Most people like and admire Prof. Scruton, even those who disagree with him. He seems harmless enough. They fail to appreciate the revolutionary conclusions to be drawn from his talks. He speaks from first principles (few public speakers do) and follows a rigorously logical train of thought to surprising conclusions. For example, here he begins by speaking of the familiar dynamic between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. They are necessary to each other and always in tension. So far, so good. Then, he takes the further step of arguing, "Thinking is one of the things that separates people from each other. The more you think ... the more separate you feel." Meaning, of course, that thinking is the very opposite of orthodoxy and is, therefore, subversive in itself. Which leads to the perfectly logical conclusion that there is an aristocracy of mind (not of education, but of intellect and wisdom, since education does not necessarily confer either). That is, some people are naturally superior in mind to others. Perfectly obvious and logically true. But if that premise is true, then some discrimination on the basis of intellectual merit is not only defensible, but inevitable, or even desirable. Which is, of course, completely contrary to modern notions of diversity, i.e., putting a thumb on the scale of justice to reward inferior achievement by mandating equal outcomes. This video illustrates why the Academy fears and even disparages Sir Roger -- he unmasks the pretensions of academic orthodoxies and the illogical ground on which they rest. Those, like me, who still believe in the virtue of reason, mourn his passing. There are too few like him.
Thanks Gary for your analysis and contribution which I value and respect . I’d would like to question your sense or use of ‘some are naturally superior in mind ‘while agreeing with your nuanced ‘aristocracy of mind .’ Surely greatness of mind is something achieved by way of both consistent actions and developed and lived thought and reflection . Yes some are most worthy of listening carefully too and seeking to learn from , but behind this hierarchy of worth and intelligence there has been effort and application and the grasping of opportunity , even proactively building helpful conditions .
What you say makes sense. But this same line of reasoning has been used to devastating effect in the Indian subcontinent - by claiming that the lower castes are inherently (by birth unworthy) inferior. To be unable to see the consequence of this line of reasoning is probably lethal to all those (the majority) who are not "meritorious".
@@yvonnecharsley297 They have recently spoken together at Cambridge on the topic 'Apprehending the Transcendent'. The video is available on CZcams (video XvbtKAYdcZY).
Sir Roger Scruton will now be listened to as he rests in well earned peace. The thing is, that folks arrive on stage as, and where needed, called forth by the necessities and contingencies of the zeitgeist as it were. They form up and are formed up by the intersection of their need and our need. He had no idea that this would be his life and we had no idea that the West would fall on its face and need someone to remind us of its goodness, its beauty and its truth. Each in their own way will find the narrow path forward and most will languish in the darkness of ignorance, for that is the way. There are folk to carry the torch and each will in their own way, but its a lonely and thankless task and is beset with condemnation and the scorn of bitter, resentful and envious folk from the left who regard themselves, each a high priest or priestess and each idolising their pulp opinion. I pray that Truth and Beauty and Goodness, call each and everyone of us appreciators forth, and we smile as reason guides our steps and holds them to the slippery rocks, of a path seldom travelled.
George that's a completely useless and infantile observation, which suggests the whole idea of individualism is lost on a small mind. By the way, Jesus wasn't a white man...
right yes we were a hideous people and once we were brainwashed into thinking that a jew walked on water then we started to allow the beauty within us to come forth, or is your contention that all humans are blank slates until we are socialised by these myths?
Just 1500 years ago, Northern and Western Europeans were contributing nothing at all to civilization other than destroying the Roman Empire and ushering in the Dark Ages, which only ended with the Crusades (around 1100 AD, long after the barbarians' initial contact with Christianity) when the Western Europeans rediscovered ancient Greek learning from the Byzantine East and Indian mathematics from the Arabs.
Exposed, as most of us have been, to the dominant liberal narrative in the media, and the Marxist analysis in academia, Roger Scruton's insights come both as a revelation and a relief. We need to hear more of these ideas, but sadly there seems to be nobody of his stature willing to defend conservative philosophy with similar courage and clarity.
Roger: One of the finest lecturers in the world leading step by step through logical reasoning with clear real world examples how liberty of thought came to be and why it should continue. It pains me greatly he died yesterday of cancer.
The point he makes towards the end about how nonsense written down becomes a well of ‘scholarship’ to draw upon and add authenticity to the adherents of nonsense is astute.
Brilliant. Spot on. We have lost all ability to engage in respectful discourse on... basically... everything. There is also a wholesale loss of critical thinking as everything has become politicized.
Roger rightly claims Christ's approval for Common Law rather than religious law by his recorded statement of "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's". He was saying "I don't bring anarchy, but knowledge of a relationship between man/woman and God". And he only showed anger and outrage when God was used for personal and political gain as in the temple court yard and in underpinning Pharisaical power. He saw that humans could never interpret God's Law of Grace without usurping its influence.
“Christians readily submit themselves to be governed by the Sword, they pay taxes, honor those in authority, serve to help them,… so that honor and fear of authority may be maintained.” -- Martin Luther (1483-1546), “On Secular Authority”, sec. 5
At 32:00 min. or so he says that the conservatives survived in Poland in the universities because the communists were everywhere else. Can someone explain this to me? And the Church?
33:23 I've heard him say this before. "Professors in Poland were exclusively on the right - because communists were everywhere" On the face of it, there is no sense in this assertion. What am I missing?
as a rule, when you taught at a university in Poland in those days you had to pledge allegiance, to the commies, of course; If you didn't you had problems; There were as usual many primitive arseholes who made their careers by joining the socialist party, but there were also many others, perhaps the majority, who (secretly, or half-secretly) hated the regime and tried to stay afloat by not engaging too much with the dominant ideology. It wasn't easy. I guess what he means is that when he stayed in Poland he got a chance to meet those usually much more clever guys who preferred Poland to be Polish, and not sovietized. This is at least my impression of studying in that country in that shitty period. You have to know that there were many snitches among students, and teachers as well, who eagerly informed on others to help their careers. So one had to be very careful what one said, and it wasn't always easy since vodka was the only freeing agent available in those days.
@@iga279 Its a very interesting insight and I thank you for the reply. The broader point still remains with some slight ambiguity to me for some reason. It reminds me of a similar thing you hear from professors: starting a sentence with "of course" usually is indication of some hard-earned insight, that is being underplayed. But here, it seems to indicate a kind of expectation of communal faith in the institution of professorship. Its not a faith I share, in contemporary academia in the West for instance. I'm not sure whether you have a view on this?
Where identity politics has successfully made people interpret all debate as a personal attack on who they are, the first thing to be established is the premise that this about ideas or even ideology
“...the payment of tribute unto Caesar being made Emperor is the plain law of Jesus Christ…. So God doth ratify the works of that Sovereign authority which Kings have received by men.” -- Richard Hooker (1554-1600), “Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity”, chapter 3, sec. 1
I would have liked to hear what RS had to say about the relationship between English Common Law and the system of Judgeship pertaining in Israel until rejected in favour of the subsequent monarchy. As for 'rendering unto Caesar ... ' surely this was a joke since even Caesar doesn't belong to Caesar because everything necessarily belongs to God. I was deprived of freedom of association at school in the fifties and of freedom of speech at university in the sixties. I wasn't even allowed to associate with my own brother and I wasn't even allowed to mention the word homosexuality in a sociology tutorial. I would love to hear RS's comments on that.
“Peter demands more of us than this (1 Peter 2:17) when he commands us to honor the king; and so does Solomon (Proverbs 24:21) when he commands us to fear God and the king.” -- John Calvin (1509-1564), “Institution of the Christian Religion”, Book IV, chapter 20, “On Civil Government”, sec. 22
Scruton says at 17:15 that "for conservatives, politics exists in order to maintain peace and the rule of law and permit civil society to develop, grow and flourish according to its own natural logic." Such a view of politics assumes that there is a natural harmony among all the members of civil society - but, in fact, no such natural harmony exists. Class conflict is essential to understanding politics and always has been, from the time of Plato to the present day. The rule of law is merely the rule of the stronger as Thrasymachus argued in Plato's Republic. Under liberal democracy, the rule of law is just the rule of the stronger applied universally and equally to all members of society. But look behind the law to the class interests that underlie it and you will see that it is still the rule of the stronger.
+Steven Yourke He addresses this in the last few minutes of his lecture when discussing Foucault ; that the first thing to find out is the underlying power structure.
To say it's wrong is not just to say it's against the law. There can be bad laws which prohibit what isn't wrong - like a law against criticizing the government.
@Steven Yourke, Justice is distinct of legal positivism you are referring to. Powers and rights have always had this conflict through the ages: rights can be endorsed only in name of Justice, powers can be endorsed come what may. Plato's The Republic (380 BC) begins with its argument for reducing rights to powers, that's true, whereas Locke's Second Treatise of Government revolves around the concept of natural rights, which cannot be violated even by the coercing government that claims its dominion on its citizens without a certain moral justification.
@tincoffin, in Book I of The Republic, Thrasymachos, argues that each regime lays down the laws with a view to its own preservation and well- being, in a word, to its own advantage and to nothing else. From this it follows that obedience to the laws or justice is not necessarily advantageous to the ruled and may even be bad for them. And as for the rulers, justice simply does not exist: they lay down the laws with exclusive concern for their own advantage.
@@timstanford995 Depends what you mean by better. Scruton's better would be more landed gentry. Indeed that is what has happened so I guess, Tim, you are right on that account.
Most people like and admire Prof. Scruton, even those who disagree with him. He seems harmless enough. They fail to appreciate the revolutionary conclusions to be drawn from his talks. He speaks from first principles (few public speakers do) and follows a rigorously logical train of thought to surprising conclusions.
For example, here he begins by speaking of the familiar dynamic between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. They are necessary to each other and always in tension. So far, so good. Then, he takes the further step of arguing, "Thinking is one of the things that separates people from each other. The more you think ... the more separate you feel." Meaning, of course, that thinking is the very opposite of orthodoxy and is, therefore, subversive in itself. Which leads to the perfectly logical conclusion that there is an aristocracy of mind (not of education, but of intellect and wisdom, since education does not necessarily confer either). That is, some people are naturally superior in mind to others. Perfectly obvious and logically true. But if that premise is true, then some discrimination on the basis of intellectual merit is not only defensible, but inevitable, or even desirable. Which is, of course, completely contrary to modern notions of diversity, i.e., putting a thumb on the scale of justice to reward inferior achievement by mandating equal outcomes.
This video illustrates why the Academy fears and even disparages Sir Roger -- he unmasks the pretensions of academic orthodoxies and the illogical ground on which they rest. Those, like me, who still believe in the virtue of reason, mourn his passing. There are too few like him.
Thanks Gary for your analysis and contribution which I value and respect . I’d would like to question your sense or use of ‘some are naturally superior in mind ‘while agreeing with your nuanced ‘aristocracy of mind .’ Surely greatness of mind is something achieved by way of both consistent actions and developed and lived thought and reflection . Yes some are most worthy of listening carefully too and seeking to learn from , but behind this hierarchy of worth and intelligence there has been effort and application and the grasping of opportunity , even proactively building helpful conditions .
9
What you say makes sense. But this same line of reasoning has been used to devastating effect in the Indian subcontinent - by claiming that the lower castes are inherently (by birth unworthy) inferior. To be unable to see the consequence of this line of reasoning is probably lethal to all those (the majority) who are not "meritorious".
Professor Scruton is a rare gem amongst the general academic dross, and I'm sadly aware of no serious heir to him either.
He has some serious hair though :D
Jordan B Peterson?
Dr. Jordan Peterson is also very interesting, different approach but he's a good egg.
Give me time, fighting my way through the academy as we speak. ;)
@@yvonnecharsley297 They have recently spoken together at Cambridge on the topic 'Apprehending the Transcendent'. The video is available on CZcams (video XvbtKAYdcZY).
Sir Roger Scruton will now be listened to as he rests in well earned peace.
The thing is, that folks arrive on stage as, and where needed, called forth by the necessities and contingencies of the zeitgeist as it were.
They form up and are formed up by the intersection of their need and our need.
He had no idea that this would be his life and we had no idea that the West would fall on its face and need someone to remind us of its goodness, its beauty and its truth.
Each in their own way will find the narrow path forward and most will languish in the darkness of ignorance, for that is the way.
There are folk to carry the torch and each will in their own way, but its a lonely and thankless task and is beset with condemnation and the scorn of bitter, resentful and envious folk from the left who regard themselves, each a high priest or priestess and each idolising their pulp opinion.
I pray that Truth and Beauty and Goodness, call each and everyone of us appreciators forth, and we smile as reason guides our steps and holds them to the slippery rocks, of a path seldom travelled.
Characteristically stimulating and thought-provoking talk by Professor Scruton.
George that's a completely useless and infantile observation, which suggests the whole idea of individualism is lost on a small mind. By the way, Jesus wasn't a white man...
Christianity has nothing to do with the beauty of Europeans, it and other desert myths set their wills against us
right yes we were a hideous people and once we were brainwashed into thinking that a jew walked on water then we started to allow the beauty within us to come forth, or is your contention that all humans are blank slates until we are socialised by these myths?
Just 1500 years ago, Northern and Western Europeans were contributing nothing at all to civilization other than destroying the Roman Empire and ushering in the Dark Ages, which only ended with the Crusades (around 1100 AD, long after the barbarians' initial contact with Christianity) when the Western Europeans rediscovered ancient Greek learning from the Byzantine East and Indian mathematics from the Arabs.
The Amarican-----Europeans invented pornography? I think you might need to double check that one.
the only free spirit I have heard for a long time. Rest in Peace , too bad you are gone!
Exposed, as most of us have been, to the dominant liberal narrative in the media, and the Marxist analysis in academia, Roger Scruton's insights come both as a revelation and a relief. We need to hear more of these ideas, but sadly there seems to be nobody of his stature willing to defend conservative philosophy with similar courage and clarity.
Dear Imanemore - with respect this now has to be your challenge and responsibility - all good wishes Sumana
Roger: One of the finest lecturers in the world leading step by step through logical reasoning with clear real world examples how liberty of thought came to be and why it should continue. It pains me greatly he died yesterday of cancer.
Thank You, sir!
Scruton has to be so smart to eliminate criticisms from all the Orthodox Academics.
I enjoyed this talk!
The point he makes towards the end about how nonsense written down becomes a well of ‘scholarship’ to draw upon and add authenticity to the adherents of nonsense is astute.
Brilliant. Spot on. We have lost all ability to engage in respectful discourse on... basically... everything. There is also a wholesale loss of critical thinking as everything has become politicized.
RIP to a brilliant mind
Excellent talk
Absolutely phenomenal! ❤
Why don't our teachers teach us about the Common Law in schools? Do they even know the basis for it?
Royston E. Smythe
they don't teach it because they have utterly no idea about it.
Scruton lives.
Excellent
Roger rightly claims Christ's approval for Common Law rather than religious law by his recorded statement of "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's". He was saying "I don't bring anarchy, but knowledge of a relationship between man/woman and God". And he only showed anger and outrage when God was used for personal and political gain as in the temple court yard and in underpinning Pharisaical power. He saw that humans could never interpret God's Law of Grace without usurping its influence.
“My kingdom is not of this world . . .”
“Christians readily submit themselves to be governed by the Sword, they pay taxes, honor those in authority, serve to help them,… so that honor and fear of authority may be maintained.”
-- Martin Luther (1483-1546), “On Secular Authority”, sec. 5
Brilliant
At 32:00 min. or so he says that the conservatives survived in Poland in the universities because the communists were everywhere else. Can someone explain this to me? And the Church?
21:27 ... EXACTLY .
This is a great talk. I just wonder what he means by the Anglosphere, first time I hear of this term.
I understand it to be the nations founded by British settlers and convicts whose descendants are the majority stake holders in those countries.
@@Ariannaishun Thank you! Yes, I did get to make some quick searches online and agree with how your statement.
The Anglosphere is quite simply all the countries that speak predominately the English language : Britain, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
33:23 I've heard him say this before. "Professors in Poland were exclusively on the right - because communists were everywhere" On the face of it, there is no sense in this assertion. What am I missing?
as a rule, when you taught at a university in Poland in those days you had to pledge allegiance, to the commies, of course; If you didn't you had problems; There were as usual many primitive arseholes who made their careers by joining the socialist party, but there were also many others, perhaps the majority, who (secretly, or half-secretly) hated the regime and tried to stay afloat by not engaging too much with the dominant ideology. It wasn't easy. I guess what he means is that when he stayed in Poland he got a chance to meet those usually much more clever guys who preferred Poland to be Polish, and not sovietized. This is at least my impression of studying in that country in that shitty period. You have to know that there were many snitches among students, and teachers as well, who eagerly informed on others to help their careers. So one had to be very careful what one said, and it wasn't always easy since vodka was the only freeing agent available in those days.
@@iga279 Its a very interesting insight and I thank you for the reply. The broader point still remains with some slight ambiguity to me for some reason.
It reminds me of a similar thing you hear from professors: starting a sentence with "of course" usually is indication of some hard-earned insight, that is being underplayed.
But here, it seems to indicate a kind of expectation of communal faith in the institution of professorship. Its not a faith I share, in contemporary academia in the West for instance.
I'm not sure whether you have a view on this?
Where identity politics has successfully made people interpret all debate as a personal attack on who they are, the first thing to be established is the premise that this about ideas or even ideology
“...the payment of tribute unto Caesar being made Emperor is the plain law of Jesus Christ…. So God doth ratify the works of that Sovereign authority which Kings have received by men.”
-- Richard Hooker (1554-1600), “Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity”, chapter 3, sec. 1
It's that bloody woman again! Laura Biding - she pops up everywhere!
I would have liked to hear what RS had to say about the relationship between English Common Law and the system of Judgeship pertaining in Israel until rejected in favour of the subsequent monarchy. As for 'rendering unto Caesar ... ' surely this was a joke since even Caesar doesn't belong to Caesar because everything necessarily belongs to God. I was deprived of freedom of association at school in the fifties and of freedom of speech at university in the sixties. I wasn't even allowed to associate with my own brother and I wasn't even allowed to mention the word homosexuality in a sociology tutorial. I would love to hear RS's comments on that.
Who is the Janet he mentions 10-11 minutes in? Not Janet Daley again, surely? Come now, this isn't the Moral maze, heh..
Janet Albrechtsen....columnist.
“Peter demands more of us than this (1 Peter 2:17) when he commands us to honor the king; and so does Solomon (Proverbs 24:21) when he commands us to fear God and the king.”
-- John Calvin (1509-1564), “Institution of the Christian Religion”, Book IV, chapter 20, “On Civil Government”, sec. 22
Test
Scruton says at 17:15 that "for conservatives, politics exists in order to maintain peace and the rule of law and permit civil society to develop, grow and flourish according to its own natural logic." Such a view of politics assumes that there is a natural harmony among all the members of civil society - but, in fact, no such natural harmony exists. Class conflict is essential to understanding politics and always has been, from the time of Plato to the present day. The rule of law is merely the rule of the stronger as Thrasymachus argued in Plato's Republic. Under liberal democracy, the rule of law is just the rule of the stronger applied universally and equally to all members of society. But look behind the law to the class interests that underlie it and you will see that it is still the rule of the stronger.
+Steven Yourke He addresses this in the last few minutes of his lecture when discussing Foucault ; that the first thing to find out is the underlying power structure.
To say it's wrong is not just to say it's against the law. There can be bad laws which prohibit what isn't wrong - like a law against criticizing the government.
@Steven Yourke, Justice is distinct of legal positivism you are referring to. Powers and rights have always had this conflict through the ages: rights can be endorsed only in name of Justice, powers can be endorsed come what may. Plato's The Republic (380 BC) begins with its argument for reducing rights to powers, that's true, whereas Locke's Second Treatise of Government revolves around the concept of natural rights, which cannot be violated even by the coercing government that claims its dominion on its citizens without a certain moral justification.
+kotomo1 Could you explain what is meant by 'reducing rights to powers ' if possible .Thanks
@tincoffin, in Book I of The Republic, Thrasymachos, argues that each regime lays down the laws with a view to its own preservation and well- being, in a word, to its own advantage and to nothing else. From this it follows that obedience to the laws or justice is not necessarily advantageous to the ruled and may even be bad for them. And as for the rulers, justice simply does not exist: they lay down the laws with exclusive concern for their own advantage.
Who cuts his hair?
Someone awesome.
It is a common law haircut growing vigorously from below without any attempt to impose order from above :)
lucas adams Boris Johnson
@@tincoffin Haha :) Excellent!
@@tincoffin So true
What an audience: dozens of the UK's privileged.
The IPA is an Australian Institute and the speech was delivered in Melbourne.
And sorry, Roman Law came way before the French Revolution. It’s a marvel of civilization, handed down throughout millennia...Scruton is so wrong!
Conservative ideas at their worst. Is he not aware that over time and history, things, society for example, change?
But most of tims, not for the better.
@@timstanford995 Depends what you mean by better. Scruton's better would be more landed gentry. Indeed that is what has happened so I guess, Tim, you are right on that account.
I think Mr. Scruton was fully aware of that basic idea
The useful detail gergely unfasten because wolf formerly dry underneath a trashy frog. condemned, thoughtless cardigan