[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn] A World Split Apart

I am asking if you think it is possible for a person who does agree with that premise to be persuasive to someone who does not? Is there, in some cases, an unbridgeable language gap?

Good question. That has a lot of side issues, and it's very complex, but the simplest and shortest answer would be - yes. I think that it would be close to impossible for a group of people who did not understand the reasoning of another group to persuade one another on an issue, expecially if it's an incredibly divisive one.

That's the simple take on it.

Taking one of the side issues then...

I think that it would be close to impossible for a group of people who did not understand the reasoning of another group

What if they did understand the reasoning of the target group?

Taking another side issue...

expecially if it's an incredibly divisive one.

Is it an incredibly divisive position, to believe that spirituality and morality are critical to the survival of a society?

And taking that side issue and opening up a few forks in the road....

If you do believe that is divisive, how did it get to be that way? It used to be commonly accepted, so how did it suddenly (or not so suddenly) become divisive?

What moved people away from it? What was the motive force acting on the psyche of 'the people'?

Can a countering force be found?

totalitarian democracy

What an apt phrase ! Yes, that's it exactly ! And those who have made man the measure of all worth, believe that whatever comes out of their own head has just as much cache as any other idle thought on the block.

We have entered new territory, not seen since the time of the Judges "when everyone did what was right in their own eyes."

What if they did understand the reasoning of the target group?

Then that's another step closer to the two of them being able to work together toward their common goal.

Is it an incredibly divisive position, to believe that spirituality and morality are critical to the survival of a society?

Absolutely. Think of all the moral relativists; all the atheists; all the humanists. On another note, think of all the different "types" of moralty and religion that exist in America today. Can you imagine trying to decide which one is right or relevant?

If you do believe that is divisive, how did it get to be that way? It used to be commonly accepted, so how did it suddenly (or not so suddenly) become divisive?

What moved people away from it? What was the motive force acting on the psyche of 'the people'?

Can a countering force be found?

As time went by and morality became less and less important and the pleasing of self became the god of America, it became divisive to discuss morality as being important to the mental stability and national stability of the nation.

As to how you can counter it - I don't know.

This is on very little sleep. I'll reply more in-depth to your next post.

What an apt phrase ! Yes, that's it exactly !

While I certainly can't claim credit for it, I have been one to use it (and its larger cousin Rationalistic Totalitarian Democracy) quite often on this forum. They have an interesting history.

First of all we have John Randolph of Roanoak, Calhoun and others early on in Congress shouting down "King Numbers" when majoritarian values become promoted as virtues. But the amplified version was a favorite of Hayek and was used in Chapter Four of The Constitution of Liberty but I have heard other origins.

Lately, reading a wonderful new book by Fareed Zakaria entitled The Future of Freedom, Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, I came across this:

Page 65
The social forces that sped the United Kingdom along were weak in France, which had a dependent aristocracy and merchant class. ...So post revolutionary France embraced democracy without a developed tradition of constitutional liberalism. Liberty was proclaimed in theory rather than being secured in practice (by a seperation of powers and by the strength of nonstate institutions such as private business, civil society and an independent church). The revolutionaries believed that Montesquieu was utterly misguided in asking for limited and divided government. Instead the absolute power of the King was transferred intact to the new National Assembly, which proceeded to arrest and murder thousands, confiscate their property, and punish them for their religious beliefs, all in the name of the people. Some scholars have aptly call the Jacobin regime "totalitarian democracy." It is the first example in history of modern illiberal democracy.

He goes on to foot note that quote to Jacob L Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy London: Seeker and Warburg, 1955.

Now as Hayek was writing in 1960 that major work of his, perhaps he had used the phrase elsewhere, earlier, I don't know.

But it is an important concept with a longer tradition of being realized than we might at first suspect.

Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

I wonder if this outcome is the necessary, logical outcome of our system of government, particularly the idea of a religiously indifferent government. It seems to me that nations with established churches (like England), but which tolerate other religions, are more intellectually coherent regimes.

I would dare say the American system has overextended itself in a reach for the abstraction that is pure civic secularism. But I think it was almost inevitable; many Americans inject a great deal of self-assertion into their religious views, creating an existential tension within the society that makes it **seem** like government has to leapfrog that tension by secularizing itself beyond the reach of the internecine religious differences, whereas I would say finding a solution begins by questioning the role of self-assertion in what should be a subordination of self so that truth can be more clearly discerned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.