Roger Scruton

[uwot]

The quote as given...

"Endarkenment" is Scruton's way of describing the process of socialization through which certain behaviours and choices are closed off and forbidden to the subject, which he considers to be necessary in order to curb socially damaging impulses and behaviours.

...is hardly specific enough to denote it as “brainwashing”.

Well, brainwashing isn't a very specific term itself, but Scruton would have people indoctrinated with a set of values that he perceives as socially cohesive.

One can generalize and simply say there is nothing new in this. Isn't that what societies functionally do anyways, to adjust to it's way of thinking?

Well yes, but in a democracy, those values are decided by popular approval and can be challenged. Scruton believes people should be denied the right to make their own mind up.

In any event, it doesn't qualify him as an idiot or a monster.

It does in my book. If, like Scruton, you think people should be prevented from challenging a given doctrine, have a cigar; I think you are an idiot and a monster too.

Opinions in the minds of many are nothing more than mental rubbish.

Pretty much what Scruton thinks. It is the easiest way to immediately dismiss that person as a negative, a nonentity. Wait! News just in:

Calling someone a “blithering idiot” is the easiest way to immediately dismiss that person as a negative, a nonentity. It happens on Philosophy forums constantly.

Indeed. It saves time.
As I explained, Scruton has been a public figure here for over thirty years. A minor one, in fairness, but visual enough that anyone with an interest in philosophy, will be familiar with his arguments. I would be very surprised if you suspend judgement of public figures until you have read everything they have published.

[duszek]

Let me guess what makes Scruton so objectionable, he probably says something like:

"Certain people are born to rule, other people are born to serve, it´s in the genes."

Is he comparable to Machiavelli and Nietzsche ?

[Dubious]

The quote as given...
"Endarkenment" is Scruton's way of describing the process of socialization through which certain behaviours and choices are closed off and forbidden to the subject, which he considers to be necessary in order to curb socially damaging impulses and behaviours.
...is hardly specific enough to denote it as “brainwashing”.

Well, brainwashing isn't a very specific term itself, but Scruton would have people indoctrinated with a set of values that he perceives as socially cohesive.

Specific enough since it's universally understood as pejorative which in this case was your specific intention to inflict.

One can generalize and simply say there is nothing new in this. Isn't that what societies functionally do anyways, to adjust to it's way of thinking?

Well yes, but in a democracy, those values are decided by popular approval and can be challenged. Scruton believes people should be denied the right to make their own mind up.

I was still looking for proof of this being a common ground of denunciation on this site. Couldn't find any overt denial of of such rights. What you assert requires context and none is given. As stated it amounts to a single simplistic pronouncement as if nothing more is required to be known or understood. Much too monochrome. Having lately perused more of Scruton proves him considerably more complicated.

In any event, it doesn't qualify him as an idiot or a monster.

It does in my book. If, like Scruton, you think people should be prevented from challenging a given doctrine, have a cigar; I think you are an idiot and a monster too.

Again, as derived from his writings, he actually encourages the challenging of dogma. So, while I'm reasonably certain there are no monsters on this site, I'm not so sure about the idiots.

Opinions in the minds of many are nothing more than mental rubbish.

Pretty much what Scruton thinks. It is the easiest way to immediately dismiss that person as a negative, a nonentity. Wait! News just in:

Calling someone a “blithering idiot” is the easiest way to immediately dismiss that person as a negative, a nonentity. It happens on Philosophy forums constantly.

Given even a slight survey between what he actually wrote and what others say he meant by it, the chasm between the two offers no ostensible reason to revoke my view that Opinions in the minds of many are nothing more than mental rubbish.

Indeed. It saves time.

Personally, I always preferred torque over speed.

I would be very surprised if you suspend judgement of public figures until you have read everything they have published.

But that's just the point. I've read a number of articles among a fairly long list available, no books, and what comes across is not by any stretch in how he's described. So the question is, am I going to trust the source or those who merely comment on it. Critiques can be very interesting based on the abilities of the reviewer but the only ones available here contain nothing but those which defile and stigmatize. The only quote offered is the Wiki one which affirms very little without context and none by Scruton himself as an example of what you're so enraged about. I admit one can take a number of exceptions to Scruton's thinking but as with most "philosophers" what's so unusual about that?

Sorry to repeat again! This does not sound like a blithering idiot to me:

In my view, the idea that there is a single, one-size-fits-all solution to social and political conflict around the world, and that democracy is the name of it, is based on a disregard of historical and cultural conditions, and a failure to see that democracy is only made possible by other and more deeply hidden institutions. And while we are willing to accept that democracy goes hand in hand with individual freedom and the protection of human rights, we often fail to realise that these three things are three things, not one, and that it is only under certain conditions that they coincide.

...and this:

The truth is that government, of one kind or another, is manifest in all our attempts to live in peace with our fellows. We have rights that shield us from those who are appointed to rule us—many of them ancient common-law rights, like that defined by habeas corpus. But those rights are real personal possessions only because government is there to enforce them—and if necessary to enforce them against itself. Government is not what so many conservatives believe it to be, and what people on the left always believe it to be when it is in hands other than their own—namely a system of power and domination. Government is a search for order, and for power only insofar as power is required by order. It is present in the family, in the village, in the free associations of neighbors, and in the “little platoons” extolled by Burke and Tocqueville. It is there in the first movement of affection and good will, from which the bonds of society grow. For it is simply the other side of freedom, and the thing that makes freedom possible.

A few paragraphs further on:

In everyday life, too, there are people who relate to others without making themselves accountable. Such people are locked into the game of domination. If they are building a relationship, it is not a free relationship. A free relationship is one that grants rights and duties to either party, and which raises their conduct to the higher level in which mere power gives way to a true mutuality of interests. That is what is implied by the second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative, which commands us to treat rational beings as ends and not as means only—in other words, to base all our relations on the web of rights and duties. Such free relations are not just forms of affection: They are forms of obedience, in which the other person has a right to be heard. This, as I read him, is Kant’s message: Sovereign individuals are also obedient subjects, who face each other “I” to “I.”

[uwot]

...it's universally understood as pejorative which in this case was your specific intention to inflict.

True enough.

I was still looking for proof of this being a common ground of denunciation on this site.

You'll have to ask others why they dislike Scruton. I think it's a bit more nuanced than us and them.

...as derived from his writings, he actually encourages the challenging of dogma.

Even his own? Do you have a specific quote that might support this?

So, while I'm reasonably certain there are no monsters on this site, I'm not so sure about the idiots.

I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Personally, I always preferred torque over speed.

Depends on the baggage.

In my view, the idea that there is a single, one-size-fits-all solution to social and political conflict around the world, and that democracy is the name of it, is based on a disregard of historical and cultural conditions, and a failure to see that democracy is only made possible by other and more deeply hidden institutions. And while we are willing to accept that democracy goes hand in hand with individual freedom and the protection of human rights, we often fail to realise that these three things are three things, not one, and that it is only under certain conditions that they coincide.

...and this:

The truth is that government, of one kind or another, is manifest in all our attempts to live in peace with our fellows. We have rights that shield us from those who are appointed to rule us—many of them ancient common-law rights, like that defined by habeas corpus. But those rights are real personal possessions only because government is there to enforce them—and if necessary to enforce them against itself.

Let's stop you there, Roge. Those 'rights' have not been bestowed by a benign elite, they have generally been fought for by numerically superior forces. Violence, or the threat of it, I'm afraid, is the source of democracy. Anyone who has spent any time studying history and can't see that is a blithering half-wit.

[Dubious]

Depends on the baggage

...which takes time to examine and a brain that doesn't just slide on the greasy surface of what is assumed to be a common truth.

Let's stop you there, Roge. Those 'rights' have not been bestowed by a benign elite, they have generally been fought for by numerically superior forces. Violence, or the threat of it, I'm afraid, is the source of democracy.

True...up to a point. Democracy has been fought for but once achieved it must still be institutionalized within a shareholding corporation called a government whose mandate is a Constitution based on the freedoms won and collectively agreed to. Whether ruled by the Divine Right of kings (as in most of history), fascism, communism or democracy, all forms of rule are implemented through governments. Feel free to disagree if you find the obvious disagreeable.

So when Scruton writes "But those rights are real personal possessions only because government is there to enforce them—and if necessary to enforce them against itself", he's making a very valid point, especially in the last clause because it defines a government, unlike the other three, which is forced to become self-critical if it begins to over-step. Also, and most importantly, he defines these rights as real personal possessions not the generous gifts of those who claim superiority as you imply. In effect, he's describing a government forced to police itself and to correct when things go off course which invariably happens at some point. That's also the reason for the edict that Democracy demands vigilance to keep the system in balance by way of rights and privileges and to avoid the kind of violence which results in revolutions. It looks like the US may be on that path now. With other types of governments that's not necessary because if you don't like what you see and make it public you're not likely to be ever heard from again. Obedience is all that's required.

Anyone who has spent any time studying history and can't see that is a blithering half-wit.

Studying history also shows itself to be far more complicated than the single sentence summaries of the simple minded.

[uwot]

Democracy has been fought for but once achieved it must still be institutionalized within a shareholding corporation called a government whose mandate is a Constitution based on the freedoms won and collectively agreed to.

The US is not the only democracy. Nor is it, in my view, a very good example. Any constitution, or commandments, whether two hundred or two thousand years old, if they are not subject to revision, are not democratic. The point is not whether our ancestors collectively agreed, it is whether we do.

Also, and most importantly, he defines these rights as real personal possessions not the generous gifts of those who claim superiority as you imply.

I don't know where you got that from; that is exactly what I said they were not.

In effect, he's describing a government forced to police itself and to correct when things go off course which invariably happens at some point.

A functional democracy, if such a thing exists, has regular free and fair elections. In such a situation, the government does not police itself, the electorate does, and if it is the people's wish not to have religion, or even tradition, forced down their throats, they need to be wary of blithering half-wits like Scruton who think it would be a good idea.
I don't know if it is your intention to trawl all the accessible writings of Scruton to find something I can agree with, thereby proving that Scruton is not a complete half-wit (yes, I know). If so, let me save you the bother; it is not every word he has ever said that makes him, again in my view, a blithering half-wit; it is his conservatism and particulary his advocacy of endarkening. You evidently disagree with my evaluation. Well, it's all relative.

[Obvious Leo]

The US is not the only democracy. Nor is it, in my view, a very good example. Any constitution, or commandments, whether two hundred or two thousand years old, if they are not subject to revision, are not democratic. The point is not whether our ancestors collectively agreed, it is whether we do.

This is a very important point about democracy which I tried to make in an argument some years ago in a different forum. Constitutional democracy is a form of government locked in a time warp which reflects the cultural values and stereotypes of the age in which the constitution was framed. The American revolution was not a takeover of power by an oppressed proletariat but a coup d'etat whereby one aristocratic elite successfully ousted another. The associated propaganda was thoughtfully and intelligently presented but the subsequent evolution of the US systems of government reflected this initial motive although nowadays it would be more accurate to say that the "born to rule" elite are an oligarchy rather than an aristocracy.

[Dubious]

The US is not the only democracy. Nor is it, in my view, a very good example. Any constitution, or commandments, whether two hundred or two thousand years old, if they are not subject to revision, are not democratic. The point is not whether our ancestors collectively agreed, it is whether we do.

I agree, even though the US has been considered the model of democracy for most of the 20th century, that perception is beginning to erode mostly among Americans themselves. But to say its Constitution is not subject to revision is not entirely true since Article Five of the Constitution describes the means by which such changes may be ratified.

Also, and most importantly, he defines these rights as real personal possessions not the generous gifts of those who claim superiority as you imply.

I don't know where you got that from; that is exactly what I said they were not.

Sorry but I don't quite get it. If rights are not "real personal possessions" inherent by virtue of being human then where did those rights come from? You described them as "Those 'rights' have not been bestowed by a benign elite" and so they haven't since throughout history most were deprived of those rights by the elite. We seem to have different perspectives on what is meant by ''real personal possessions".

In such a situation, the government does not police itself, the electorate does...

Yes, and it's the electorate that's mandated to provide much of the feedback for governments to make those adjustments meaning that input is imperative for that purpose. But more important are the policing aspects of governments as contained within the parliamentary procedures of dissent and debate that protect rights and question motives. These are much more significant to a democracy - if not already debased by corruption - than simply voting every five or six years. Sometimes there's as much action in those arenas as in a soccer field.

I think a measure of conservatism is a good thing and could have avoided or at least ameliorated many of the problems confronting us now. The feedback I get having reading Scruton (so far) is decidedly different from yours and very different from what you imply. The concept of Endarkening requires an explanation much more specific than that given in some anemic quote.

As you say, it's all relative but also meaningless since Scruton's reputation won't be determined by either of us or anyone else here which is clearly a good thing considering that most people are prone to base their fixed conclusions on first impressions.

[Dubious]

The US is not the only democracy. Nor is it, in my view, a very good example. Any constitution, or commandments, whether two hundred or two thousand years old, if they are not subject to revision, are not democratic. The point is not whether our ancestors collectively agreed, it is whether we do.

The American revolution was not a takeover of power by an oppressed proletariat but a coup d'etat whereby one aristocratic elite successfully ousted another. The associated propaganda was thoughtfully and intelligently presented but the subsequent evolution of the US systems of government reflected this initial motive although nowadays it would be more accurate to say that the "born to rule" elite are an oligarchy rather than an aristocracy.

Agree completely. Many of the founding fathers themselves were aristocrats but of a kind modified by the Enlightenment, ergo the words written on the Declaration of Independence which no self-serving aristocrat in prior periods would have written. Even many Muslims find it admirable. This debasement into oligarchy status which for some time now has had the upper hand all somehow adroitly managed under the guise of political correctness is likely to get worse (consider the current candidates) before the real blow-back happens.

[Obvious Leo]

the US has been considered the model of democracy for most of the 20th century,

By whom? Could you name a country which has imitated ANY of its institutions?

But to say its Constitution is not subject to revision is not entirely true since Article Five of the Constitution describes the means by which such changes may be ratified.

Although this is technically true it is also true that in fact to change a constitution is an extremely difficult exercise which requires a broad bi-partisan consensus. In the real-politik of the modern world this is effectively impossible in most cases because such a dialogue invariably opens up opportunities for the politically ambitious to divide the population rather then enjoin it. This criticism of constitutional government is not directly solely at the US, because even though Australia's constitution is not much over a century old it is damagingly anachronistic in many of its particulars and these shortcomings are an impediment to efficient government.

But more important are the policing aspects of governments as contained within the parliamentary procedures of dissent and debate that protect rights and question motives.

Although I agree with this it has become obvious, in the case of the US in particular, that this function of government simply no longer works. In a sense the US Supreme Court has over recent decades become the ultimate legislative authority, rather than the democratically elected US government.

As you say, it's all relative but also meaningless since Scruton's reputation won't be determined by either of us or anyone else here which is clearly a good thing considering that most people are prone to base their fixed conclusions on first impressions.

True. However a little bit of Scruton goes a long way and one doesn't need to conduct much of an in-depth analysis of his thoughts to see him for the bigoted elitist that he is.

[uwot]

...If rights are not "real personal possessions" inherent by virtue of being human then where did those rights come from? You described them as "Those 'rights' have not been bestowed by a benign elite" and so they haven't since throughout history most were deprived of those rights by the elite. We seem to have different perspectives on what is meant by ''real personal possessions".

We do. Insofar as 'rights' are possessions, it is because they have been hard won and need clinging on to. I think there is a risk of complacency if people think that 'rights' are something they are owed.

I think a measure of conservatism is a good thing and could have avoided or at least ameliorated many of the problems confronting us now.

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water myself, but Scruton and I have very different ideas about what is worth conserving.

The feedback I get having reading Scruton (so far) is decidedly different from yours and very different from what you imply. The concept of Endarkening requires an explanation much more specific than that given in some anemic quote.

What have you read that makes you think so?

As you say, it's all relative but also meaningless since Scruton's reputation won't be determined by either of us or anyone else here which is clearly a good thing considering that most people are prone to base their fixed conclusions on first impressions.

No doubt, but I have made the point twice, I think, that Scruton has been a familiar figure, here in the UK, for over thirty years.

[Dubious]

the US has been considered the model of democracy for most of the 20th century,

By whom? Could you name a country which has imitated ANY of its institutions?

Strange question which frankly I can't answer! Any model of democracy, which doesn't have to be of the US variety, could be implemented in any number of institutions. Why would it need to be an “imitation”? The US Constitution being the oldest written blueprint for government exerted immense influence for a long time. Of that there is no doubt but I agree that MY statement “the US has been considered the model of democracy for most of the 20th century” is overstated and especially so since the 2nd half of the 20th century.

But to say its Constitution is not subject to revision is not entirely true since Article Five of the Constitution describes the means by which such changes may be ratified.

Although this is technically true it is also true that in fact to change a constitution is an extremely difficult exercise which requires a broad bi-partisan consensus. In the real-politik of the modern world this is effectively impossible in most cases because such a dialogue invariably opens up opportunities for the politically ambitious to divide the population rather then enjoin it.

This presents a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. I don't deny that you make a good point. Nevertheless, article 5 was still the means to ratify 27 ratifications. If things go from bad to worse that rate may be expedited. “Virtual” amendments more often than not happen through the interpretations of the Supreme Court to be implemented. It's easier to improvise a meaning than to change the words.

But more important are the policing aspects of governments as contained within the parliamentary procedures of dissent and debate that protect rights and question motives.

Although I agree with this it has become obvious, in the case of the US in particular, that this function of government simply no longer works. In a sense the US Supreme Court has over recent decades become the ultimate legislative authority, rather than the democratically elected US government.

It's hard to say if this is good or bad. It cuts both ways. They are the ultimate Constitutional authority and as such can declare whether a government's actions conform to it. There's a difference. It's not simply that government no longer works; it often just works badly and when it does or denotes laws not subservient to the constitution, the Supreme Court is called to action.

As you say, it's all relative but also meaningless since Scruton's reputation won't be determined by either of us or anyone else here which is clearly a good thing considering that most people are prone to base their fixed conclusions on first impressions.

True. However a little bit of Scruton goes a long way and one doesn't need to conduct much of an in-depth analysis of his thoughts to see him for the bigoted elitist that he is.

My view of Scruton is simply this: Until I discover something in his writing which confirms that view, I'll keep the one I have. I'm not about to join a hate club if I haven't read anything to hate yet.

[Dubious]

...If rights are not "real personal possessions" inherent by virtue of being human then where did those rights come from? You described them as "Those 'rights' have not been bestowed by a benign elite" and so they haven't since throughout history most were deprived of those rights by the elite. We seem to have different perspectives on what is meant by ''real personal possessions".

We do. Insofar as 'rights' are possessions, it is because they have been hard won and need clinging on to. I think there is a risk of complacency if people think that 'rights' are something they are owed.

I'm not arguing that point but believe that rights 'hard won' reclaim what belonged to people in the first place. Power concentrates in a few when it's subtracted from the many. However defined, it resolves to the same conclusion.

The feedback I get having reading Scruton (so far) is decidedly different from yours and very different from what you imply. The concept of Endarkening requires an explanation much more specific than that given in some anemic quote.

What have you read that makes you think so?

Nothing expressed as specific but everything I read so far, which despite him being something of an uber conservative type, amounts to nothing like brain washing. I was trying to find an extended meaning as to what is inferred by Endarkening (clumsy phrase) but couldn't find anything beyond what you quoted.

As you say, it's all relative but also meaningless since Scruton's reputation won't be determined by either of us or anyone else here which is clearly a good thing considering that most people are prone to base their fixed conclusions on first impressions.

No doubt, but I have made the point twice, I think, that Scruton has been a familiar figure, here in the UK, for over thirty years.

Is a "familiar figure" the same as an understood one? Has nothing changed during those 30 years? How many in the UK to whom he's been familiar for so long believe as thoroughly as you do that he's nothing more than a dim wit philosopher? Until further advised by Scruton himself I'm not ready to make those assumptions.

The only thing I detest on Scruton so far are these stupid fox hunting rituals, these pathetic Monty Pythonesque remnants of what was once considered class by the old aristocracy but now looks more like a pack of herniated backsides on horseback. This kind of perverted conservatism I have no respect for but based on this alone, I won't submit to the absurd idea that it tells you everything about Scruton or that nothing he's written is consequently worthwhile.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The US is not the only democracy. Nor is it, in my view, a very good example. Any constitution, or commandments, whether two hundred or two thousand years old, if they are not subject to revision, are not democratic. The point is not whether our ancestors collectively agreed, it is whether we do.

The American revolution was not a takeover of power by an oppressed proletariat but a coup d'etat whereby one aristocratic elite successfully ousted another. The associated propaganda was thoughtfully and intelligently presented but the subsequent evolution of the US systems of government reflected this initial motive although nowadays it would be more accurate to say that the "born to rule" elite are an oligarchy rather than an aristocracy.

Agree completely. Many of the founding fathers themselves were aristocrats but of a kind modified by the Enlightenment, ergo the words written on the Declaration of Independence which no self-serving aristocrat in prior periods would have written. Even many Muslims find it admirable. This debasement into oligarchy status which for some time now has had the upper hand all somehow adroitly managed under the guise of political correctness is likely to get worse (consider the current candidates) before the real blow-back happens.

If you compare the gross figures of population against those voting in Presidential election, from the beginning, the percentage rate does not exceed 5% for the first 100 years of the US state.
Far from being a democracy the American Republic was an oligarchy, offering candidates for election that would exclusively rich.

[uwot]

Is a "familiar figure" the same as an understood one? Has nothing changed during those 30 years? How many in the UK to whom he's been familiar for so long believe as thoroughly as you do that he's nothing more than a dim wit philosopher?

Thirty years ago, I was finishing my first year as a philosophy undergraduate. One of the modules I chose was Political philosophy. Even at the height of Thatcherism, very few serious philosophers were prepared to stand up for conservatism in the UK. Roger Scruton was by far the most vocal, as such his ideas were discussed a lot. I admired his courage, in particular for his work in Czechoslovakia, but for the life of me, I cannot remember a single argument of his that impressed me.
Since then some of his views have mellowed and there is a little more polish to the reasoning, but it is still fundamentally the same half-witted syllogisms based on bigotted premises.

I won't submit to the absurd idea that it (Scruton's fox hunting) tells you everything about Scruton or that nothing he's written is consequently worthwhile.

Nobody here is suggesting that you should. I have no reason to believe that others who have spoken out against Scruton are any less informed than I am, and that we have all reached our decisions based on what Scruton himself says.