RSS
Just a reminder to people leaving comments, I’m not the typical laissez faire moderator. Obviously you are immediately going to be banned if you go full-snark from the get-go (yes, some commenters are under the illusion that they are brilliant and wise, and unmoderated comment threads allow them to continue with that delusion indefinitely), but repeated stupidity also is going to result in abolition of commenting. Sure some commenters who I have banned are angry, but the reality is that you are probably less intelligent and informative than you’ve been led to think. Better you passively read than contribute to the discussion.
Second, I finished Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism, and have been thinking about why the book rubbed me the wrong way. One, the author often writes beautifully.. So whatever qualms I had with the thesis it wasn’t difficult to push myself to finish it. Second, he has a thorough mastery of the material. There was lots of data to extract and assimilate. And I don’t object to the thesis itself, so I’m skeptical. There are plenty of arguments which I don’t agree with beforehand, and which I remain skeptical of, but are worth engaging in.
But here’s a relatively random passage which illustrates my problem:
Why did Ockham insist, above all, on God’s freedom? The biblical argument that freedom reveals the way humans are made ‘in the image of God’ suggests one possible answer. The nominalists were reasserting the Jewish sources of Christian thought against Greek influences. But there is another possibility. The canonist conversion of natural law into a theory of natural rights, founded on the assumption of moral equality, was feeding back into the conception of divinity itself. Emphasizing the claims of the will in human agency led Ockham to emphasize the same trait in divine agency. Human freedom and God’s freedom were becoming mutually reinforcing characteristics. This is why contingency and choice, rather than eternal ideas and a priori knowledge, loomed so large in this thinking. Ockham denied that the kind of a prior knowledge of the universe required by the doctrine of eternal ideas or ‘essences’ is possible. Exaggerating the capabilities of human reason, it compromises God’s freedom and power, his ‘sovereignty’. [page 308, Inventing the Individual]
This section is part of a broader section which seems to suggest that the medieval nomimalism opened up the way for empiricism and liberalism. This is not an original thought. But, I find it ironic because the problem with much of Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism is that it plays out as a logical explication of its own thesis, rather than supporting it with empirical data. In other words, Inventing the Individual oftentimes reminds me of beautifully written scholasticism. Larry Siedentop, the author, believes in the power of ideas to change the human soul. His argument is not a particularly original one, suggesting that the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion which manifested in the form of St. Paul laid the seedbed for the core assumptions of liberal individualism, which came to maturity over a millennium later. But the argument is rather thin on empirical examples of how individuals themselves conceived of themselves as liberal individuals, rather focusing on the 50,000 foot view from the organic development of social institutions, or the abstruse details of canon law.
In Nature’s God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic Matthew Stewart makes a similar sort of argument, though the details obviously differ. Like Siedentop Stewart is a very good writer. His prose is not a drag to work through. Arguably he took a more novelistic tack, focusing more on personality and lives than Siedentop did (Stewart is focused I think on a more general audience). In addition, Stewart took a much softer touch in arguing for this thesis than Siedentop.* That probably is the key in being able to appreciate the work without being annoyed by the author’s agenda. Like Siedentop Stewart marshaled intellectual history to support his argument, but the explicit details of the argument served more of a coda, allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion. In contrast, in Inventing the Individual the author always talks about how the individual was invented! Yes, we get it. The individual was invented, rather than always being there.
Overall I can see why those who agree with the thesis proffered are enthusiastic about this book. It’s very well written, and it is dense with quite a bit of erudition. And, if you agree with the thesis, the relatively heavy-handed manner in which all roads lead to the invented individual won’t come off as so annoying. Rather, it’s probably just part of the backdrop which you barely notice. It’s rather different if you’re trying to convince someone, and you keep waving about the big hammer, threatening to nail the truth into their heads. For much of the text Siedentop almost takes for granted that the readers already accept the thesis, and enters into long sequences of propositions which beautifully outline how it all came to be, except for the fact that those who are unconvinced will object to every inference made in the sequence from beginning to end. It’s kind of like reading Alvin Plantiga.
* For what it’s worth I’m skeptical of Stewart’s thesis too. But it’s much more modest, and I think I can say with more assurance that there is something real there. Tracing intellectual pedigrees from the 17th century down to the 18th is a far easier haul than traversing the 1st to the 15th.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thank you for the review. As you can well imagine, that is a ringing endorsement for some of us with a very different philosophical bent.
Would you be able to provide some examples of possible empirical data that would be more convincing to you?
By the way, now I think that you would not like one of my earlier recommendations – Etienne Gilson’s “The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy” – either. But I still think you should give it a read, because it is an important and a highly influential book, especially since you wrote: “There are plenty of arguments which I don’t agree with beforehand, and which I remain skeptical of, but are worth engaging in.”
psychological studies in modern populations which show how liberalism differs between cultures.Replies: @Twinkie
By the way, now I think that you would not like one of my earlier recommendations - Etienne Gilson's "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy" - either. But I still think you should give it a read, because it is an important and a highly influential book, especially since you wrote: "There are plenty of arguments which I don’t agree with beforehand, and which I remain skeptical of, but are worth engaging in."Replies: @Razib Khan
Would you be able to provide some examples of possible empirical data that would be more convincing to you?
psychological studies in modern populations which show how liberalism differs between cultures.
On a more serious note, given the powerful Western (religious and philosophical) influence in modern populations all around the world, we'd have to find a group that is sufficiently isolated, no?
By the way, I found the following review, in conjunction with yours, very informative: http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/samuel-moyn-larry-siedentop-christianity-liberalism-historyReplies: @Razib Khan
I bought ($100!) and watched the Mayweather v. Pacquiao “Fight of the Century” on PPV. I was robbed! Twelve boring rounds of Mayweather either running from or hugging Pacquiao. All the analysts and experts praised Mayweather’s skills and his clear “victory”. Boring fight with no Ooo’s and Aaah’s. No fault of Pacquiao’s, the only exciting parts were the flourishes of Pacquiao’s combinations. Mayweather’s goal was simple to duck and run and win on points. If this is what pro boxing has become is has devolved into being no different from amateur boxing, which is based solely on points/touches. The sport of professional boxing officially died May 2, 2015.
psychological studies in modern populations which show how liberalism differs between cultures.Replies: @Twinkie
Sounds like excellent material for an enterprising researcher in the field. If for nothing else, it will be a line in the CV, eh?
On a more serious note, given the powerful Western (religious and philosophical) influence in modern populations all around the world, we’d have to find a group that is sufficiently isolated, no?
By the way, I found the following review, in conjunction with yours, very informative: http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/samuel-moyn-larry-siedentop-christianity-liberalism-history
just read atran's *in god's we trust* or slone's *theological incorrectness*
Saw “Ex Machina.” CGI was great but I was, overall, pretty disappointed with the plot. Also, the film felt “small” to me unlike “Interstellar.” Disney’s “Monkey Kingdom” with Tina Fey was pretty good if you have kids. They really pushed the struggle of the lower ranked monkeys to make a story but I’ll let it go.
Re-watched “Heat” on Blu Ray. Still great!
At the risk of provoking the wrath of Khan, is invoked culture the same as evoked culture?
Can anyone recommend any layman-oriented articles or reviews that discuss the ancestry / heritage of the “Cape Coloured” people of South Africa?
https://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-cape-coloureds-are-a-mix-of-everything/
On a more serious note, given the powerful Western (religious and philosophical) influence in modern populations all around the world, we'd have to find a group that is sufficiently isolated, no?
By the way, I found the following review, in conjunction with yours, very informative: http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/samuel-moyn-larry-siedentop-christianity-liberalism-historyReplies: @Razib Khan
Sounds like excellent material for an enterprising researcher in the field. If for nothing else, it will be a line in the CV, eh?
just read atran’s *in god’s we trust* or slone’s *theological incorrectness*
i’ve blogged on this many times
https://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-cape-coloureds-are-a-mix-of-everything/
what do you think about overpopulation in Africa?
i read this was going to happen ahead of time. all things have their season. boxing was a generation ago.
it’s bad. TFR is dropping, but inertia is a problem.
never heard of invoked culture.
Anybody know anything about Robert Spencer’s “Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins”? First heard of it through Nicholas Wade, so I assume it’s not totally loony. Worth pursuing?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
just go to patricia crone and the hagarist scholars. they might be minority position, but they’re credible, and crone has done good work in several areas.
This is completely tangential to your point, but it’s an open thread, so I think I can get away with it:
I just finished In the Shadow of the Temple, a book by Oskar Skarsaune on the Jewish roots of early Christianity. Very rich in textual and archaeological evidence. Half of every page is a reference-heavy footnote. And it’s completely convinced me that whatever Hellenistic/Hebrew synthesis occurred in the early decades of Christianity had already been occurring since before the Maccabean era. Part of Skarsaune’s thesis is that the centuries before Christ saw a lot of Jewish discussion on whether, how, and to what extent the Jews should proselytize and live among the Gentiles. (A lot of this discussion was obviously fueled by the growth of Diaspora Jews.) The Gentiles of the early church, Skarsaune argues, were mostly Gentile “God-fearers” who had already intellectually converted to Judaism but were wimping out on the circumcision.
Anyway, it’s an interesting read, and shows how the “meeting” of Jerusalem and Athens was a process that began long before Christ or St. Paul.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/358646.Rome_and_Jerusalem?from_search=true&search_version=service
I just finished In the Shadow of the Temple, a book by Oskar Skarsaune on the Jewish roots of early Christianity. Very rich in textual and archaeological evidence. Half of every page is a reference-heavy footnote. And it's completely convinced me that whatever Hellenistic/Hebrew synthesis occurred in the early decades of Christianity had already been occurring since before the Maccabean era. Part of Skarsaune's thesis is that the centuries before Christ saw a lot of Jewish discussion on whether, how, and to what extent the Jews should proselytize and live among the Gentiles. (A lot of this discussion was obviously fueled by the growth of Diaspora Jews.) The Gentiles of the early church, Skarsaune argues, were mostly Gentile "God-fearers" who had already intellectually converted to Judaism but were wimping out on the circumcision.
Anyway, it's an interesting read, and shows how the "meeting" of Jerusalem and Athens was a process that began long before Christ or St. Paul.Replies: @Razib Khan
i agree. here’s a book on the rupture
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/358646.Rome_and_Jerusalem?from_search=true&search_version=service
I’ve not read Spencer’s book, but what I’ve read of him he’s no doubt spinning research done by others. (Agree with Razib, see the Wikipedia entry on Hagarism, though I understand this skeptical view on the origins of Islam as an intellectual exercise in identifying what we would know iff we confined ourselves to non-Islamic and/or material sources.) See this article from Patricia Crone:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
I’m considering becoming a customer of 23andme but I’m hoping Razib, or someone else, can address a) the privacy concerns some people have raised, and/or b) what competitors offer.
Many thanks!
more seriously, the weak link is hospitals, not personal genomics firms. so it's probably a moot point whether you use 23andMe or another one of the services.
Many thanks!Replies: @Razib Khan
you have no genetic privacy, get over it 😉
more seriously, the weak link is hospitals, not personal genomics firms. so it’s probably a moot point whether you use 23andMe or another one of the services.
Any thoughts on this study, Razib?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150505-a-surprise-for-evolution-in-giant-tree-of-life/
Neil Godfrey of Vridar.org gave it a respectable review (http://vridar.org/2015/03/26/did-muhammad-exist-a-revisionist-look-at-islams-origins/). Godfrey certainly does not have a pro-Christian or anti-Palestinian bias … and, in fact, he says in so many words that he was initially sceptical of Spencer’s work due to these very concerns.