No philosopher worth his salt will be able to give you a proper answer to the question 'what is logic?' If he were to hazard a guess, he might say something along the lines of "a linear system of reasoning based on valid inference." A meta-logician will try to work out what sort of rules logic ought to have, what makes x 'valid' et cetera, but logic itself is a method by which we can deduce truths. All of us, not merely philosophers, will use logic a great deal to create premises, build arguments, and hopefully, prove our point. One popular variation upon this in the academic world is the "dialectical method," where an individual, or usually more than one, offers arguments from two or more different perspective, and by evaluating the value of both sides, comes to a reasoned judgement about what solution is preferable. Hegel famously employed the dialectic to a great extent, and broke with the prevailing method of his time in doing so - which was classical logic. Marx took this further, but now the world is faced with something quite petrifying: the rational choice between modern dialectical materialism, traditional dialectic, or classical logic. None of these alone are sufficient without the study of Divinity.
Jordan Peterson, as a self-described "classic British liberal", is naturally rather fond of his classical logic, and since he has been the subject of a great deal of fuss in recent weeks, he seems a good dialectical focus for this essay. The Marxist left, and by extension, the liberal left which has been influenced by Marxism in recent years, has always strongly favoured dialectic in the style of their own great intellectual giant, Karl Marx himself. As a recent article for Jacobin magazine was all too keen to point out:
“Any attempt to confront Peterson’s worldview must deploy the legacy of reason within Marxism’s own commitments to dialectical logic and human freedom.”
Indeed, the left believes that its own method of 'truth-finding' can trump the classical liberal mantra of 'freedom and reason', for precisely the reason that Marxism seeks the exact same. This, indeed, is the problem that classical liberalism, or right-libertarianism has found itself within in recent years. In the Thatcher/Reagan era, when Soviet communism was a very real threat, someone on the conservative right could legitimately say that they believed in "freedom", and not compromise on legitimately right-wing principles all that much. At the end of the day, if you opposed communism, it was pretty obvious that you supported people's right not to be enslaved by oppressive ideologues. Today, however, with the Soviet Union and its satellites having collapsed, it is hard to say "I believe in freedom for x" because the left, as the above article demonstrates, will merely state that they want the exact same thing.
Liberalism has sold itself to the Marxist dialectic, in fact it has sold itself down the road of false reason so far that it has no idea what reason is—which is precisely why it is often so easy to defeat the left on many issues it holds dear in reasonable debate. We have the liberal forces of Enlightenment to thank for the rejection of religious revelation, and indeed, it is precisely because of this that many texts which provided a firm moral method, such as the Bible, have been rejected by mainstream society. A right-thinking Christian, even when forced to subject the Bible to the harshest criteria of literary exegesis, should still come out of the experience realising just how inspired a piece of writing the Christian scriptures are. Indeed, there is a reason why many contemporary moralists refer to their treatises as "Methods" in a quasi-scientific way (cf. H. Sidgwick, Method of Ethics)—it is simply because moral systems contained in the Bible were indeed just that: systematic, precise, at least as far as their interpretations were concerned. Questioning the moral positions of the Church was for a long time an intellectual waste, since most of its positions were considered to be self-evident. Enlightenment thought denied us this strong civilisational framework.
Even if it is not expedient to outlaw questioning of scripture, it is certainly useful for traditionalists to uphold the authority of traditional scriptural interpretation above all else. If Marx's Capital is the Bible of the left, then the Bible is our Capital. A fundamentally human text, the Bible is not merely a catalogue of moral laws and their development (cf. Wellhausen's History of Israel) but also a touching story of how people interact with each other, both on an individual and epic, trans-national scale. The Pentateuch forms the national epos of the Hebrews, and the life of Jesus the necessary bookend to that epos, as well as the full explanation of the nature of the new order that he established. We have law and poem, art and authority, mixed into a single document. The Bible is a real treasure, and it is comforting to read it in this age of intellectual madness.
I doubt many of the fanboys of Jordan Peterson value the theological method. You might well hear many of them proclaiming that logic has the power to disprove the existence of God, or equating belief in God with belief in leftist utopia, or some such uninspired pseudo-scientific bawling. We must of course remember that classical logic does no such thing as 'disprove God'. Logic is a tool for building natural arguments, but it cannot do very much with arguments which arise from supernatural phenomena, such as the Divine. We might use logic to prove that something does not stand to reason linguistically or methodologically, but we cannot disprove a concept like God with it. Thus, we have a word of advise for those who follow the new darlings of the liberal right like Jordan Peterson: the left's intellectual methods are indeed crazy, but you would do well to think of what your ancestors used, those saints and theologians of past years, who combined so perfectly Divine authority with the tools of human reason gifted to Man from above.
Reject that authority, and you swiftly find yourself rejecting the foundations of civilisation, as the Marxists have done. This time our admonition is gentle: be careful what you wish for, because if Jordan Peterson and line upon line of classical liberal logicians are just looking to attack the Marxist left, then leave us all to live up the Enlightenment in perfect freedom, then we might all end up in the same state as we started in: dialectical dreams and electric memes. Not a strong throne and altar government with the salvation of all in mind.
Liberalism has sold itself to the Marxist dialectic, in fact it has sold itself down the road of false reason so far that it has no idea what reason is—which is precisely why it is often so easy to defeat the left on many issues it holds dear in reasonable debate. We have the liberal forces of Enlightenment to thank for the rejection of religious revelation, and indeed, it is precisely because of this that many texts which provided a firm moral method, such as the Bible, have been rejected by mainstream society. A right-thinking Christian, even when forced to subject the Bible to the harshest criteria of literary exegesis, should still come out of the experience realising just how inspired a piece of writing the Christian scriptures are. Indeed, there is a reason why many contemporary moralists refer to their treatises as "Methods" in a quasi-scientific way (cf. H. Sidgwick, Method of Ethics)—it is simply because moral systems contained in the Bible were indeed just that: systematic, precise, at least as far as their interpretations were concerned. Questioning the moral positions of the Church was for a long time an intellectual waste, since most of its positions were considered to be self-evident. Enlightenment thought denied us this strong civilisational framework.
Even if it is not expedient to outlaw questioning of scripture, it is certainly useful for traditionalists to uphold the authority of traditional scriptural interpretation above all else. If Marx's Capital is the Bible of the left, then the Bible is our Capital. A fundamentally human text, the Bible is not merely a catalogue of moral laws and their development (cf. Wellhausen's History of Israel) but also a touching story of how people interact with each other, both on an individual and epic, trans-national scale. The Pentateuch forms the national epos of the Hebrews, and the life of Jesus the necessary bookend to that epos, as well as the full explanation of the nature of the new order that he established. We have law and poem, art and authority, mixed into a single document. The Bible is a real treasure, and it is comforting to read it in this age of intellectual madness.
I doubt many of the fanboys of Jordan Peterson value the theological method. You might well hear many of them proclaiming that logic has the power to disprove the existence of God, or equating belief in God with belief in leftist utopia, or some such uninspired pseudo-scientific bawling. We must of course remember that classical logic does no such thing as 'disprove God'. Logic is a tool for building natural arguments, but it cannot do very much with arguments which arise from supernatural phenomena, such as the Divine. We might use logic to prove that something does not stand to reason linguistically or methodologically, but we cannot disprove a concept like God with it. Thus, we have a word of advise for those who follow the new darlings of the liberal right like Jordan Peterson: the left's intellectual methods are indeed crazy, but you would do well to think of what your ancestors used, those saints and theologians of past years, who combined so perfectly Divine authority with the tools of human reason gifted to Man from above.
Reject that authority, and you swiftly find yourself rejecting the foundations of civilisation, as the Marxists have done. This time our admonition is gentle: be careful what you wish for, because if Jordan Peterson and line upon line of classical liberal logicians are just looking to attack the Marxist left, then leave us all to live up the Enlightenment in perfect freedom, then we might all end up in the same state as we started in: dialectical dreams and electric memes. Not a strong throne and altar government with the salvation of all in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment