Two philosophical conundrums

Some excerpts as I get time to read it today:

“This is no ‘secularization’ of man’s having been created in God’s image,” Blumenberg declares of Johannes Kepler’s and Gottfried Leibnitz’s ideas of science.

“The idea of reason liberating itself from its medieval servitude,” he argues, obfuscates the huge influence the Middle Ages had on what became early modern ideas of progress and reason.

Scholastic thinking itself rested on forms of knowledge that the early modern period discarded as non-rigorous, derivative, and partial. The religious myth, the aphorism, and the anecdote are not opposed to rationality. Instead, they are some of the means by which abstract thought emerges from immediate experience. Indeed, these forms’ attachment to subjectivity can never be fully transcended.

Christian myths of eschatology and salvation supplied the framework within which the Enlightenment cult of reason justified itself.


Cuckservatives have no ground to stand on. If liberty, why should some people have property and others not have property, why should some people have authority and others not have authority, which is why Burke had to turn to throne and altar when viewing the catastrophic consequences of his own cuckservative doctrines. The Burke of liberty continually contradicts and subverts the Burke of authority.

But wholesale rejection of individualism is not an option, because then everything becomes a coordination problem, and coordination problems are at best difficult to solve, seldom have satisfactory solutions, and usually have only utterly disastrous solutions.

[H/T Chuckles]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.