One simply cannot put something as complexly different as the Chinese intellectual field onto either the American left–right axis or the West-European ideological taxonomy. Ultimately, the Chinese field is a different world, albeit one that bears affinities with, and shows much interest in, us Western conservatives.
Nanos gigantum humeris insidentes, or dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, is a phrase first used by the twelfth-century French philosopher Bernard de Chartres. It has been chosen as the motto of the Barna Horváth Hungary Law and Liberty Circle, calling for a balance between healthy ambition and intellectual humility and respect for previous generations.
While the supposed freedom of a materialistic culture will tend to undermine any sense of the sacred, we can be aware of the false idols and choose to tend to our souls. Scruton, indeed, left us a final work on this very topic.
The inherent dilemma regarding the rules of engagement in a just war is that they tend to become either vague or restrictive when military operations fail to achieve victory or a ceasefire leading to peace.
Political philosophy that is clearly separated from legal philosophy could not really take root in Hungary either in the Renaissance or in the 18th–19th centuries. Outstanding experiments such as certain writings of Count István Széchenyi or Aurél Dessewffy, the ‘Ruling ideas’ of Baron Eötvös or some excellent political essays by Zsigmond Kemény remained isolated experiments. Ottlik is one of the first Hungarian practitioners of political philosophical thought who can be integrated into the Western traditions of political thinking.
The most characteristic phenomenon of modern industrial capitalism in Chesterton’s assessment is the development and creation of the so-called ‘trusts,’ economic monopolies that deliberately strangle small businesses, while not infrequently operating as a criminal consortium, intertwined with political and state power.
‘The duality of God and man is the most fundamental reality of existence: a reality which can structure and constitute all relations of human beings. This principal duality is the source of everything: epistemology, ontology, moral philosophy, politics, and—of course, as Martin Buber said before—the “Ich und Du” relationship is the source of the true philosophy of religion and theology. This point of view is close to the most fundamental personalities of modern Catholic thought, and the philosophy of neo-Thomists such as Jaques Maritain and Étienne Gilson. According to Molnar, this “I and Thou” is the message which the true Christian philosopher has to protect against modernity’s aggressive immanentism, which could be materialist or spiritualist, too. The essence of this immanentism is the dissolution of transcendence into man’s imaginary “divinity”—to reach the deification of the world.’
‘What is less known is that Tsiolkovsky essentially wrote his groundbreaking contributions to rocket theory as supplementary notes to his philosophy of space exploration, which was the primary focus of his attention and consumed most of his efforts. What is even less acknowledged is that the philosophical foundations of his framework had an inalienable influence of Christianity that played an important role in shaping his perspective, a fact which Tsiolkovsky himself recognized.’
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is without a doubt one of the most prominent theologians of the 20th century, whose intellectual contributions to both science and religion gained recognition and respect from both the clergy and the scientific community. His oeuvre demonstrates that faith and scientific inquiry are in fact not at odds with each other.
One of the recurring topics of Agustine of Hippo’s City of God, a foundational work of Western philosophy, is his critique of Roman religion as having no moral teachings to offer.
‘When Marx explained the philosophical foundations of dialectical materialism, he first of all referred to the “development of the natural sciences”, just as the representatives of today’s New Atheist movements like to claim that “science has surpassed God” when explaining their theories.’
‘The term “liberal” was undoubtedly originally associated with the aristocratic spirit of freedom and generosity (in Latin: liberalitas), which, recognizing a natural hierarchy among individual beings, finds diversity welcome and does not desire to make things equal in all circumstances. Since many of the theoreticians of liberalism did not take this principle into account, it can be derived that most liberals strongly oppose the principle of authority.’
‘Transhumanism—at least in the form in which it is represented and explained by Harari—stands, above all, on the ground of anti-religion. The mechanical man, who becomes immortal, as the meaning and purpose of history, is above all the opposite of the eschatological perspectives of all religions.’
Hamvas’ focus on metaphysical questions in the field of philosophy did not simply stem from his belief in God or his religious predisposition, but rather from this critical attitude towards modern natural science, from a ‘scepticism against scepticism.’
It takes courage to see which situations and expectations the conservative should reject. And it takes courage to say ‘no’. The dilemma of when courage is appropriate and when moderation is needed is not logically insolvable. In the words of Winston Churchill: ‘It is better to be both right and consistent. But if you have to choose—you must choose to be right.’
Oakshott’s individualism differed from the individualism of liberalism, which rejects traditions. Oakeshott assumed that individuality can only be created in some context, and that freedom can only be enjoyed in order. It is not the acceptance of authority, but the absolutization of reason that destroys individuality, as he explained in his preface to Hobbes’s Leviathan.
‘If a society is exhausted in immanence, if people are not aware of the finitude of their own life, knowledge, and power, and if every goal of the person, the state, and politics is directed towards material interests, then the state will be exactly that Civitas Terrena, which is also Civitas Diaboli. Everything is justified by the stronger interest (Hobbes), pragmatism and secular science serve the immanent power goals of the great Leviathan, while real wisdom, taste, and arts, that make life pleasant (or just bearable) start to decline, wither, dissolve into a gigantically increased bureaucracy called the state.’
Hyper-democracy is already here, it will grow stronger, and we are only starting to understand its profound effects. Some of them will be detrimental, others will open up new opportunities. This might appear overwhelming and unprecedented to some, but in truth, that was the case with all great technological or political upheavals…
The lack of humility, modesty, the lack of deference to one’s superiors, the lack of discipline and respect are the main causes of most of the political and sociological problems of modernity. After all, according to the blind believers of progress, sailing never ends. However, according to conservatives, there is no such thing as an island of Utopia. Their problem in politics is not the search for an island that doesn’t exist, but: ‘[h]ow to get the disgruntled crew to help keep the ship of the state afloat, to keep it from capsizing and being shipwrecked?’
Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the work is that its author is brave enough to challenge completely the established thinking and vision that takes historical progress and the associated rise of liberalism for granted.
The first part of this article concerned itself with Burke’s general notions related to democracy. This part explores how he addressed the topic in his pamphlet on the French Revolution.
Edmund Burke is widely revered in conservative circles. However, due to the taboos of modern politics, his views on democracy are seldom debated.
‘With in vitro fertilisation, conception takes place outside the mother’s body, rendering the natural conjugal act between husband and wife in itself as alien to the institution of the family. Man and woman no longer come together as one, but are rather utilised in the creation of human embryos…This not only harms that unitive act of marriage between husband and wife, but it reduces the child to a mere group of cells.’
In contemporary Catholic social teaching, like Slachta’s reasoning, women are essentially other than men, and this otherness is articulated in the papal encyclicals in relation to women’s role in the family. In contrast, the Catholic nun’s view of the female otherness goes beyond this approach. Although she also emphasises the dignity of the female gender, for her, feminine otherness is the underlying motif of her thinking.
‘The disappearance of the aesthetical representation of power from politics parallels the egalitarian rhetoric of the rationalists. The representatives of power often emphasise today the ‘non-existence of differences’ with their own clothing and behaviour, although anyone who is not completely naïve knows in their heart—or at least from Aristotle—that the real differences can never be eradicated between the governor and the governed.’
Standing on the ground of inexorable social progress, Prohászka views social transformation positively, and even despite his harsh criticism of socialism, he acknowledges its necessity. After all, social democracy serves to achieve social progress that ‘excludes the phraseology of delusive emotions and disturbing social passions,’[vi] which is otherwise so problematic in revolutionary change.
As Kecskés frequently highlights, the source and the end for human beings is God. This is the basis on which every Christian social theory should rest.
According to the most fundamental concept of the Holy Crown doctrine, everyone who has political rights in the territory of the country is a member of the crown, a part of its ‘body’.
Given the resurgence of the concept of central planning, it is vital to recall that even 20th century scholars recognised the profound flaws inherent in such a techno-optimistic approach. One of the intellectuals opposing this mindset was Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian British polymath, whose ingenuity brought about important discoveries in physical chemistry, philosophy and economics.
Although we clearly cannot consider László Németh a conservative thinker in the ‘classical’ sense, we can still regard him as an interesting writer. He is worthy of our attention especially with regard to his critique of technocracy. In fact, he expressed valuable insights regarding the dominance of technical rationality, but also in many areas of culture, therefore his works can serve as valuable food for thought for conservatives who are willing to expand their horizons in new directions.