I recommend this recent title to those taken by Old Nick's devilish wiles. Machiavelli, Erasmus, and St. Thomas Moore exchange letters full of barbs and unaswered questions.

Best summary I read all day. I sent this to two people today and at least on of those emailed it again. Virtue is never a secondary concern, especially in this culture.

Before anyone starts serving greusome, well-deserved ends to DC residents, I'd like to make an exception for the Congressional staffers, among other groups. There are still plenty of young people out here who barely make enough to survive. If you're paying much less than $1,000 a month in rent, you're lucky.

Sounds like neo-(natal)-conservatism.

 +7

To be the President of America means to lead the whole world. Deciding to run for this position absolutely should not be decided by purely objective human reason. Even Aeneas, the man on a mission, listened intently to the advice of gods. If all the gods had been against him, would Aeneas have pressed on? This is a matter of such intense personal discernment (marriage, in the last analysis, is also such a matter) that it is simply out of place to consign moral blame. In Katievs' words, "they are addressed to the inner man." The inward call is more important than which candidate appears more the statesman. If a duty depends on knowledge that no one but the one called can possibly have then the duty is, for purposes of human observation, a subjective duty.

Haha, ya, heat of the moment. Thanks for the correction.

Was it honorable for Moses to take his son to sacrifice? Obedience to an illative sense does not refute the laws of ethics anymore than a miracle violates the laws of nature. To call censure on Paul Ryan for not doing more requires very intimate knowledge, not simply abract principles, nor even the most well-honed prudence. Suspicion of Paul Ryan's true motives is one thing, but we lack the ability to make a definitive judgment.

Come on, if deciding to totally devote yourself to your country for 4-8 years is not personal then I don't know what is. No doubt, loyalty to country boasts an incredible claim on each citizen. But that claim is subjectively limited. We may bear similarites to Athens and Rome, but we no longer believe in the gods of the city.

In other words, you cannot simply dismiss the illative sense on the basis of duty. You must first argue that the illative sense is not sensible or at least less sensible than Roman Stoicism. That is a major question.

If I may hazard one more comment, Kierkegaard writes about how men should wear their earthly roles as a "loose garment." A soldier's uniform, no. A nudist's pleasure, no. Just a loose garment.

Note: I have read all the comments on Dr. Rahe's post, but I originally posted this on Katievs member feed.
Hmm. Dr. Rahe began with the Aristotelian claim that the state precedes the family. This is the classical approach to politics. Modernity teaches that the state exists for the individual. The modern approach protects our freedoms but risks sacrificing patriotism and spiritedness. Katievs posits the illative sense as a kind of knowing that has real bearing on prudential judgment. This new consideration seems capable of splitting the difference between classical and modern politics.

The illative sense is really founded on the individual's personal relationship with the Almighty. The illative sense, the ancient Greeks never claimed to possess. If there is a higher, or at least occasionally more correct, form of knowing, then the objective claim of duty over the judgment of the individual (the subjective individual) is shattered as a rule. It is a guide to judgment, but it is no longer a rule.

Duty calls, but it does not always dictate. It seems that Christianity, by its subjective intimateness, threatens the classical idea, but it does not thereby embrace modern individualism, or for that matter, conservative tribalism.

Hmm. Dr. Rahe began with the Aristotelian claim that the state precedes the family. This is the classical approach to politics. Modernity teaches that the state exists for the individual. The modern approach protects our freedoms but risks sacrificing patriotism and spiritedness. Katievs posits the illative sense as a kind of knowing that has real bearing on prudential judgment. This new consideration seems capable of splitting the difference between classical and modern politics.

The illative sense is really founded on the individual's personal relationship with the Almighty. The illative sense, the ancient Greeks never claimed to possess. If there is a higher, or at least occasionally more correct, form of knowing, then the objective claim of duty over the judgment of the individual (the subjective individual) is shattered as a rule. It is a guide to judgment, but it is no longer a rule.

Duty calls, but it does not always dictate. It seems that Christianity, by its subjective intimateness, threatens the classical idea, but it does not thereby embrace modern individualism, or for that matter, conservative tribalism.

 The Chris Christie comment is gold!

My apology. Since Claire did not even take it that way, I'll shut up now. I've been reading about anti-semitism lately, and with the UN vote coming up and all, well, I guess I'm on the prowl! I promise to no longer censoriously attack the JIS designation:)

Claire made no attempt at intellectual self-adulation. In fact, she acknowledged the imperfection of markets, castigated herself and expressed thanks to Ricochet. "JIS" looks like a misdiagnosis at best.

 Glad to hear it!