Talk:Russell Kirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kirk's religion, please

"Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another."[7] and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief." [8] ... "Kirk grounded his Burkean conservatism in ... the strong religious faith of his later years..." ---- Can anybody add a note on exactly what Kirk's beliefs were? -- 201.51.211.130 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of Kirk's beliefs, other than the Catholicism he adopted when he married, are well documented and perfectly accessible in his The Conservative Mind. In my opinion, that Catholicism remained a rather private matter. The public face of Kirk was overwhelmingly one of Anglophile Toryism, much more Burke and Mallock, than Lord Acton or Chesterton. It is supremely ironic that this admirer of a settled hierarchical order was himself the son of a railway worker, and the area around Piety Hill was one of near rural poverty.132.181.160.42 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's make this relevant info "well documented and perfectly accessible" in the Wikipedia article as well!  :-) -- 201.51.211.130 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cites need work

Russell Kirk is a somewhat controversial figure, and we want to be sure that the cites here are of the highest quality. As of today, we have cites for quotes which are links to Web pages that don't cite their sources, as well as "quoted in Russell Kirk and territorial democracy. Publius September 22, 2004" (no hyperlink, and appears as though it may be slightly innaccurate, though I'm not sure). Can we please tidy up the cites in this article? -- 201.51.211.130 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a bibliography. The best introduction remains Nash's book. Rjensen 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Conservative Principles or Six canons?

In The Politics of Prudence, Kirk states that they are ten conservative principles (which are awfully familiar to the "six canons" listed in the Wikipedia article.)

First the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. Second the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectibility. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Eigth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Shouldn't we use this text (since it is a primary source) than deriving it from what Russello states? --Goldendroplets 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No; use secondary sources rather than cherry-picking primary ones. If you can cast doubt on the reliability of the secondary source, that's another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we "cherry-picking" secondary sources too, and how is this cherry picking? His explanation of the ten conservative principles fill an entire chapter. Why should we use a secondary source over a primary source that more explicitly states the author's views? --Goldendroplets 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Because we are deferring to the secondary source's judgment, rather than imposing our own; if they disagree, we include both versions. If the secondary source simply cites the Ten Principles, fine; then say what they are. But digging them out ourselves is OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the section, Wikipedia is directly quoting Kirk:

Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another."[7] and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief." [8]

Isn't this also considered "digging them out ourselves" and thus is out of reach? --Goldendroplets 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Largely; there is a countervailing principle: WP:V says "challenged or likely to be challenged". If nobody objects, a sentence may well be saying the obvious consensus of readers of Kirk; don't borrow trouble. On the other hand, secondary sources are worth reading; they say things no Wikipedian has yet thought of. (Here one may well point out that this is hardly original with Kirk; a search on Kirk and Toynbee, or Kirk and Eliot, may be helpful here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Chilton Williamson Jr. in his book, The Conservative Bookshelf states the following concerning Kirk:

Kirk identifies (in "the Idea of Conservatism") "six canons of conservative thought," as the conservative tradition is generally understood: 1. "Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging and eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. 2. "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from narrowing uniformity and equalitarianism and utilitarian aims of most radical systems." 3. "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes." 4. "Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress." 5. "Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters and calculators.'" 6. "recognition that change and reform are not identical, it is a torch of progress....Providence is the proper instrument for change, and the test of a statesman is his cognizance of the real tendency of providential social forces.

Do secondary sources usurp the validity of primary sources? Nevertheless, these "six canons" are significantly different from the ones Russello states, should we leave the six canons as they are? Wikipedia already cites Rusello in the previous paragraph, should we add variety to our sources? --Goldendroplets 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)