I hope that all of my readers had a good Easter. I also want to offer my congratulations to all those who became Catholic at the vigil. Welcome to the family!
On Saturday evening before the vigil, I was at my aunts house for supper. I visited quite a bit with all of them. At one point when almost everyone was seated in the living room with wine glasses in hand, I asked the big question: “Has anyone here ever heard of Joseph de Maistre?” Blank stares. I mentioned that he’s a leading philosopher of the counter-enlightenment. “What’s the counter-enlightenment?” I heard someone say. I mentioned that it was the school of thought that countered enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and the French Revolution. “But wasn’t the French Revolution a good thing? It gave us the separation of Church and state!”
I tend to stand out about amongst my extended family. Imagine an infidel in Mecca. That’s how I feel when I’m around them. Apart from my mom, I was the only Catholic there. They’re almost all completely secular.
However, even amongst my religious friends, none have heard of Joseph de Maistre. I recently talked about him with two Evangelical friends. One(who is extremely well read and actually knew of Maistre) said he was too extreme. The other said that she hadn’t heard of him but then actually started to read one of his books upon my insistence. She thinks that he’s too extreme but wants to discuss his philosophy the next time that we meet.
YouTuber Stefanie MacWilliams recently had a livestream Q&A. I asked if she had read anything by Joseph de Maistre. She said no and by the way she answered it was clear that she’d never even heard of him. Her answer is at 56:58.
I actually tweeted MacWilliams after the show. She seemed interested and said that she’d look into him. Btw, if you read this Stefanie – congrats on becoming Catholic this Easter!
A few months ago, I was at a Catholic event in my city and the special guest was Dr. John Rao. A very well known traditional Catholic and professor at St. John’s University. He had heard of Maistre, but no one else who was in our conversation had, including a Catholic who was a former Member of Parliament and had served in the House of Commons for 18 years. He actually talked to me as we were leaving and he told me to send him an email about Joseph de Maistre.
Why has no one heard of Joseph de Maistre or the counter-enlightenment? Well, first of all, our education system is absolute trash. The elites who control it aren’t going to advertise this brilliant man since he contradicts their leftist agenda.
The second reason is that the French Revolution and enlightenment are always talked about positively in our culture. It has become an idol. Most of the religious people I know cringe when I say this and lets not even talk about the secular people that I talk to.
At this time in history, it has never been more obvious that the French Revolution and enlightenment were a complete disaster. Sadly, most people think that it’s the best there is so we have to make the most of it. It’s not the best; it’s not even close and Maistre is excellent proof.
The top scholar on Maistre is Isaiah Berlin. He understood that Maistre’s foundation was rooted in a firm understanding of the doctrine of Original Sin; a doctrine that most Catholics begrudgingly accept if they even accept it at all. When writing about the views of Maistre with regards to Original Sin, Berlin brilliantly writes:
Man is by nature vicious, wicked, cowardly and bad. What the Roman Church says, what Christianity says, about original guilt, original sin, is the truest psychological insight into human nature. Left alone, human beings will tear each other to pieces. Here Maistre is completely opposed to his time: he regards human beings, unless clamped with iron rings and held down by means of the most rigid discipline, as likely to destroy themselves. He regards human nature as fundamentally self-annihilating, and needing above all to be curbed and controlled. The only thing which is reliable, the only thing which is dependable, is not man-made; for if it is man-made it can equally be unmade by man.
I once heard a Catholic apologist say that Original Sin is the easiest doctrine of the Church to prove since you don’t have to look to Scripture or tradition, but only to the human nature in front of us. Maistre knew that and that is why his insights are second to none.
One of my goals in my apologetics is to promote the writings of Maistre and other works of the counter-enlightenment. They’re important. Voltaire and the enlightenment have had so much free advertising that it’s simply depressing. Almost no one has heard of the counter-enlightenment. The voice of Joseph de Maistre needs to be heard.
We are all attached to the throne of the Supreme Being by a supple chain that restrains us without enslaving us. Nothing is more admirable in the universal order of things than the action of free beings under the divine hand. Freely slaves, they act voluntarily and necessarily at the same time; they really do what they will, but without being able to disturb the general plans. Each of these beings occupies the centre of a sphere of activity whose diameter varies according to the will of the Eternal Geometer, who can extend, restrict, check, or direct the will without altering its nature.
– Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France
Happy Easter.
Happy Easter Christopher! He is risen!
I haven’t heard much of de Maistre or other counter-enlightenment thinkers of his time. I’ve heard a little more about the Thomistic revival of the 19th and early 20th centuries that can be considered counter-enlightenment. Unfortunately, that movement was late to the game compared to de Maistre. However, there was a systematic anti-enlightenment treatment of philosophy in those days in the Church.
On a related note, the Josias website is a wonderful current source on political philosophy that completely rejects the Enlightenment.
https://thejosias.com/
Hi Chris,
Good hearing from you. I hope that you had a blessed Easter. Yes, the Neo-Thomism in the later 19th and early 20th was good. I assume that you’re referring to Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and others. I suppose that’s more religious philosophy whereas Maistre is political philosophy. However, its certainly tied to religion. Other counter-enlightenment philosophers are good as well such a Louis de Bonald, and Rene de Chateaubriand. Happy reading!
Btw that website is impressive. I’ll definitely being going there more often going forward.
Another example is Cardinal Zigliara. The Josias has translated a few short articles of his related to politics. You should give them a read. They’re in the style of the old theology manuals (fittingly, since he wrote in that time), and they pack a punch!
A Happy Easter to you!
I’ve actually seen that, in some circles, familiarity with the work of Joseph de Maistre is growing, especially amongst former alt-right types who have seen the intellectual and spiritual vacuity of their position. So take heart!
That’s encouraging! It’s also encouraging to hear about former alt-righters going in the right direction.
If I were to suggest a Dawah strategy, I would emphasize the lack of original sin in Islam (and it would contrast it with Christianity). That was perhaps the first thing that I learned last year that gravitated me towards the deen. It would appeal to the more humanistic side of people, who have some faith in human goodness, and who no longer want to be cynical and nihilistic.
Now, what did de Maistre say about Cardinal Richelieu? Did he extol him as a great statesman who advanced the interest of France and maintained the unity of the French crown, or did he see him as a man who betrayed the Vatican for nationalistic power?
Hi Latias,
If you used a lack of Original Sin as a dawah strategy for Islam, I’m not too sure it would work. First of all, the ones who don’t know how to defend it probably don’t know what it is in the first place and they’d be genuinely confused. The ones who believe in the doctrine, know it well and would be tough to convert. I actually love this doctrine and think it explains more about human nature than any psychology or sociology textbook ever could. However, I’ll admit that a girl I follow on Twitter who’s been Catholic for less than a year(convert from Evangelicalism) really struggles with this doctrine.
Regarding Richelieu, he does bring him up in Considerations of France. In the last chapter of the book, he goes through the writings of your buddy David Hume on the French Revolution. Here’s the quote from Hume about Richelieu that Maistre uses:
“Richelieu was first minister in France. His emissaries had furnished fuel to the flame of rebellion when it first broke out, but after the conflagration had diffused itself, the French court, observing the materials to be of themselves sufficiently combustible, found it unnecessary any longer to animate the British malcontents to an opposition to their sovereign. On the contrary, they offered their mediation for composing the internal disorders; and their ambassadors, from decency, pretended to act in concert with the court of England in exile.”
He uses this quote with approval. I’m afraid that’s all that I’ve seen him write on Richelieu, so not a lot. I’m binging his writings right now so there may be more but that’s all I know of for now. I’ll let you know if something else comes up.
God Bless,
Allan
In practice, even if there were no Original Sin, what human could possibly get through life never intentionally sinning?
Even in Islam, no one has a guarantee of being saved (except through death in jihad or death by stomach disease) – not even Mohammad himself, whose list of good deeds surely outweighed his list of bad deeds according to Muslims.