systems are the centre of the conservative worldview (eg markets, families, communities, cultures, democracy, common law), being generally both the living reality to conserve, and the solution to restore systems to harmony. The issue comes when these systems aren't functioning properly and cannot maintain themselves, either due to issues within the system or due to outside forces. We have restore the homeostatic system which we and nature are part of. It's very close to Pope Francis's calls for an 'integral ecology'.
I can't go into it all, but again I really recommend it.
I came across the following quote in a review of Scruton's Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left:
> He gives praise, too. Sartre is described as a gifted writer. About Foucault, he says that the synthesizing poetry of his style rises above the murky sludge of left-wing writing like an eagle over mud-flats, which is itself a lively and imaginative comparison.
What do you think about that? I'm familiar with Foucault's ideas, but less so with how his writing style compares to that of others. Do any of you happen to disagree with Scruton's opinion on the issue?
123victoireerimita brought my attention to Roger Scruton's concerns about Girard's take on the sacred. They wrote:
>Roger Scruton critiqued Girard, saying that he was assuming what he set out to prove: "the sacred". He argued that ancient people would have had to have familiarity with "the sacred" in order to recognize it during the reconciliation period of the scapegoat/mimetic cycle. Do you think this critique has legs? If Scruton's mistaken, why so?
I think Scruton's driving worry, and I am sympathetic to the concern, is that the mimetic theory can appear reductive and overly naturalistic. In Scruton's writings, he has some more technical criticisms of Girard which I do not think are overly interesting (though if 123victoireerimita desire, I would happily engage). But what about this worry?
The sacred is generally considered to be that which is "set apart". It is contrasted with the profane. I would argue that each of us, most reliably in childhood, has direct access to a notion of the sacred. We sometimes find ourselves amazed at Being as such. How curious it is that anything should exist! This is a philosophical formulation, but it can be felt at mere humility and awe before nature. It is a direct experience of the sacred, I would suggest, because what one wonders about is no particular being, but Being itself.
In the modern world, mimetic rivalry is most likely expressed in psychopathology. Depression veils the enchantment of the world in favor of discoloration or condemnation, and anxiety replaces awe with terror. Both depression and anxiety are neurotic symptoms, ultimately grounded in rivalry. Depression occurs, in some instances at least, when we feel we do not live up to the values mediated to us. In anxiety, our mimetic model is perceived as an obstacle.
In either case, anxiety and depression result from an over fixation on a particular mimetic model. Rivalry is antithetical to the true sacred because it confused a particular being with Being itself. In contrast, the wonder at Being is mediated directly by God--as no particular being is the subject of our desire.
In the primitive scene, the peace following a successful act of scapegoating purges our mimetic fixations. In those moments of peace, we communally experience the sacred as the ideal of value/cure of communal violence (the divine aspect of the archaic sacred--akin to the judgmental mediator we experience in depressive psychopathology), and as the obstacle/instigator/disease.
... keep reading on reddit β‘https://youtu.be/qOdMBDOj4ec
This isnβt BAD bad philosophy, but goddamn imagine signing up for a conversation about culture and then spending it by talking about limp platitudes about tradition, declaring there are no possible alternatives, and then anytime when challenged make a cynical joke instead of actually engaging alternative ideas. This is something something state philosophy
Sir Roger has spoken about Zizek extensively (often critical) and even said Zizek's intellectual output is the product βof a seriously educated mind.β I couldn't find any instances where Zizek has spoken about him. What does Zizek think about Roger Scruton?
I'm reading through the Wikipedia article on D&G's What Is Philosophy?, and I came across the following:
> Conservative British philosopher Roger Scruton criticized What is Philosophy? in Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (2016), describing it as poorly written.
Have any of you read that book by Scruton? If so, how many pages/paragraphs did he dedicate to What Is Philosophy? (or D&G generally, if he went beyond just that one book)? What's your assessment of his criticism? Have any D&G experts challenged him?
While we're at it, has Scruton mentioned Deleuze and/or Guattari in other writings/speeches/interviews?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Philosophy%3F_(Deleuze_and_Guattari_book)#Criticism
Update: He doesn't mention Deleuze here, but this article seems very similar to an article I came across years ago, where he also referred to Foucault, Schiller, Lacan, Althusser and others. I believe it's the same article. The URL is slightly different now, but it's from the same magazine.
Hey Friends, I enjoyed watching Scrutonβs documentary from the BBC and wanted to read some of his work. I was wondering if anyone better acquainted could recommend a good book to start with for a broad overview of his thoughts.
Thank you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvbtKAYdcZY
Although I'm not a huge fan of Jordan Peterson, I find him interesting in this conversation where he and Roger Scruton touch on nihilism and post modernism, and their corrosive effects.
Any opinions on him?
