IV. The Tradition’s Failure to Fight
If the Enlightenment’s intellectuals were not fools, traditional philosophy’s defenders were not stupid. Many of them recognized the threat and attempted to respond. But they responded as dialecticians, imagining that good arguments would prevail because they were correct. They did not understand that they were in a rhetorical contest, not a dialectical debate, that the audience was not a seminar but a civilization, and that winning did not require being right, but being heard and believed.
The first failure was accepting the hostile framing. When the Enlightenment declared itself the party of reason and cast the tradition as the party of faith, the tradition was too often inclined to accept the terms. Some retreated into fideism, declaring that faith needed no rational support and conceding, in effect, that the Enlightenment was correct about its claim to reason and that the tradition must seek refuge elsewhere. Others attempted to beat the Enlightenment at its own game, adopting Enlightenment premises and trying to derive traditional conclusions from them, a project inevitably doomed to failure, since the premises were specifically designed to preclude those conclusions.
For example, relying upon freedom of religion to defend Christianity from government is foolish when the entire point of the freedom of religion is to permit the return of pagan license, and eventually, the destruction of Christianity. A more effective response would have been to reject the framing entirely: to point out that the tradition had always been the party of reason, that the Enlightenment was a regression to sophistry, that the methods of scientific inquiry were Scholastic achievements that the Enlightenment had inherited and degraded. This response was rarely, if ever, made.
The second failure was speaking over the heads of the public. The tradition’s arguments were technically sophisticated and expressed in an academic vocabulary developed over centuries for precision and nuance. This vocabulary was inaccessible to the educated layman, who heard it as meaningless jargon, impressive perhaps, but entirely opaque. The Enlightenment, by contrast, wrote for the public: clear prose, memorable phrases, accessible arguments. Voltaire’s quips reached a larger audience than could any Summa. The tradition had truth at its disposal; the Enlightenment had publicity.
The third failure was striking a defensive posture instead of attacking the Enlightenment’s obvious fragilities. The tradition’s posture was consistently reactive. Its defenders respondedto Enlightenment challenges, defended traditional positions, and attempted to shore up what was being undermined. This ceded the initiative entirely. The Enlightenment set the agenda and the tradition dutifully responded to it. But the Enlightenment’s premises were far more vulnerable than the tradition’s. The social contract was a complete fiction. The invisible hand was a metaphor mistaken for a mechanism. Autonomous reason was observably self-refuting. The tradition could have attacked. The Scholastics could have put the Enlightenment on the defensive, demanded justification for its premises, and exposed the gaps between its rhetoric and its substance. This approach was seldom pursued.
The fourth and the most consequential failure was never calling the Enlightenment’s bluff. The Enlightenment claimed the authority of reason, mathematics, and empirical science, but these claims were fraudulent. The Enlightenment’s publicists did not do the math, did not follow the logic, and did not submit any evidence. The tradition could have demanded accountability. But the demand was seldom made, and was never pressed with sufficient force. The philosophers’ bluff was never exposed, and before long, their fraudulent claims became accepted truths and settled science.
