Course on Russell Kirk: week 9

Welcome to week 9 of the course on Russell Kirk. Links to previous posts can be found on our Russell Kirk page here.

This week, we shall be covering two of Kirk's principles. Today I shall look at principle 9:

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

(I shall address the eighth principle (on voluntary associations) in a further post this week on Friday 30 September.)

I have already drawn attention to the importance of virtuous restraint in Kirk's understanding of politics. This has two aspects: social restraints (such as law and social condemnation by others) and self-restraint by way of virtuous and rational restraint upon the passions. I want to emphasise in particular today Kirk's indebtedness to Stoicism and especially to the Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius.

From 'Ten exemplary conservatives' (from The Essential Russell Kirk, pp.34-5):

It was the heroic endeavour of Marcus Aurelius to conserve Rominitas, that grand system of law and order and culture. If he failed -even with his wife, even with his son- still he left an example of integrity that has endured, like his equestrian status on the Capitoline, down to our time. In [Albert Jay] Nock's words, 'The cancer of organized mendicancy, subvention, bureaucracy and centralization had so far weakened its host that at the death of Marcus Aurelius there was simply not enough producing power to pay the bills.' Eighty years of able Antonine rule 'could not prevent the Roman populace from degenerating into the very scum of the earth, worhless, vicious, contemptible, sheer human sculch.' We may make comparisons and draw analogies, near the end of the twentieth century...

The lesson I learnt from Marcus Aurelius is the performance of duty. Take this passage from the Meditations -the Emperor being on a hard Danubian campaign when he set down these lines: 'In the morning, when thou risests sore against thy will, summon up this thought: "I am rising to do the work of a man. Why then this peevishness, if the way lies open to perform the tasks which I exist to perform, and for whose sake I was brought into the world? Or am I to say I was created for the purpose of lying in blankets and keeping myself warm?" With that admonition I steel myself on January mornings at my ancestral village.

Detailed reading:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 'Marcus Aurelius' here

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 'Neo-Stoicism' here

Critical discussion:

Kirk lived with the Meditations at his side for much of his life. In being influenced by Stoicism, he was following a well-worn Christian path (see the article on Neo-Stoicism above). There are clearly difficulties in reconciling full blown ancient Stoicism with Christianity. However, in its emphasis on eudaimonia (human flourishing) as the aim of human action, and the understanding of that flourishing as lying in virtuous action, it sets the framework for much of the development of Christian ethics. Moreover, in focusing on the difficulty in overcoming passions with reason, it echoes a central Christian theme of struggling against temptation:

14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do. 16 If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. 19 For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members.

 

[Romans 7:14-23; Douay-Rheims version]

[Next post 30 September 2016]

[Details of image: equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius. Full details here.]

Everyone who contends against odds in defense of the permanent things is an heir of Marcus Aurelius.

Additional video:

The following is an interview with the English conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton. The criticism of Kirk made by Scruton are of particular interest as they share so much in common. In particular, Scruton's claims that Kirk places more emphasis on the religious and transcendent than he does, and that Kirk's politics are unrealistic strikes me as well placed. Kirk is a Catholic and takes this much more seriously than Scruton's rather cultural support of the Church of England. Moreover, Kirk places much more emphasis on a romantic and virtuous individualism than does Scruton. (One of Kirk's key phrases which is constantly repeated throughout his career is the importance of 'ordered liberty'.)