“ an unconstrained vision when it comes to the power and majesty of God's plan for his children.”
So, depending on what you mean by that, I still think it could fall under the constrained vision. Many religious people are constrained thinkers, in that they hold an unconstrained view of God (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.) but don’t think that human beings, human societies, human institutions, or human technologies can be like God in that way. I’m deeply skeptical of human attempts to achieve the things which only God can do, which are misguided at best and idolatrous at worst.
“ Man cannot perfect himself... Virtuous society and the perfectibility of man rely upon the ends of government being nothing more and nothing less than establishing the sovereignty and liberty of free people. Only then can the spirit of God act upon men uninhibited and unfettered. Only then can men be free to act according to the dictates of their conscience and freely choose the unique paths God has prepared for them.“
That strikes me as still very much a constrained view, not a hybrid of the two. You still believe in constrained means to the end of a virtuous society. I believe Sowell says that the two visions are primarily just visions of social organization, and don’t necessarily apply to theology or other realms.
Do you believe that we can identify individuals or institutions (governments, churches), which are far enough along in being perfected that they are capable of ruling over those who are not so far along? I’m not sure where you are in the book, but that would be an unconstrained view of inequality between individuals vs. a rough equality in the constrained view (ie we’re all limited and flawed and imperfect).
The reason I wrote my thoughts in the terms of being constrained one way and unconstrained in the other way is largely predicated upon Sowell's own established dichotomy around the notion of the "perfectibility of man."
My personal faith (Latter-day Saint) has a very expansive view of the power of the atonement compared to other Christian denominations, in that we view access to the atonement as preceding in several layers, not only for, first, a remission of sins (redemption) but also through a steady perfection of virtues as we become more and more aligned with God's will, taking upon ourselves not only Christ's name but His own attributes. Thus, theologically, I hold a view that human nature is perfectible rather than set, which Sowell considers an unconstrained view of human nature.
But, as Sowell himself confessed, he wrote of the dichotomy between constrained and unconstrained to demonstrate the typical conflict of visions in political thought and government and that it is not a perfect dichotomy. I think you're right that, in viewing my understanding of human nature as, indeed, unchangeable independent of God's grace that I still hold a very constrained view in a certain sense.
On the subject of departures from Sowell, I also find myself somewhat disagreeing with his characterization of the restrained vision being built predominantly on prescription while those who value and apply the use of reason and theory as belonging to the unrestrained vision. I think this view both ignores the strengths of the Straussian project, with a focus on political theory and constitutionalism derived from perusing and considering the great books and the great ideas of Western civilization, as well as a lot of the realities of the founding era. I think the application of reason falls into constrained or unconstrained based on, well, the vision and understanding of human nature upon which rational inquiry is predicated, and I don't think reason necessarily falls clearly into constrained or unconstrained automatically.
If I was born in North Korea and managed to develop the views I have today on government and political theory, I would be a radical pushing back against the strictures of my society's prescription and tradition in the most absolute way and my efforts would be predicated upon a study of history and the application of reason in determining the broader truths of human nature and human civilization, a consideration I would have had to embark upon outside of the culture of my country and against, criminally so, the established and enforced conventions of the state. Would I be operating from an unconstrained vision because my worldview was built on rational sources from outside my country's traditions rather than the prescription of my immediate political culture, would I be operating from an unconstrained vision because the demands of my reason would be revolution and resistance to the established order of things, would I be operating from an unconstrained vision because I believed applying reason toward the construction of a new status quo, a new form of government, a new social order would better my country and provide better lives for my countrymen? No, I would still be a constrained thinker because the status quo I would be revolting against is built on an unconstrained view of human nature and an unconstrained form of government and my application of reason led me to learn of and embrace the constrained views of political thinkers and leaders across the ages, outside my own personal experience and opposing the prescriptions and traditions of my own country, yes, but nevertheless demonstrated to be true through the application of reason and logic in their defense and through observation of broader world history.
The American founding is another demonstration of this point. Yes, as I myself have argued, the American Revolution was uniquely a conservative revolution in that it was King George III and Parliament who radically disrupted the status quo with the early patriots merely responding to challenges upon the arrangement of their migration to the world as they understood it. However, the free society built upon the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was not built solely upon prescription, upon the happy accidents of the invisible hand or solely by the providence of God. The new nation adopted a wholly new form of government never before seen in history, largely built from scratch by deep thinkers and philosophers in the heat of Independence Hall. The crafting of the US Constitution, specifically, was perhaps one of the mostly deeply philosophical considerations of the realities and history of government ever embarked upon, and its provisions are the result of reason through a survey of history and the practical demonstrated realities of government across many, many societies. The American Republic did not come about through steady evolution from colonies to states, it was forged through strength of will on the battlefield and in the minds of philosopher-statesmen who took the most heavy hand in the application of reason and logic in crafting the parameters of a wholly new republic..
It is in the realm of political theory and constitutionalism, rather than practical politics, that I think Sowell goes to far in how he establishes his dichotomy. In order for prescription to work as he and Burke suggest it can, society must be constituted in certain ways with its conventions and traditions built upon certain political theories. Burke's prescription worked in England because it was a country constituted on the provisions and theories of Locke, with traditions already in placed that owed reverence to the ideals and values of a liberal social and governing order. In other words, political theory must be established and then applied to the constitution, whether written or unwritten, of the state in order to safeguard a sphere of life wherein prescription can be unfettered to operate beneficially. And how else can political theory be established, how else can constitutions come into being if not by the application of reason in the discovery of the truths of human nature and the realities of government? The real question is whether the application of reason is built on a constrained or unconstrained view, not whether reason is the predominant form of inquiry over prescription.
“ I think this view both ignores the strengths of the Straussian project, with a focus on political theory and constitutionalism derived from perusing and considering the great books and the great ideas of Western civilization, as well as a lot of the realities of the founding era. I think the application of reason falls into constrained or unconstrained based on, well, the vision and understanding of human nature upon which rational inquiry is predicated, and I don't think reason necessarily falls clearly into constrained or unconstrained automatically.”
That makes a lot of sense. Perhaps it would make more sense to speak of rationalism on the one hand (unconstrained view of reason) and a limited or skeptical application of reason on the other (constrained view of reason).
“ The crafting of the US Constitution, specifically, was perhaps one of the mostly deeply philosophical considerations of the realities and history of government ever embarked upon, and its provisions are the result of reason through a survey of history and the practical demonstrated realities of government across many, many societies.”
Yes, I agree. The American Founding was uniquely successful in part because it was limited in scope (unlike the French Revolution).
“ The real question is whether the application of reason is built on a constrained or unconstrained view, not whether reason is the predominant form of inquiry over prescription.”
“ an unconstrained vision when it comes to the power and majesty of God's plan for his children.”
So, depending on what you mean by that, I still think it could fall under the constrained vision. Many religious people are constrained thinkers, in that they hold an unconstrained view of God (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.) but don’t think that human beings, human societies, human institutions, or human technologies can be like God in that way. I’m deeply skeptical of human attempts to achieve the things which only God can do, which are misguided at best and idolatrous at worst.
“ Man cannot perfect himself... Virtuous society and the perfectibility of man rely upon the ends of government being nothing more and nothing less than establishing the sovereignty and liberty of free people. Only then can the spirit of God act upon men uninhibited and unfettered. Only then can men be free to act according to the dictates of their conscience and freely choose the unique paths God has prepared for them.“
That strikes me as still very much a constrained view, not a hybrid of the two. You still believe in constrained means to the end of a virtuous society. I believe Sowell says that the two visions are primarily just visions of social organization, and don’t necessarily apply to theology or other realms.
Do you believe that we can identify individuals or institutions (governments, churches), which are far enough along in being perfected that they are capable of ruling over those who are not so far along? I’m not sure where you are in the book, but that would be an unconstrained view of inequality between individuals vs. a rough equality in the constrained view (ie we’re all limited and flawed and imperfect).
The reason I wrote my thoughts in the terms of being constrained one way and unconstrained in the other way is largely predicated upon Sowell's own established dichotomy around the notion of the "perfectibility of man."
My personal faith (Latter-day Saint) has a very expansive view of the power of the atonement compared to other Christian denominations, in that we view access to the atonement as preceding in several layers, not only for, first, a remission of sins (redemption) but also through a steady perfection of virtues as we become more and more aligned with God's will, taking upon ourselves not only Christ's name but His own attributes. Thus, theologically, I hold a view that human nature is perfectible rather than set, which Sowell considers an unconstrained view of human nature.
But, as Sowell himself confessed, he wrote of the dichotomy between constrained and unconstrained to demonstrate the typical conflict of visions in political thought and government and that it is not a perfect dichotomy. I think you're right that, in viewing my understanding of human nature as, indeed, unchangeable independent of God's grace that I still hold a very constrained view in a certain sense.
On the subject of departures from Sowell, I also find myself somewhat disagreeing with his characterization of the restrained vision being built predominantly on prescription while those who value and apply the use of reason and theory as belonging to the unrestrained vision. I think this view both ignores the strengths of the Straussian project, with a focus on political theory and constitutionalism derived from perusing and considering the great books and the great ideas of Western civilization, as well as a lot of the realities of the founding era. I think the application of reason falls into constrained or unconstrained based on, well, the vision and understanding of human nature upon which rational inquiry is predicated, and I don't think reason necessarily falls clearly into constrained or unconstrained automatically.
If I was born in North Korea and managed to develop the views I have today on government and political theory, I would be a radical pushing back against the strictures of my society's prescription and tradition in the most absolute way and my efforts would be predicated upon a study of history and the application of reason in determining the broader truths of human nature and human civilization, a consideration I would have had to embark upon outside of the culture of my country and against, criminally so, the established and enforced conventions of the state. Would I be operating from an unconstrained vision because my worldview was built on rational sources from outside my country's traditions rather than the prescription of my immediate political culture, would I be operating from an unconstrained vision because the demands of my reason would be revolution and resistance to the established order of things, would I be operating from an unconstrained vision because I believed applying reason toward the construction of a new status quo, a new form of government, a new social order would better my country and provide better lives for my countrymen? No, I would still be a constrained thinker because the status quo I would be revolting against is built on an unconstrained view of human nature and an unconstrained form of government and my application of reason led me to learn of and embrace the constrained views of political thinkers and leaders across the ages, outside my own personal experience and opposing the prescriptions and traditions of my own country, yes, but nevertheless demonstrated to be true through the application of reason and logic in their defense and through observation of broader world history.
The American founding is another demonstration of this point. Yes, as I myself have argued, the American Revolution was uniquely a conservative revolution in that it was King George III and Parliament who radically disrupted the status quo with the early patriots merely responding to challenges upon the arrangement of their migration to the world as they understood it. However, the free society built upon the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was not built solely upon prescription, upon the happy accidents of the invisible hand or solely by the providence of God. The new nation adopted a wholly new form of government never before seen in history, largely built from scratch by deep thinkers and philosophers in the heat of Independence Hall. The crafting of the US Constitution, specifically, was perhaps one of the mostly deeply philosophical considerations of the realities and history of government ever embarked upon, and its provisions are the result of reason through a survey of history and the practical demonstrated realities of government across many, many societies. The American Republic did not come about through steady evolution from colonies to states, it was forged through strength of will on the battlefield and in the minds of philosopher-statesmen who took the most heavy hand in the application of reason and logic in crafting the parameters of a wholly new republic..
It is in the realm of political theory and constitutionalism, rather than practical politics, that I think Sowell goes to far in how he establishes his dichotomy. In order for prescription to work as he and Burke suggest it can, society must be constituted in certain ways with its conventions and traditions built upon certain political theories. Burke's prescription worked in England because it was a country constituted on the provisions and theories of Locke, with traditions already in placed that owed reverence to the ideals and values of a liberal social and governing order. In other words, political theory must be established and then applied to the constitution, whether written or unwritten, of the state in order to safeguard a sphere of life wherein prescription can be unfettered to operate beneficially. And how else can political theory be established, how else can constitutions come into being if not by the application of reason in the discovery of the truths of human nature and the realities of government? The real question is whether the application of reason is built on a constrained or unconstrained view, not whether reason is the predominant form of inquiry over prescription.
“ I think this view both ignores the strengths of the Straussian project, with a focus on political theory and constitutionalism derived from perusing and considering the great books and the great ideas of Western civilization, as well as a lot of the realities of the founding era. I think the application of reason falls into constrained or unconstrained based on, well, the vision and understanding of human nature upon which rational inquiry is predicated, and I don't think reason necessarily falls clearly into constrained or unconstrained automatically.”
That makes a lot of sense. Perhaps it would make more sense to speak of rationalism on the one hand (unconstrained view of reason) and a limited or skeptical application of reason on the other (constrained view of reason).
“ The crafting of the US Constitution, specifically, was perhaps one of the mostly deeply philosophical considerations of the realities and history of government ever embarked upon, and its provisions are the result of reason through a survey of history and the practical demonstrated realities of government across many, many societies.”
Yes, I agree. The American Founding was uniquely successful in part because it was limited in scope (unlike the French Revolution).
“ The real question is whether the application of reason is built on a constrained or unconstrained view, not whether reason is the predominant form of inquiry over prescription.”
Yes, I agree.
Interesting. I don’t know a whole lot about LDS theology, but that does make a lot of sense.