Joseph de Maistre

My mind is on fire.

Ever since I watched Jonathan Miller's interviews with some atheist philosophers, I've been reading philosophy. The reason I read, whether fiction or non-fiction, is to try as best I can to get inside the great minds. I'm not really up to it, of course, but I see no reason to settle for less.

I've recently been reading "The Crooked Timber of Humanity," by Sir Isaiah Berlin. There, I happened across a very important essay for me, because it sheds light on questions that have been perplexing me for a long time. The essay is called "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism."

If you have read any of my previous diaries, you know that certain things about the Right drive me crazy. For instance, why do so many people believe things that have no factual basis, and dismiss things that have been demonstrated to be true? And why, when the evidence shows that there is no factual basis for a certain belief, will the believer invent false evidence instead of changing his belief? The career of Joseph de Maistre strikes me as a window into the conservative mind.

Maistre was a leading reactionary voice in the face of the Protestant Reformation and the eighteenth century Enlightenment. He believed that the idea that people could govern themselves was false and dangerous. In his view, humans were driven by mysterious, dark impulses that were God-given, and that, in order for society to function, people must be ruled by God's representatives on earth: The Pope above all, and the kings whom God had also selected. Democracy would necessarily end in anarchy.

The aspect of Maistre's beliefs that struck me the most is that empirical science was evil because it caused people to question the supremacy of popes and kings. Even if the discoveries of science could be demonstrated to be true, science should not be pursued or taught. In Maistre's view, scientific facts were unimportant surface details in the big picture. The important things were God's mysteries, which science could never unravel.

Reading Berlin's essay caused me to reflect that, to many people, even today, empirical knowledge is a small thing that should not be allowed to get in the way of belief in God. There still exist many, many people for whom belief in an ultimate authority (however imaginary) is more important than things that can be demonstrated to be true.

My timing in reading Berlin's essays was just about perfect, in the sense that it coincided with the Glenn Beck rally in Washington, DC. Beck and his allies are very afraid of living in a country where (the Christian) God is not the source of governmental power. Instead of the democracy built in this country on 18th century Enlightenment principles, Beck and his compatriots want, whether they know it or not, a less democratic government, under God instead of under the rule of law.