thomas wrote
Quote:I know too little biographic information about David Hume to be certain. But judging by his work, I guess he would abhor organized politics. If forced at gunpoint to choose between the ACLU and the Religious Right, I'm sure he would rather join the ACLU. But his obvious preference of reasoning over bullying seems so intense to me that he wouldn't have joined either organization unless forced at gunpoint. I guess he'd rather have an Op-Ed column in the New York times. I can see him blog, too. I am fairly certain he would have preferred turning people around by persuading them rather than through political pressure.
I suspect these sentences are less an accurate description of Hume than of their author. Or perhaps you misunderstand the goals and operations of the ACLU. As a recent head of that organization put it, when criticized by a womens' group for some legal stand the ACLU was supporting, "Our constituency is not any group of people. It is a set of principles." Hume not only wrote many political essays, but applied for chairs at two universities. Add in the projects he undertook in philosophy and one would have some trouble arguing convincingly that Hume would need a shotgun to his head to involve himself in contemporary issues or contemporary groups, particularly regarding the issues of religious dogma gaining greater foothold in the community or in the machinations of rule.
Quote: In particular, I think the intensity of religious zeal in America probably is a direct consequence of the non-establishment clause, which American liberals defend and the Religious Right tries to erode.
I'm afraid I don't grant this idea much credence. American history is unique in certain aspects, and one particular such aspect is the evangelical mythologies which have informed American thought since the nation's inception. There is a species of 'zeal' long alive in America, whether in temporary ascention or descention, which seems clearly to derive from the conception that America was to be the fount of a reinvigorated (and intrinsically more 'accurate') version of christianity as well as of civic organization. The two are inextricably linked.
Quote:In my humble opinion, that's an interesting point which Hume made, and Smith bought, on theoretical grounds, and which I think the current reality in Europe and America supports. It is also a non-obvious point, judging by the fact that I was unable to communicate it to you on my first try.
Interesting, yes. But I don't think you have this right, as I said.
Quote:
I don't believe that Hume would align himself as you have suggested above. I believe he would align himself as I suggested above, for the reasons I have given. As to the functioning of the Religious Right, I think it intends to transform Europe in its image, but I don't think it's going to. For better or worse -- mostly for worse -- I expect the Religious Right's influence to prove similarly limited as the Anti-nuke-movement's influence on American defense politics during the Cold War, or disruptive campus politics by socialist Students in the sixties, or apocalyptic environmentalism in the seventies and eighties, and other comparable movements.
Not much I can do re the first and second sentences. I think you are dead wrong with Hume more than probably any other philosopher I can think of.
As to your expectation that the Religious Right will have no more influence than the anti-nuke movement, etc, it is exceedingly difficult to fathom how you might disregard the differences in your examples. How many anti-nuke individuals or environmentalists sought to gain power, though organization and activism, in thousands of school and hospital boards? How many sixties students attempted to insinuate themselves into positions of control within local riding organizations so as to gain leverage or outright control on nominations and party platform issues? How many environmentalists set out with ideological partners to establish, successfully, their own alternate media in the nation? How many womens' groups have their own weekly and daily tv shows with which to promote their ideas and agendas?
Earlier, either here or on some other thread, we talked about numbers and about verifiability in political theses. I appreciate your preferences here, but think them insufficient in themselves for such discussions. Who can tell us more that is 'true' about love, the bio-chemist or the poet? Who can better discern the 'truth' of political movements and consequences, Milton Friedman or George Orwell?
