Physics and History

From Sunday's New York Times Magazine (3/11/07): an article on developments in astronomy. It looks like our physicists are saying that in addition to black matter, there is something called black energy. It is not observable through any of the five senses, and yet we know it through its effects. It looks like physics is finally catching up with the principles of aether, as laid out by Plato,... to Aquinas. How Medieval! Maybe now we can celebrate things that are medieval rather than always decrying them. Physics, like history, can be a matter of using concepts to explain facts, sometimes knowing that the concepts, like gravity, might have many problems to their use.

Also, a book review by Tony Judt on the history of the 20th century. This particular book tried to incorporate the Church into history. In Judt's eyes, the particular historian comes off as snide, and perhaps hiding some of the facts. For example, Judt points out that some German Bishops might have been more complicit than others in Germany. Of course, Judt himself does not mention the Archbishop of Muenster, who spoke out openly and against the Nazis before, during, and after the war. My point, instead of hiding facts or being snide, we should attempt to state the facts as they were. So, at least as far as the spirit of the issue, Judt is right. If a Bishop capitulated with the Nazis or the Commies, it is a fact that we should establish or not. At the same time, one Bishop or group of Bishops acting one way or another is not necessarily an indictment on all religion.

Rival Political Scientists: Adams and Condorcet

In 1787 and 1788, Condorcet and Adams would prove themselves to be rivals in attempting to influence the overall orientation of the coming revolution. One author has identified them as two Newtonian physicists arguing over the best way to turn government into a science. Condorcet used the method of strict mathematics. Adams employed weights and measures. Condorcet sought to replace history and philosophy with the science of enlightenment. Adams thought that history and philosophy led man to the science of enlightenment. Condorcet, along with Turgot, took one powerful national legislature to be the ideal form of government to replace a powerful king. Adams thought such a legislature would be given over too readily to the interests of the wealthy and the powerful. Better, he thought, to grant something like a senate or house of lords to the powerful and wealthy, so that their influence could be felt and then checked (Thompson, 368-375).

Principle, History, and Tradition

What distinguishes Burke & Adams on the one hand, from Pius VI, on the other, is the commitment to a robust principles of the moral order.

Pius VI saw the destructive effects of all revolutions. Burke and Adams wanted to be conservative revolutionaries. They wanted revolution, but without the radicals, especially the relativisti or hedonistic radicals. Thus, for a time, conservative and liberal revolutionaries will unite to undo the old order. The conservatives hope that their good intentions will enable them to preserve what is good from history and tradition, without giving in to the excesses of the radicals. The radicals can respond: we have drawn the line here, why not take it one step further? Unless the conservatives renounce the revolutionary ideal, they will have difficulty responding.

This is the ambiguity that persists in conservatism this day. They want tradition and history, but lack solid commitment to principle, in deed and in truth.