Burke seems like a retard to me. I understand his dislike of "metaphysics" or abstract principles, and trying to derive an entire political system from them after abolishing another system into its "molecules" (individual people). I also appreciate that he understands that institutions or assemblies empowered by such abstract principles in a power vacuum CAN act with authority (make themselves obeyed), as he easily could have been sloppier and denied any such possibility. He clearly thinks it's possible, just dangerous and retarded.But when he tries to positively prove the validity of the English constitution he loses me. He keeps appealing to what the "wisdom of the nation" did, or the "unanimous consent of the people." I understand this is a polemical move meant to counter the "political divines" who are appealing to The People and their consent abstractly. He's trying to say that "The People" DID act, and chose the maintenance of the hereditary principle in the English constitution. But surely he understands that the revolutionaries will just counter with the populist point that the people are hardly represented by a few conservative Whigs in parliament when 1-2% of the country can actually vote. It's a disappointing book for me. I came in expecting a robust defense of conservative organicism and instead I got special pleading. I prefer de Maistre and Savigny.
>>24822921I wouldn't worry about any one argument, since Burke follows the typical rhetorical practice of the time, modeled on Cicero, in which you're supposed to just come up with as many arguments as you can for every point.Read Pocock's articles on the ancient constitution and on Burke's political economy. Also the chapter on Burke in Pitkin's The Concept of Representation. I found these very helpful in appreciating the Reflections.
>>24822960I was just talking to ChatGPT about it and he said that Burke's whole point is NOT supplying an abstract justification of his position since the political can never be justified abstractly, only inherited and tended. That makes more sense to me but I still feel like the rhetorical effect is weak and almost counterproductive if you're on the fence.I'll read these, thanks. I actually had the Pocock book out from the library once and only got a little bit into it. The only thing I remember is that Burke was more friendly to radical reform earlier in his life, and the dual meaning of "constitution."
Thomas Paine wrote a rebuttal to Burke. Burke then wrote a rebuttal to Paine which addresses what you mention
