Edmund Burke (1)Kirja-arvosteluja

British philosopher Edmund Burke’s critique of the French Revolution could be summed up with the adage “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” As events progressed, Burke could have followed this up with “See, I told you so!”½

A Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful by Edmund Burke
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DETAILS:
Available in Print: COPYRIGHT: (1757) Independently published (January 25, 2022); ISBN 979-8408120826; PAGES 143; Unabridged

Available in Digital: Yes

My version: *Audio: COPYRIGHT: 4/1/2020 ; ISBN: 9781781982709; PUBLISHER: Naxos AudioBooks; DURATION: 05:56:32; PARTS: 5; File Size: 169225 KB; Unabridged

SERIES: No

SUMMARY/ EVALUATION:
How I picked it: I’m afraid I don’t remember.
What’s it about? It’s an attempt at a logical, reasonable analyses of the perception of what is beautiful and what is sublime. Postulates that sublimity requires an element of fear—ocean storms; man-eating beasts and the like are sublime. Purports that beauty is not based on proportion alone and discusses other elements and the emotions aroused.
What did I think? One of those books I had to listen to a couple of times and struggled to keep my attention on it. Interesting and thought provoking, but I think it’s a little arrogant to intellectualize emotions and presume that one has grasped all that goes into a perception, or that one size fits all to any great extent.

AUTHOR:
Edmund Burke
From Wikipedia:
“12 January [NS] 1729[5] – 9 July 1797) was an Anglo-Irish statesman, economist, and philosopher. Born in Dublin, Burke served as a member of Parliament (MP) between 1766 and 1794 in the House of Commons of Great Britain with the Whig Party.

Burke was a proponent of underpinning virtues with manners in society and of the importance of religious institutions for the moral stability and good of the state.[6] These views were expressed in his A Vindication of Natural Society. He criticised the actions of the British government towards the American colonies, including its taxation policies. Burke also supported the rights of the colonists to resist metropolitan authority, although he opposed the attempt to achieve independence. He is remembered for his support for Catholic emancipation, the impeachment of Warren Hastings from the East India Company, and his staunch opposition to the French Revolution.”

NARRATOR:
Matt Addis
From IMDb: “Matt Addis is known for Hounded (2022), Doctor Who: The Eighth Doctor Adventures (2006) and The Devil's Hour (2022).”

GENRE:
Philosophy, non-fiction
SUBJECTS:
perceptions; beauty; sublime; fear

RATING:.
3

STARTED READING – FINISHED READING
09-27-2022 to 12-5-2022

I tried to read this; I wanted to like it. I even enjoyed the bit of wit I caught in the first chapter. However, the lawyer talk and politics were a bit much for me to handle at this time in my life. If this is your interest area, and you like source materials, give it a try. I decided to quit reading it because life is short.

1/28/23

O jovem Burke sabe que o que nos provoca as paixões são as ideias da mente, além das disposições corporais. Por isso, bem unidos que são, um relaxamento de um ocasiona o de outro, e a beleza provoca isso. Ela é uma paixão baseada no prazer que subtrai do amor a luxúria advinda do sexo, e se liga ao sentimento de sociedade que os sencientes tem entre si. Tem muito de suave e sensação de relaxamento, causando amor nos corpos, sem recair no desejo, e impulso de posse. E a doçura e amabilidade é a beleza do gosto.

De modo que as emoções não são diretamente relacionadas a crenças, situações verdadeiras, percepções empíricas não-mediadas e conceitos bem determinados. Mas sim, surgem do entreter de pensamentos, por meio da imaginação, ou em conformidade com essas crenças, situações e percepções.

O prazer da similitude é o que mais nos agrada a imaginação. Pela experiência e observação, desenvolvemos a partir de uma propensão universal, as diferenças no gosto, que são de refinamento do julgamento. Não sendo algo simples o gosto se forma a partir dos prazeres primários dos sentidos, dos prazeres secundários da imaginação e das conclusões da faculdade racional. E melhora por aumento de atenção, conhecimento e exercício frequente.

Burke trata do sublime, a mais potente paixão de auto-conservação, fundada na dor e perigo, mas sem efetivação do malefício, por distância e posição de segurança. Um horror agradável, tranquilidade colorida de terror, o sublime é um deleite, ou seja, uma emoção positiva não fundada no prazer. Surge também de ideias terríveis e fantásticas; estas quando determinadas e detalhadas demais, por exemplo, por pintores, ganham um tom ridículo, grotesco, incapaz de uma paixão séria. Já na poesia o efeito é conseguido, pois mantém-se a indeterminação e o obscuro que obtém o efeito do magnífico. No muito grande e muito pequeno, há tal ocupação da alma, quando da perplexidade-assombro, que a mente é preenchida e isso com algum terror. Esse é o grau mais alto do sublime, a antecipar nossa razão que não acha mais a unidade. Os outros níveis sendo a admiração, a reverência e o respeito.

Ademais: os críticos procuraram as regras da arte e nelas as regras para certas paixões.
"But art can never give the rules that make an art. This is, I believe, the reason why artists in general, and poests principally, have been confined in so narrow a circle; they have been rather imitators of one another than of nature; and this with so faithful an uniformity, and to so remote an antiquity, that it is hard to say who gave the first model." (p. 91)

O problema dessa longa preleção, feita no calor do recebimento da notícia da revolução, apenas alguns meses após a mesma, é a sensação de petição de princípio, de que se trata apenas da afirmação de que as coisas não eram ou estão tão ruins sob as monarquias religiosas, e que há relações delicadas que se confundem com o status quo, e que a liberdade se equilibra "por natureza" com outras coisas não tão nobres, que seria melhor ir melhorando aos poucos, com parcimônia, afinal... (não estamos tão mal, e devemos amar os preconceitos, pelo seu poder unificador; e defender os capitalistas, porque se apropriar do trabalhos dos outros é da ordem natural do trabalho, por exemplo). De modo que muito do que é dito é para aqueles que já com ele concordam. Mas talvez aqui eu esteja sendo injusto. O livro foi escrito para dissuadir os ingleses de entrarem na onda revolucionária e dos ideais democráticos. Então, provavelmente, havia muitos indecisos ou irrefletidos como público alvo.

"...the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever."

The seminal text of contemporary Anglo-American conservatism and a continuing inspiration to classical liberals everywhere. Burke channeled his outrage over the French Revolution into a broadside against the horrors of the barbarous and destructive revolutionaries and the tyranny of their democratic majorities. He instead revered the 1689 Bill of Rights and the tradition of English constitutionalism embodied by the Magna Carta, Coke and Blackstone as "the fixed form of a constitution whose merits are confirmed by the solid test of long experience and an increasing public strength and national prosperity." Essential to any reading of the Western tradition.

He set himself a difficult goal, to discuss the Sublime and Beautiful. He makes minor observations but nothing substantial towards defining Sublime and Beautiful.

A difficult read. I agree with some of it, many of his thoughts are unique to his mind.

This book offers lessons for today.
Politics is a dirty business and democracy sometimes requires too many compromises. Change is slow, we can all see that injustice and inequality prevails, and politicians seem unable to solve our problems. Besides, we all know that your neighbor next door is an idiot, and he still gets one vote... just like you.
Wouldn't it be great if we could use a big hammer, break everything apart and start all over again? Someone surely has a solution to our problems.
Burke lived during the French Revolution and he saw, and he reflected, what happens when someone tears down the ruling institutions and starts again, with no constraints from the past, no thought of the future and no opposition. The result is tyranny. And the French got just that.
Burke uses the French revolutionary government as an example of what a society should not do in order to solve its problems.
For Burke a good and just government is the work of ages and requires the input of many generations. Rulers must convince both the people and the opposition about the advantage of their policies or principles. Even within the ruling body there is dissent and every argument and proposal has to be sharpened by the wit of many. No proposal or principle survives unscathed by this resistance. But with debate, with struggle and with compromise you get a better proposal, a better ruling principle. Then, and only then, it is ready to replace and old principle or and old policy.
The lessons this book imparts are as relevant today as they were more than 200 years ago.

Edmund Burke's "Vindication..." was very controversial when it was first published in 1756, revised 1757. Whether this was intended to be taken seriously or merely satirical remains unanswered. There is certainly some liberties taken with historical figures & numbers exaggerated. Yet there are very interesting points suggesting that philosophical idealism is no different from religious fanaticism. The writer makes very pointed explanations that the current (in his day) situation continues the same abuse of others hiding behind societal justifications for mistreatment so as to live above everyone else. It was such as these accusations that made this book very controversial for that day, saying the current rulers were no different than the tyrants & oppressors of ancient times. Was this really meant to be pointing toward the truth hiding behind satire or something else entirely?

NA

I did not read Burke's words- I only read the introduction by JGA Pocock. This intro provides a thorough background to Burke's works and beliefs, as well as a general overview of the politics of that time period in England.

12 v.

Sigo llenando claros en los clásicos

Edmund Burke, MP was not in favour of popular enthusiasms, and when they rise to actual violence, well that is beyond the pale. Even though there may well have been reasons for the uprising, there should not have been this unseemly tumult. When oppressed, the populace should be able to find some non-violent way of changing their condition. After all the English have managed to avoid all this fuss....Well, haven't we? Burke was a prescient Conservative, and saw that the /French were embarked on a road that would lead to violence, to finally dictatorship, and perhaps a deeper tyranny than before. Gradual improvement on an evolutionary course would serve the french better, but they are only Latins, and therefore, the worst can be expected.

I try to scrape all unfavorable reviews down to an absolute minimum of length, so here goes:

Burke thinks that the answer to everything is common sense, although his term for “common sense” was “prejudice”, something that undoubtedly did not get the approval of the PR department or indeed any sort of non-Protestant living in Britain at the time. But it seems to me like Burke relished a fight, so that was probably part of the appeal of calling common sense “prejudice”.

The trouble is real however, in that, as Plato and the philosophers point out, common sense, or simply what you assume, is often simply wrong. Burke I don’t think could overcome his contempt for philosophy long enough to form a coherent reply, so instead he just rambled on about how wrong they all always are. So it remains that common sense is not always helpful and that this is detrimental to Burke. “Blessed are you when you are persecuted” is not common sense, but old Edmund Burke seems to me to think that as long as he could muster up sufficient prejudice/common sense for those pesky non-Protestants then he would be in the clear.

That’s as directed and calm as I could get it.

.........................

It’s true that sometimes pre-Victorians are not negated by the nineteenth century—“the cause of progress in the Victorian Age”, I called it, “Catholic emancipation, popular monarchy”, etc.—I just don’t know exactly how relevant that is to Burke. He seemed to really come down on the side of authority—you can’t just “cashier” the government!—but sometimes today we seem to think that if we just cobble together a little mob we can change the law.

I add this out of some doubt of what I thought before, but I can only imagine if it makes the burden greater or less.

This book by Burke made me to think more about Aesthetics, such a great introduction to the Philosophy of Aesthetics. Burke wants to enquire if he can categorize aesthetics rationally and tries to explore thoroughly.
I loved his writing on Fear, Fear robs us from everything, our rationally is suspended. It might be the object of our attention, nothing else will be on our mind. I would recommend this to someone who wants to take time to think about aesthetics, emotions.

This book by Burke made me to think more about Aesthetics, such a great introduction to the Philosophy of Aesthetics. Burke wants to enquire if he can categorize aesthetics rationally and tries to explore thoroughly.
I loved his writing on Fear, Fear robs us from everything, our rationally is suspended. It might be the object of our attention, nothing else will be on our mind. I would recommend this to someone who wants to take time to think about aesthetics, emotions.

Edmund Burke is often cited as the father of conservatism and is often quoted by modern conservatives. Since I had never read anything by Burke, I decided to start with his Reflections on the French Revolution in hopes of better understanding conservative thinking.

The first half of the book was very disappointing as Burke complains about the Revolution "dethroning" the French nobility and expropriating church properties. He seemed mostly upset by having this disaster occur to people like him. In fact, his defense of the nobility's abuses of people seems to see that they could not be bad since he had met these people and had even had dinner with them.

The second half of the book is much better as Burke dives into the new Constitution proposed by the National Assembly. He takes their work seriously and picks apart the flaws in the government structure that they have created. The second half of the book became even more entertaining when I imagined Burke using the same arguments against today's Trump Administration and the Republican Congress.

Today's conservatives should apply some of his quotes when discussing today's politics. A few favorites:

"The same lazy but restless disposition ... directs the politicians, when they come to work for supplying the place of what they have destroyed. To make everything the reverse of what they have seen is quite as easy as to destroy. No difficulties occur in what has never been tried...At once to preserve and reform is quite another thing. " A quote that could apply to Republican's fight against Obamacare.

"But it seems as if it were the prevailing opinion in Paris, that an unfeeling heart and an undoubting confidence, are the sole qualifications for a perfect legislator. Far different are my ideas of that high office. The true lawgiver ought to have a heart full of sensibility." This quote fits to contemporary Washington as well as to ancient Paris.

"What your politicians that the marks of a bold hardy genius, are only proofs of a deplorable want of ability." By their violent haste and their defiance of the process of nature, they are delivered over blindly to every projector and adventurer, to every alchymist and empric." Although the reference to alchemists is a bit dated, the quote could be easily updated by substituting supply-sider.

"Your legislators seem to have taken their opinions of all professions, ranks and offices, from the declamations and buffooneries of satirists; who would themselves be astonished if they were held to the letter of their own description. By listening only to these, your leaders regard all things only on the side of their vices and faults, and view those vices and faults under every colour of exaggeration." This certainly fits the influence of Alex Jones and others like him.

"In general, those who are habitually employed in finding and displaying faults, are unqualified for the work of reformation: because their minds are not only unfurnished with patterns of the fair and good, but by habit they come to take no delight in the contemplation
those things." This has become one of my favorite Burke quotes.

There are many more quotes that fit our current political environment that make this book worth reading today.

A useful juxtaposition of two essential works on revolutionary history.

How decayed is contemporary political discourse? So decayed that libertarians and small market conservatives consider Burke to be their forebear, and Marx to be the forebear of Democrats. I imagine that Marx and Burke would much rather have a beer with each other than with any of their lilliputian, soi-disant followers.

So, just to be clear. Burke claims that a society functions best when it has a completely stable set of institutions as its base: civil society, landed property, and a state/church marriage. Only if these persist will liberty give us worthwhile projects, rather than muck; only if they persist is capitalism and financial speculation anything other than a casino in which the rich get richer and the poor get shafted.

These institutions necessarily require what today we think of as 'government intervention.' The poor should be cared for; the benefits of social life should accrue to all, and not just the rich; the profits of the wealthy should be re-invested in productive enterprise and not frittered away on luxury or the aforementioned casino.

Burke is no more compatible with contemporary, so-called 'conservatism' than Marx is. They both saw the dangers of unrestrained capitalism. They both saw the dangers of 'utopian' revolutionary planning (although neither conservatives nor Marxist read those bits of Marx, for obvious reasons). Admittedly, Burke was a sycophantic, power-hungry hack; and Marx went from being a lunatic pamphleteer to an impressive but ineffectual research academic. Neither of them are role-models. But at least they were willing and able to think - actually *think* - about politics, rather than just spouting party line drivel.

All that aside, Burke's analysis of the French Revolution's violence is tendentious, sometimes slipping over into yellow journalism rather than convincing critique. He's not always wrong, but he is always hyper-polemical, and that's never very constructive. His praise of English political institutions is far more interesting, as is his defense of landed property, although it's hard to distinguish the philosophical claims (need for stability in society) from the class-based ideology (stability is produced by Whig aristocrats). And his rhetoric with regard to the dangers of democracy (and, therefore, the libertarianism of the contemporary right) needs to be taken on board by anyone who cares that we're about to destroy our economic, social and environmental heritage: "The will of the many and their interest must very often differ, and great will be the difference when they make an evil choice… government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions." "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints… liberty, when men act in bodies, is power."

The solution for the problems of democracy is not, alas, more democracy, as nice as it would be to think so.

Also, the introduction to this Hackett edition is great, although Pocock doesn't really *show* that Burke wasn't in a rage against a proto-bourgeoisie. He does state it over and over again, but it doesn't seem important enough a point to make, considering that Burke most certainly was in a rage against some people an awful lot like the bourgeoisie of the later nineteenth century.

Burke's comments on the contemporary French Revolution were important, however, they were confusing and mixed up with his fairly novel (at the time) concept of the importance of "property rights" to liberty. While brilliant, it is nonsense.

So is his defense of the English colonials in America based on their "antient" [his repeated word, which I think he made up?] rights as Englishmen. Just nonsense, but he just could never get himself to recognize that all people -- not just those of "the nobility"--are not only entitled to liberty but are collectively the source of all authority.

Wikipedia has done a great bio of him, and now I realize that "conservatives" have misled us in appropriating him as one of theirs. He is not. Not only did he almost get hung for his support of the American Revolution, but he also savaged the British East India Company and its "CEO". His peers thought him a "liberal". Lord Acton named him as one of the three great liberals -- see also Gladstone, Thos B Macaulay.

The Wiki article has quoted from his other work and in those he is genuinely eloquent. In addition, although it appears he began as a paid pigeon, he matured into an independent voice of genuine principle, with unequaled eloquence.

Of course, the effect of Burke's remonstrations against the most extreme forms of "Leftist" expressions was to embolden the Right. In effect, the British joined with the entire ancien regime in attacking the upstarts in France and went to a war. The war only forced the French people to defend themselves, which they did with unity and zeal they would not otherwise have exerted. The French managed to win the war in their "people's defense" against the entire "nobility" of Europe. But this of course, pushed them into the nasty little embrace of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Burke could not seem to focus on what the constitutes a "danger" to Liberty.

Edmund Burke does NOT like what he sees in Paris-be warned there are graphic descriptions of horrific atrocities being meted out on the Citizens; the phrase 'reign of terror' is a apt description'. He hits out at the political instruments of the Jacobins in the most searing of ways. One to read alongside others happening at that time like Mary Wollestonecraft, Thomas Paine Rights of Man (both need to be read by me)

Ur-text of modern conservatism. Well, he has a good writing style. I'll give him that.

For all of his self-righteous condemnations, which are so often repeated by conservatives and reactionaries today, I note how so very few of them tend to notice his conspiratorial wailing about international finance and the Jews.

I cannot wait till I have finished this book: Burke's style is horrible, and his reflections are boring. Cannot say more.