Tea at Trianon Forum
Always be polite. Courtesy is required of you.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Tea at Trianon Forum
Always be polite. Courtesy is required of you.
Tea at Trianon Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Tea with the Queen
Latest topics
» Looking for a good book about Madame Elisabeth
The Prince of Wales EmptySat Jul 10, 2021 5:43 pm by Elena

» Recognition by the Church of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette
The Prince of Wales EmptySat Jul 10, 2021 5:38 pm by Elena

» Reposts: In Praise of Monarchy!
The Prince of Wales EmptyWed Apr 15, 2020 10:20 pm by ViveHenriV

» Remembering Louis XVI
The Prince of Wales EmptyWed Jan 22, 2020 10:04 am by ViveHenriV

» Mass for Louis XVI on live video
The Prince of Wales EmptyTue Jan 21, 2020 6:10 pm by ViveHenriV

» Judges 17:6
The Prince of Wales EmptyThu Jan 16, 2020 11:29 pm by ViveHenriV

» War in the Vendée/Guerre de Vendée
The Prince of Wales EmptyThu Jan 09, 2020 4:37 pm by ViveHenriV

» The Comte de Chambord (Henri V)
The Prince of Wales EmptySun Jan 05, 2020 5:24 pm by ViveHenriV

» Reflection: Les Membres et L'Estomac
The Prince of Wales EmptySun Jan 05, 2020 2:35 am by ViveHenriV

Who is online?
In total there are 3 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 3 Guests :: 2 Bots

None

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 253 on Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:06 am
Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking reddit      

Bookmark and share the address of Tea at Trianon Forum on your social bookmarking website

Banner art courtesy of The Graphics Fairy.

The Prince of Wales

Go down

The Prince of Wales Empty The Prince of Wales

Post  Elena Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:51 pm

Here is an intriguing article on Prince Charles from The American Conservative.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/philosopher-prince/#.T15CMBLsARE.facebook

The heir to one of the world’s oldest monarchies, a traditionalist? You don’t say. But Charles’s traditionalism is far from the stuffy, bland, institutional conservatism typical of a man of his rank. Charles, in fact, is a philosophical traditionalist, which is a rather more radical position to hold.

He is an anti-modernist to the marrow, which doesn’t always put him onside with the Conservative Party. Charles’s support for organic agriculture and other green causes, his sympathetic view of Islam, and his disdain for liberal economic thinking have earned him skepticism from some on the British right. (“Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?” the Tory libertarian writer James Delingpole once asked in print.) And some Tories fear that the prince’s unusually forceful advocacy endangers the most traditional British institution of all: the monarchy itself.

Others, though, see in Charles a visionary of the cultural right, one whose worldview is far broader, historically and otherwise, than those of his contemporaries on either side of the political spectrum. In this reading, Charles’s thinking is not determined by post-Enlightenment categories but rather draws on older ways of seeing and understanding that conservatives ought to recover. “All in all, the criticisms of Prince Charles from self-styled ‘Tories’ show just how little they understand about the philosophy they claim to represent,” says the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton.

Scruton’s observation highlights a fault line bisecting latter-day Anglo-American conservatism: the philosophical split between traditionalists and libertarians. In this way, what you think of the Prince of Wales reveals whether you think conservatism, to paraphrase the historian George H. Nash, is essentially about the rights of individuals to be what they want to be or the duties of individuals to be what they ought to be.

The most complete statement of Charles’s worldview is his 2010 book Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World, co-written by Tony Juniper and Ian Skelly. In its opening line, England’s future king declares, “This is a call to revolution.” Against what? Nothing less than “the current orthodoxy and conventional way of thinking, much of it stemming from the 1960s but with its origins going back over 200 years.” Charles believes Western civilization took a wrong turn at the Enlightenment, is headed toward destruction (especially environmental), and cannot save itself without an abrupt change of intellectual and spiritual course.

His criticism of the Enlightenment has nothing apparently to do with monarchical politics. It is chiefly a matter of philosophy. According to the prince, modernity occasioned a loss of vital wisdom that had been discovered, developed, and preserved in a number of ancient civilizations. The essence of this wisdom lay in seeing the world as cosmos—characterized by order, hierarchy, and intrinsic meaning. Moreover, the cosmos has a spiritual dimension, the existence of which is intuitively present in natural man. These principles are denied by modernity, which recognizes no meaning in the natural world aside from what man imposes on it, and the empiricism of which marginalizes “the non-material side to our humanity.” Writes Charles:

Modernism deliberately abstracted Nature and glamorized convenience, and this is why we have ended up seeing the natural world as some sort of gigantic production system seemingly capable of ever-increasing outputs for our benefit. … We have become semi-detached bystanders, empirically correct spectators, rather than what the ancients understood us to be, which is participants in creation. This ideology was far from benign or just a matter of fashion. The Marxism of the Bolshevik regime totally absorbed, adopted and extended the whole concept of Modernism to create the profoundly soulless, vicious, dehumanized ideology which eventually engineered the coldly calculated death of countless millions of its own citizens as well as entire living traditions, all for the simple reason that the end justified the means in the great ‘historic struggle’ to turn people against their true nature and into ideological, indoctrinated ‘machines.’
Strong stuff from the future king of one of the world’s great industrial powers. The Prince of Wales says the West reached a turning point in the High Middle Ages, when integrative scholasticism gave way to nominalism and Western man began to think of God as separate from Creation and humanity distinct from nature—a point also made by the American conservative Richard Weaver in his landmark 1948 book, Ideas Have Consequences. Though Charles concedes this paradigm shift paved the way for the emergence of science, it also “effectively shattered the organic unity of reality.”

As a result, he concludes, we are living in a Faustian crisis. We have become blindly proud of our power, in thrall to the ideal of progress based on extending our mastery of the material world through science and technology. We have forgotten that we are not gods. We do not long for harmony with the natural world, including learning to live within “Nature’s necessary limits,” as Charles puts it, but rather seek to conquer Nature and to impose our own will upon it, free from any obligation beyond satisfying our own desires. And, following Faust, we are bound for destruction if we do not turn back to tradition.
Elena
Elena
Admin

Posts : 1169
Join date : 2011-10-18
Location : East of the Sun, West of the Moon

http://www.emvidal.com/

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum