A key source of misunderstanding in my much controverted Manifesto, I think, has to do with the very nature of my undertaking as respects theory and practice. Commenters who blame me for not providing a clear set of actionable principles are still working within a modern (post-Christian) assumption that a Theory of Practice is possible (cf. Rawls’ Theory of Justice). My effort is rather to provide a kind of cognitive therapy to the theoretically-practically ambitious, those who long to see their ratiocinations embodied in a political order (and who would almost never recognize themselves as such), those who crave public recognition for their philosophical prowess. Prior to the defects of particular modern doctrine is the defective, spiritually diseased passion to exalt oneself by stamping one’s ideas on human reality. This is an unself-knowing and thus extreme and virulent form of the natural human desire to rule, and a kind of perverse imitation of the Greco-Christian idea of a creation ex nihilo . The ancient therapy (so brilliantly decoded by Strauss) consisted in turning such ruling passion toward a superior, trans-social contemplative activity. This can no longer work, because it isn’t true. That is the postmodern situation of the conservative resistance to the finally nihilistic passions of blind modern reason. My aim is not to provide an alternative template to impose on political-moral-social reality, but to teach thinkers to appreciate the dependence of their own transcendence on the intimations available in ordinary, pre-philosophic life. But this does not relieve reason of ruling responsibility, as a Burkean conservatism might seem to suggest. [To be continued]
