{"id":4805,"date":"2021-03-19T10:24:19","date_gmt":"2021-03-19T10:24:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/?p=4805"},"modified":"2021-04-02T03:38:31","modified_gmt":"2021-04-02T03:38:31","slug":"from-steam-engines-to-the-singularity-how-the-technological-spirit-of-classical-liberalism-remakes-man-in-its-own-image","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/2021\/03\/19\/from-steam-engines-to-the-singularity-how-the-technological-spirit-of-classical-liberalism-remakes-man-in-its-own-image\/","title":{"rendered":"From Steam Engines to the Singularity: How the Technological Spirit of (Classical) Liberalism Remakes Man in its Own Image"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by<\/em> Deion A. Kathawa<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cGod blessed them, saying: \u2018Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.  Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.\u2019 \u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013Gen. 1:28\u2020<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor just as in affairs of state we see a man\u2019s mettle and the secret sense of his soul and affections better when he is under pressure than at other times, so nature\u2019s secrets betray themselves more through the vexations of art than they do in their usual course . . .  I also think that it does not matter much for mankind\u2019s well being <\/em>[sic] what abstract opinions you hold about nature and the principles of things . . .  On the contrary, my object is to see whether I can really lay firmer foundations for human power and prestige, and to extend their bounds yet wider.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013Francis Bacon\u2021<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the last few years, a debate about the desirability and sustainability of classical liberalism\u2014the West\u2019s regnant governing ideology\u2014has migrated from obscure corners of the internet into the edges, at least, of the general public\u2019s consciousness.[1]<\/a>  Since, much ink has been spilled assessing whether various sorts of \u201cpost-liberal\u201d systems[2]<\/a> are compatible with what many take to be classical liberalism\u2019s core\u2014and highly desirable\u2014features: \u201cconstitutionalism, the rule of law, rights and privileges of citizens, separation of powers, the free exchange of goods and services in markets, and federalism.\u201d[3]<\/a>  But because those things \u201care to be found in medieval thought,\u201d[4]<\/a> we are free to retain and refine them while simultaneously identifying and rejecting classical liberalism\u2019s errors and excesses.[5]<\/a>  At its core, \u201c[classical] liberalism is constituted by a pair of . . . anthropological assumptions that give liberal institutions a particular orientation and cast: 1) anthropological individualism and the voluntarist conception of choice, and 2) human separation from and opposition to nature.\u201d[6]<\/a>  These assumptions are properly understood as \u201crevolutions in the understanding of human nature and society.\u201d[7]<\/a>  And yet, relatively little effort has been expended to trace and understand the effects of classical liberalism\u2019s second core feature\u2014i.e., Man\u2019s alienation from the natural world, driven by a technological mindset\u2014on the human soul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

I propose that to truly understand this dimension of classical liberalism, and how we might begin to reverse its impact, we must \u201cbegin at the beginning.\u201d[8]<\/a>\u00a0 That is, we must first understand: (1) how God\u2019s command to mankind in the Garden of Eden to have dominion<\/em> and to exercise stewardship <\/em>over Creation transmogrified into a libido dominandi<\/em>, an overweening desire to dominate<\/em> nature for our own material advantage; and, relatedly, (2) how our innate thirst for knowledge of the Good\u2014God Himself\u2014was perverted into something baser, narrower, and more instrumental and fleeting\u2014merely securing \u201cthe relief of man\u2019s estate.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, we begin with Francis Bacon, the 17th century English philosopher and statesman, and the avatar of classical liberalism\u2019s technological mindset\u2014one that aims to overcome our material deficiencies and limitations through ruthless, rational control of nature, and one in which \u201cnature\u201d is conceptualized, for the most part not consciously nowadays, as meaningless matter.[10]<\/a>  However, we cannot understand Bacon\u2019s impact until we understand that of liberal modernity\u2019s godfather: Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Machiavelli, the driving force behind our actions ought to be necessity: seeing the verita effettuale<\/em>,[12]<\/a> the effectual truth of things, i.e., the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be, and then acting accordingly to secure congenial outcomes\u2014even if that means transgressing Christian morality.[13]<\/a>  Machiavellianism is thus both a rejection of Platonic idealism\u2014an effort to drag us back down into the Cave, a lowering of our moral gaze\u2014and an assault on the Catholic Church\u2019s anthropology, ethics, and metaphysics. Machiavelli wrote at a time when the Church\u2019s perceived spiritual authority had waned and was about to be further undermined by Martin Luther\u2019s devastating revolt in 1517.[14]<\/a>  This gave the \u201cteacher of evil\u201d[15]<\/a> an opening to found \u201cnew modes and orders\u201d[16]<\/a>\u2014an alternate understanding of reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bacon seized upon Machiavelli\u2019s project and applied it to technology.[17]<\/a>  The fruits of this paradigm shift\u2014\u201cthe passing away of one world and the coming-to-be of another\u201d[18]<\/a>\u2014are all around us.  Man\u2019s control over nature has never been more obvious, complete, or marvelous.  We with ease fly around the world, consume without a second thought exotic foods about which our ancestors could only dream, enjoy millions of hours of robust digital entertainment, communicate with anyone instantaneously, live comfortably in once-lethal climes, and cure deadly diseases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We also, however, pillage the environment, produce obscene amounts of addictive pornography, are on the cusp of putting millions out of work through various forms of automation, and can, in an afternoon, annihilate our species with nuclear weapons.  Thus, our technological prowess is a double-edged sword that has far outstripped our moral faculties.  In this way, to use a trite metaphor, we are like a toddler who has stumbled upon his father\u2019s loaded handgun.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But technology per se<\/em> is not malum in se<\/em>; rather, the danger lies in our relationship to man-made tools and processes\u2014i.e., how our mindset affects what<\/em> we build, yes, but also what we do with what we build<\/em>.  This must be so; otherwise, we would need to be prepared to question Christ the carpenter, Who used hammers to build tables.[19]<\/a>  In fact, I submit that it is right and good for Man\u2019s intellectual powers to ease his traversal of this \u201cvale of tears\u201d because doing so properly actualizes God\u2019s command to our first parents to \u201csubdue\u201d and \u201c[h]ave dominion\u201d over the earth and all that is in it.  The real task, then, is to discern precisely which<\/em> technological developments are of God\u2014because they are in accord with human flourishing and the common good\u2014and which are, at bottom, expressions of our pride and should therefore be rejected\u2014because it was only in becoming \u201cliberal men\u201d that we discovered them.  And we know that this is the relevant inquiry because, ceteris paribus<\/em>, we agree that a world where we are adequately fed and have the benefits of modern medicine is better than a famine-wracked and disease-ridden one.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, our inability to recognize the line that separates good from bad technology, to make technology serve and ennoble rather than enslave and debase us, threatens our very existence in ways subtler\u2014but no less dangerous for that subtlety\u2014than a fiery, nuclear holocaust.  We can see this quite clearly in assessing our societies\u2019 crazed response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which, stunningly, is ongoing more than a year<\/em> after the first lockdown was instituted in the United States.[21]<\/a>  To eradicate this threat to our physical well-being, we shuttered the country and suspended activities necessary to human flourishing and the common good: birthday parties, weddings, visiting relatives, dinner parties\u2014in a word, play<\/em>.[22]<\/a>  And for what?  It would seem the mere appearance of safety\u2014because not even full, airtight lockdowns could have stopped the spread of the virus.[23]<\/a>  That should have been blindingly obvious to everyone, including the public-health \u201cexperts,\u201d but it wasn\u2019t, and so we acted out our blind faith in our absolute control over the natural world, consistent with Bacon\u2019s worldview.  Thus far, thankfully, reality has reasserted itself; even President Biden has conceded, though only after he had taken up residence in the White House, that \u201cthere\u2019s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.\u201d[24]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I fear that we will not be able to count on such welcome, back-to-sanity pendulum swings for much longer.\u00a0 Up to this point, science has largely been focused on achieving increased \u201chealth\u201d for human beings as they have long existed,[25]<\/a> not on transforming human beings themselves<\/em>.\u00a0 But no longer.[26]<\/a>\u00a0 Our mastery over nature via our technology has birthed twin \u201ctrans\u201d movements\u2014transgenderism and transhumanism\u2014that attack a foundational reality: embodied humanness.\u00a0 Thus, many have understandably likened these movements, focused as they are on the body, to one of the earliest heresies faced by the Church\u2014Gnosticism\u2014and have attacked them on those grounds.[27]<\/a>\u00a0 However, Gnosticism is not the right hermeneutic by which to understand, criticize, and resist these modern phenomena.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather, they are better understood as offspring of classical liberalism\u2019s technological gaze, which has alienated Man from the natural world; that is, we should understand them as by-products of the classically liberal desire to exercise rational, domineering control over the natural world.\u00a0 In other words, they are the result of a worldview that is closed off to the supernatural. Because we have lost our reverence for nature-as-gift, we instead see material reality as something to be subordinated to our materialistic prerogatives.[28]<\/a>\u00a0 And because we no longer conceive of ourselves as anything more than material creatures inhabiting a material world\u2014one which is often deadly to our (physical) well-being\u2014we have decided that the only logical thing to do is to overcome it\u2014and ruthlessly so.\u00a0 Our intense fear of the world around us causes us desperately to cling to the comfort of screens rather than to God and His sacraments because the former are amenable to our learned overreliance on sensory data while the latter require faith in things unseen.[29]<\/a>\u00a0 And for modern Man, tragically, \u201cseeing is believing.\u201d[30]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, because pain, infertility, an internal sense of \u201cgender identity\u201d (irrespective of biological sex), unborn children, hired laborers, or desire to engage in non-marital sexual encounters seem to stand in the way of \u201chealth,\u201d they must be destroyed, disposed of, embraced, transcended, or otherwise made to serve us.  The noble desire to relieve Man\u2019s estate by progressively more powerful technological means carries within it seeds of a tyranny so powerful that it threatens to eliminate Man as he has long understood himself, namely, as a sexed, embodied creature, born in community and radically dependent on others.[31]<\/a> These radical \u201ctrans\u201d-techno movements\u2014marked by their cross-hormone therapies, surgical interventions, wild fantasies of uploading people\u2019s consciousnesses into computers after their bodily deaths, and fervent desire to meld with the Singularity\u2014are not zombie Gnosticism but, rather, the apotheosis of the Enlightenment-era lust for technological domination of nature\u2014homo sapiens<\/em> very much included.[32]<\/a>  Ultimately, the goal is to transcend humanity altogether, our fleshly, intransigent givenness<\/em>\u2014and the \u201cintolerable\u201d limitations it implies.[33]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that goal has not been realized.  At least not yet.  The wave of technologizing \u201cliberation\u201d that we have unleashed\u2014liberation from material wants and from many earthly dangers\u2014has turned \u2018round to enslave us. If we are not careful, we will be effaced from the earth completely.[34]<\/a>  We have created an idol, and the reason that God forbids idolatry[35]<\/a>\u2014beyond just the fact that He alone is worthy of our worship\u2014is because idols invariably ensnare, debase, and, ultimately, destroy us.  And while our attraction to this particular idol\u2014technology\u2014is understandable given that it has done us enormous collective good,[36]<\/a> it is nonetheless foolish to think that the only<\/em> way to have achieved 21st-century levels of material progress is to have prostrated ourselves before this strange, modern-day golden calf.[37]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Made in the imago Dei<\/em> and with a divine command to steward Creation, but grievously wounded by the Fall, we have aspired to stride about the world and control it as gods, to put into practice Marx\u2019s somewhat obscure adage: \u201cThe philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.\u201d[38]<\/a>  In our immense pride, ratified and given form and effect by classical liberalism, in jealously trying to imitate God\u2019s sovereign power over all things visible and invisible[39]<\/a>\u2014most precisely, in trying to be \u201clike gods\u201d[40]<\/a>\u2014we have, predictably, distorted ourselves.  Soon, we will no longer recognize ourselves.  Tragically, we have lost the virtue of hope, grounded in faith in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, and have instead yoked ourselves to a false vision of \u201cmoral progress,\u201d actualized by ever-expanding, and dangerous, techne<\/em> over nature[41]<\/a>\u2014an idol of the heart\u2019s gaze which now, just as in Eden, tempts us with self-deification[42]<\/a> but, necessarily, death.[43]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

*<\/a> Deion A. Kathawa is an attorney who hails from America’s heartland.  He holds a J.D. from the University of Notre Dame and a bachelor\u2019s degree from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.<\/strong>  For their helpful feedback on earlier drafts, I thank Andrew Beddow, Suzanne Beecher, Timothy Bradley, Alex Ehler, Judah Maxwell, Justin North, Hailey Vrdolyak, and Garrett Ziegler.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2020<\/a> All biblical citations are to the New American Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2021<\/a> Bacon, Novum Organum, Bk. 1, Aphorisms 98, 116, trans. Graham Rees and Maria Wakely (Oxford 2004).  Cf<\/em>. Carolyn Merchant, The Violence of Impediments: Francis Bacon and the Origins of Experimentation<\/em>, 99 Isis 731, 732 n. 2 (2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> IASC News, Barack Obama Recommends <\/em>Why Liberalism Failed, Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture (December 2018, 2018), https:\/\/iasculture.org\/news\/obama-recommends-why-liberalism-failed<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> For a primer on a particular post-liberal\u2014though the author would probably call it \u201cpre-liberal\u201d\u2014political arrangement, see<\/em> Pater Waldstein, O.Cist, What is Integralism Today?<\/em>, Church Life Journal (October 31, 2018), https:\/\/churchlifejournal.nd.edu\/articles\/what-is-integralism-today\/<\/a>.  As to whether, as an orthodox Roman Catholic, I am bound to confess that an \u201cintegralist State\u201d is desirable and\/or theologically necessary, I must confess that I have not made up my mind, in large part because I harbor some reservations about the project\u2019s orientation and commitments\u2014namely integralists\u2019 seeming lack of concern for representative government, specifically republicanism; for a corrective, see, e.g.<\/em>, Waller, Quirks in the Neo-Integralist Vision<\/em>, Church Life Journal (February 4, 2021), https:\/\/churchlifejournal.nd.edu\/articles\/quirks-in-the-neo-integralist-vision\/<\/a>.  At present, my own view is probably something like the following, see<\/em> Klavan, A Shot in the Arm for Liberalism<\/em>, American Mindset (February 26, 2021), https:\/\/americanmind.substack.com\/p\/a-shot-in-the-arm-for-liberalism<\/a> (arguing that \u201cliberalism of the original sort was what you might call a secondary <\/em>philosophy.  That is, it was a philosophy for how to live once the old truths were taken for granted.  After all the religious wars had been fought, after Aristotelian virtue ethics and Christian charity had guided the formation of that \u201cmoral and religious people\u201d which John Adams celebrated, then the West could proceed within the parameters of that consensus to ask, \u2018how then shall we live?\u2019  This was never intended to serve as an answer to the deeper questions\u2014\u2018what is man?\u2019 \u2018how shall he be saved?\u2019\u2014because the answers to those questions were considered, very broadly speaking, to have been agreed upon.\u201d).  All of that being said, however, what I can say without hesitation is that I recognize the force of the integralists\u2019 position, rendered all the more compelling given the ready evidence of the present order\u2019s decay.  Even so, I remain, at present, quite fond of the system of republican self-government bequeathed to us by our Founders, refined and saved by Lincoln, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and actualized by the Constitution; moreover, I do not think America is \u201cclassically liberal\u201d in the sense her detractors assert she is\u2014at the very least based upon the degree to which classical political philosophy influenced the Founding.  See<\/em> Richard, The Classical Roots of the American Founding<\/em> (Ch. 3) in The American Founding: Its Intellectual and Moral Framework, Robinson and Williams, eds. (2014); see also<\/em> Stewart, Virtue at the Origin: The Classical Foundations of the American Republic<\/em>, Public Discourse (March 6, 2021), https:\/\/www.thepublicdiscourse.com\/2021\/03\/74347\/<\/a>.  Nonetheless, our relationship to nature is clearly broken, and I believe that rupture can be traced back to \u201cclassical liberalism\u201d\u2014and regardless of whether there is a \u201cnecessary transition from classical liberalism (understood to be good) to progressive liberalism (understood to be bad).\u201d  See<\/em> Vermeule, Some Confusions about \u201cClassical Liberalism,\u201d Progressivism, and Necessity<\/em>, Mirror of Justice (June 15, 2018), https:\/\/mirrorofjustice.blogs.com\/mirrorofjustice\/2018\/06\/some-confusions-about-classical-liberalism-progressivism-and-necessity.html<\/a> (expounding on that point).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Deneen, Unsustainable Liberalism<\/em>, First Things (August 2012), https:\/\/www.firstthings.com\/article\/2012\/08\/unsustainable-liberalism<\/a> (Deneen, Unsustainable Liberalism<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> And besides, there is no reason to think we must accept either all<\/em> of classical liberalism or none<\/em> of it\u2014because politics is the art of public prudence, not some elaborate mathematical theorem that hangs all together or not at all.  In other words, we need not throw out the baby with the bathwater; like normal people, we can choose to keep the baby, even without some airtight, perfectly-internally-coherent theory as to why<\/em>\u2014and, importantly, despite various purists\u2019 shrieks to the contrary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Deneen, Unsustainable Liberalism<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Carroll, Alice in Wonderland (1865).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, Bk. I (1605), available online at<\/em> https:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/files\/5500\/5500-h\/5500-h.htm<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Or, \u201can inert mechanistic mass without inner teleology, a mere object for arbitrary manipulation by human power.\u201d See<\/em> Pater Waldstein, Religious Liberty and Tradition III<\/em>, The Josias (January 2, 2015), https:\/\/thejosias.net\/2015\/01\/02\/religious-liberty-and-tradition-iii\/<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Conversations with Bill Kristol, Harvey Mansfield on <\/em>Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli and the Origins of Modernity<\/em>, YOUTUBE (Dec. 6, 2015), https:\/\/youtu.be\/hVnh4woNXFg?t=1881<\/a> (from 31:21\u201331:46) (noting that Bacon was alone among his peers in even daring to cite Machiavelli, which he did\u2014approvingly so).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VX (1532).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Machiavelli, Mandragola (1526) (detailing the story of a young man, Callimaco, who wants to have sexual relations with a young, beautiful, and chaste woman, Lucrezia, who is married to an older man, Nicia; she and Nicia cannot have children, however, and the lesson Machiavelli wants to impart is as straightforward as it is subversive: The upright path is one of failure, but if one is daring enough to choose the immoral path\u2014adultery\u2014then everyone wins, for Callimaco gets to possess his love, and the married couple gets a child).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Of course, Lutherans specifically and Protestants more generally are of the view that Luther\u2019s cry of, \u201cHere I stand, I can do no other . . .\u201d was both necessary and salutary\u2014not a \u201crevolt.\u201d\u00a0 It is a view to which they are entitled.\u00a0 But as a Catholic, I do not share it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Dubbed thusly by political philosopher and classicist Leo Strauss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy 5 (1531), available online at<\/em> https:\/\/rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/02\/niccolo-machiavelli-discourses-on-livy.pdf<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> This essay explains how classical liberalism came to express a technological mindset. However, the problem probably runs deeper than Bacon and Machiavelli, with its source in the heart of Man which has been wounded by Original Sin. See, e.g.<\/em>, Kass, Farmers, Founders, and Fratricide: The Story of Cain and Abel<\/em>, First Things (April 1996), https:\/\/www.firstthings.com\/article\/1996\/04\/farmers-founders-and-fratricide-the-story-of-cain-and-abel<\/a> (noting that, post-Fall, there at least two primordial orientations that Man has toward his lot, namely, to be like Cain the farmer, who seeks to possess and have mastery over the earth, or to be like Abel the shepherd, who is humbled before forces beyond his comprehension or control and grateful for their beneficence).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Hanby, A False Paradigm<\/em>, First Things (November 2018), https:\/\/www.firstthings.com\/article\/2018\/11\/a-false-paradigm<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> But see<\/em> Barnes, Christians Shouldn\u2019t Use Smartphones<\/em>, Medium (January 31, 2019), https:\/\/medium.com\/@marcjohnpaul\/christians-shouldnt-use-smartphones-64cddc2b3527<\/a> (\u201cThe followers of Jesus Christ are supposed to be free from the machinations of earthly principalities and powers.  The use of the smartphone [and other, similar technology] seems to be the symbol and sacrament of increased, unnecessary dependence on earthly power. For this reason, I do not think that Christians should use smartphones.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Leibovitz, Against Convenience<\/em>, Tablet (August 10, 2018), https:\/\/www.tabletmag.com\/jewish-life-and-religion\/268262\/against-convenience<\/a> (\u201cIt\u2019s one thing to wish away the dozens of automated interactions that have replaced face-to-face conversations and that have robbed us of so much of our sense of community; it\u2019s another to decide which of these actually liberate us from needless labor and give us the time to pursue loftier goals. The village well was likely a swell place of gathering, but no one laments the advent of running water.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> But see<\/em> Whitcomb, Texas governor lifts state\u2019s mask mandate, business restrictions<\/em>, Reuters (March 2, 2021), https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-heath-coronavirus-usa\/texas-governor-lifts-states-mask-mandate-business-restrictions-idUSKCN2AU2JB<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Various, Mini-Feature: The Importance of Play<\/em>, American Mindset (January 25, 2021), https:\/\/bit.ly\/39r1pKO<\/a> [shortened URL].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> On the FAQ page of the \u201cGreat Barrington Declaration\u201d\u2014a statement by leading infectious-disease epidemiologists and public-health scientists arguing for \u201cfocused protection\u201d of the vulnerable against COVID-19 rather than crushing lockdowns, see<\/em> Drs. Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, and Jay Bhattacharya, Great Barrington Declaration<\/em> (2020), https:\/\/gbdeclaration.org\/<\/a>\u2014the following question appears: \u201cDo lockdowns have a successful history against infectious diseases?\u201d  The answer provided is: \u201cBasic epidemiological theory indicates that lockdowns do not reduce the total number of cases in the long run and have never in history led to the eradication of a disease.  At best, lockdowns delay the increase of cases for a finite period and at great cost.\u201d  The underlying view that causes those in our public-health \u201cexpert\u201d class to doubt that obvious truth is, basically, that human beings are essentially chess pieces to be manipulated by the diktats of well-meaning government technocrats rather than free persons who act in accord with their moral education and retain the ultimate authority, free of experts\u2019 meddling, to decide questions of their common life.  See, e.g.<\/em>, Klavan, You Can\u2019t Tell Me What to Do<\/em>, American Mindset (March 17, 2021), https:\/\/americanmind.substack.com\/p\/you-cant-tell-me-what-to-do<\/a> (as to a plumber who told you that you should<\/em> wallow in your own filth because of a blocked toilet, you \u201cwould fire that plumber, and rightly so.  No matter how much knowledge he has which [you do] not, [you<\/em>] ha[ve] authority to say whether his knowledge is producing the results it should.  [You are] the last word in [your] house on good and bad results\u2014not the expert. . . .  Expertise has no authority to tell flourishing it is misery, or misery that it is flourishing. To do so is a gross perversion of the sciences and an affront to human dignity.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> President Biden, Remarks by President Biden on the American Rescue Plan and Signing of Executive Orders<\/em>, White House (January 22, 2021), https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/briefing-room\/speeches-remarks\/2021\/01\/22\/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-american-rescue-plan-and-signing-of-executive-orders\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Yuval Levin, The Moral Challenge of Modern Science<\/em>, The New Atlantis (Fall 2006), https:\/\/www.thenewatlantis.com\/publications\/the-moral-challenge-of-modern-science<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, Fr. Pacholczyk, The Foxes and the Henhouse<\/em>, Catholic Sentinel (January 10, 2020), https:\/\/www.catholicsentinel.org\/PrintArticle.aspx?aid=39106&uid=f1cc63d3-cf92-4363-8b08-ccc50db8888d<\/a> (\u201ca Chinese scientist . . . employed a new technology called CRISPR\/Cas9 to produce the world\u2019s first gene-edited babies.  [He] made genetic changes to two little girls, Lulu and Nana, when they were early-stage embryos, attempting to modify a receptor for HIV to confer resistance to a possible future infection from the virus.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> See, e.g.<\/em>, George, Gnostic Liberalism<\/em>, First Things (December 2016), https:\/\/www.firstthings.com\/article\/2016\/12\/gnostic-liberalism<\/a> (Gnosticism, as \u201c[a]pplied to the human person, . . . means that the material or bodily is inferior\u2014if not a prison to escape, certainly a mere instrument to be manipulated to serve the goals of the \u2018person,\u2019 understood as the spirit or mind. . . .\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> Properly understood, Man\u2019s dominion extends to \u201call operations which he exercises by his intellect and will, by his external senses, and by his power of locomotion, for these are subject to his free will.\u201d  But it does not include dominion over his body, whose internal senses, sensitive appetite, organs, and vegetative faculties are not within his control.  Only God has independent, absolute, and universal sovereignty over all created things because He creates and sustains them in being.  See<\/em> Grenier, Thomistic Philosophy (vol 3, Moral Philosophy) 186-187 (1949), available online at<\/em> https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/HenriGrenierVol3Morals\/page\/n195\/mode\/2up<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> Heb. 11:1 (\u201cFaith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> An older, better way of knowing posits the converse: \u201cbelieving is seeing.\u201d  That is, what we believe<\/em> about the world causes what we see to take on this significance or meaning rather than another.  See, e.g.<\/em>, Fish, Why We Can\u2019t All Just Get Along<\/em>, First Things (February 1996), https:\/\/www.firstthings.com\/article\/1996\/02\/001-why-we-cant-all-just-get-along<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> See generally<\/em> MacIntyre, Dependent Rational Animals (2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> Lest anyone fall into the trap of thinking that the Enlightenment\u2014marked by its cold, calculating rationalism\u2014bears all the blame for this development, I submit that even Romanticism, which followed on its heels, is not innocent.  For what began as a no-doubt welcome aesthetic-emotional reaction ultimately fed into and re-enforced the Enlightenment-era lust for domination.  See, e.g.<\/em>, Tausz, Revolution of the Self: A Conversation with Carl Trueman<\/em>, First Things (November 25, 2020), https:\/\/www.firstthings.com\/web-exclusives\/2020\/11\/revolution-of-the-self<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Q:] You end your fourth chapter, on the nineteenth-century Romantic poets, with a provocative line: \u201cWhile he would no doubt have retched at the thought, William Wordsworth stands near the head of a path that leads to Hugh Hefner and Kim Kardashian.\u201d  What role do Blake, Shelley, and Wordsworth play in the evolution of the modern self?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[A:] In their individual ways they each hold to the notion that man is born free and yet corrupted by society and its mores and must therefore recover that inner voice of nature in order to be authentic.  And art in all of its forms\u2014poetry, painting, music\u2014is a means by which the poet can help his audience reconnect with that inner voice.  Here they touch on something very important: Aesthetic experience does shape our moral sense, how we imagine the moral order.  Today it is pop culture that shapes that moral sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Brague, Necessity of the Good<\/em>, First Things (February 2015), https:\/\/www.firstthings.com\/article\/2015\/02\/necessity-of-the-good<\/a> (\u201cToday, the dreams\u2014or nightmares\u2014of a posthuman endpoint of history are deeply rooted in the desire modern man feels to escape the passivity of his birth, . . . that [which] can\u2019t be turned into a project or enterprise, that can\u2019t be made<\/em> good.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> Salisbury, New Optimism Ignores our Potential for Catastrophe<\/em>, Palladium (November 13, 2020), https:\/\/palladiummag.com\/2020\/11\/13\/new-optimism-ignores-our-potential-for-catastrophe\/<\/a> (arguing that \u201cwhile our material well-being has generally improved, it has come at the cost of us bearing an unprecedented degree of risk that, in the extreme, threatens to unravel the entire human endeavor.\u201d  That is, Man\u2019s position is like that of Damocles: \u201cour material abundance is undermined by a sword hanging precipitously over us: a sword that is becoming increasingly detached as the day progresses.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> See<\/em> Exod. 20:1-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> See generally<\/em> https:\/\/www.humanprogress.org\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> See<\/em> Exod. 32:7-8 (\u201cWith that, the Lord said to Moses, \u2018Go down at once to your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, for they have become depraved.  They have soon turned aside from the way I pointed out to them, making for themselves a molten calf and worshiping it, sacrificing to it and crying out, \u201cThis is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!\u201d \u2019 \u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a> Marx, Theses on Feuerbach (1845), Thesis XI, available online at<\/em> https:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/marx\/works\/1845\/theses\/theses.htm<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a> Matt. 8:23-27 (\u201cThe Calming of the Storm at Sea\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/a> Gen. 3:5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/a> See<\/em> Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi<\/em> (2007) \u00a7 17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a> \u201cThe Lord God gave man this order: \u2018You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad.  From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.\u2019 \u201d (Gen. 2:16-17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/a> \u201cFor the wages of sin is death.\u201d (Rom. 6:23a).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Deion A. Kathawa* \u201cGod blessed them, saying: \u2018Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.  Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.\u2019 \u201d \u2013Gen. 1:28\u2020 \u201cFor just as in affairs of state we see a man\u2019s … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “From Steam Engines to the Singularity: How the Technological Spirit of (Classical) Liberalism Remakes Man in its Own Image”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40,"featured_media":4808,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[3,1],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/podcast.thejosias.net\/2018\/1280px-Joseph_Pennell_Making_Propeller_Blades_1917_NGA_149195.jpg?fit=1280%2C1005&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9yLvQ-1fv","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1348,"url":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/2016\/02\/08\/response-to-sanchez-on-catholic-action\/","url_meta":{"origin":4805,"position":0},"title":"Response to Sanchez on Catholic Action","date":"February 8, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"by Petrus Hispanus At\u00a0Opus Publicum, the always suggestive Gabriel S\u00e1nchez has posted a brief critique of my own brief reply to E. M. Milco's essays on liberalism (here and here). S\u00e1nchez claims I have proposed a \"deviation\" from the principles of Catholic Action, and even that I have fundamentally misunderstood\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Blogposts"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3630,"url":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/2018\/04\/11\/hard-liberalism-soft-liberalism-and-the-american-founding\/","url_meta":{"origin":4805,"position":1},"title":"Hard Liberalism, Soft Liberalism, and the American Founding","date":"April 11, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"by Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist 1. Hard Liberalism: Patrick Deneen on Thomas Hobbes In Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen identifies a double principle underlying the liberal conception of liberty: 1) an anthropological individualism and a voluntarist understanding of choice, and 2) a view of human beings as separate from and opposed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Articles"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/podcast.thejosias.net\/2018\/Screen-Shot-2018-04-11-at-15.44.14.png?fit=1200%2C935&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3760,"url":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/2018\/07\/19\/according-to-truth\/","url_meta":{"origin":4805,"position":2},"title":"\u201cAccording to Truth\u201d","date":"July 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the most curious features of life under political liberalism\u2014for present purposes, the doctrine that the central task of politics is to promote individual autonomy and to secure its preconditions\u2014is that all politics and political conversation happens at one step removed, one meta-level up. Instead of pursuing substantive excellence\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Articles"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/podcast.thejosias.net\/2018\/Idea_for_summer_parliament.jpg?fit=1200%2C955&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3678,"url":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/2018\/05\/09\/liberalisms-fear\/","url_meta":{"origin":4805,"position":3},"title":"Liberalism's Fear","date":"May 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"By Adrian Vermeule In\u00a0honor of Prof. Ryszard Legutko and his book, The Demon in Democracy,\u00a0 the\u00a0Consul-General of Poland, Maciej Golubiewski, convened an event on May 9, 2018, to address the following topic: \u201cDemocratic Reformers or Illiberal Backsliders? Poland and the challenges of sovereign politics in the West.\" Professor Vermeule has\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Blogposts"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/podcast.thejosias.net\/2018\/landsgemeinde_trogen_1814.jpg?fit=1200%2C775&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3751,"url":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/2018\/07\/14\/on-society-and-culture-the-polis-modernity-and-donars-oak\/","url_meta":{"origin":4805,"position":4},"title":"On Society and Culture: the Polis, Modernity, and Donar\u2019s Oak","date":"July 14, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"by Sean Domencic 1. Society as Polis: the Integralism of Government, Economy, and Culture How should the Church relate to society?\u00a0 This decade has seen many rejecting the status quo of our conventional approach and bringing this question to mind with new urgency. Unfortunately, much confusion is sown before the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Articles"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/podcast.thejosias.net\/2018\/Huenengrab-am-Meer.jpg?fit=1200%2C812&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":845,"url":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/2015\/05\/18\/in-dread-of-modernity-republican-liberty-and-the-common-good-in-the-american-tradition\/","url_meta":{"origin":4805,"position":5},"title":"\u2018In Dread of Modernity\u2019: Republican Liberty and the Common Good in the American Tradition","date":"May 18, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"by Felix de St. Vincent The revolutions of the 18th century appealed to ancient as well as to modern authorities. As I have argued elsewhere, the American Revolution appealed to ancient republican notions of the rule of law and the advantages of a mixed regime, and to medieval English conceptions\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Articles"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4805"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/40"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4805"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4805\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4814,"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4805\/revisions\/4814"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4808"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thejosias.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}