One of the themes of this blog has been the appearance of totalitarian tendencies in contemporary American life, especially in academia. Therefore, it seems appropriate to offer a post on Augusto Del Noce (1910-1989), one of the foremost philosophical critics of 20
Thank you for introducing Del Noce. Having lived in the USSR, I concur that, while claiming to be secular, the construct was religion-like (cult of personality that continues in some parts of its remnant). Every time we look with horror at ancient sacrifices to forces of nature, we must remember tens of millions of their own people that communist regimes have exterminated (all in the name of ridding the society of the “enemies of a great cause”). And, indeed, it was a modern phenomenon.
There are many things that Del Noce (along with a number of other thinkers) identified correctly: the development of the ideological structures of both Communism and Fascism as forms of religious thought, as well as the pitfalls of dogmatic rationality. Reading his works reminds us that man has an intrinsic tendency for religious thought.
But let us not forget, Professor Lancellotti, where Del Noce stood and what Del Noce thought, what ideal society he advocated (you know this well, I see from the magazine where you published your mentioned article). Del Noce did not happen to be a Catholic. He was a Catholic philosopher, which in Italy, at the time he was alive especially, meant a staunch traditionalist (half of my family is Italian, I am bilingual and studied philosophy at the University of Bologna between 1970 and 1974, so I read what I read of Del Noce's work in the original language). Del Noce is a believer for whom there can be no "liberation without the Redeemer", a strong denier of the possibility of any wisdom without faith, a critic of modernity on the basis of tradition, which for him meant the Christian tradition and in particular the Catholic tradition. He was no friend of the Enlightenment or of classic liberalism, which he saw as the forerunners of the fall of society in the clutches of godless hedonism. Neither he was a great friend of reason or science, despite using much reason and logic in supporting his positions... but he denied the validity of sciences and philosophies that questioned the authority of (the Christian) faith in determining ethics and politics. One of his main points is that without authority being based on the revealed Truth of the Christ (through the Church of Rome, of course) a society can only degenerate.
Del Noce lived in times in which the only forms of totalitarianism that mattered were Fascism and Communism... the theocratic states of today might have baffled him, but he would have dismissed them as intrinsically connected to their being non-Christian, while he kept dreaming (in a very phislosophical, subtler way) of a Catholic theocracy or at least a society that strongly embraced the Christian dogmas.
What he would make of the new totalitarianism? Surely it would have horrified him, in the same way as sexual liberation and Freud horrified him... because of the groups which are the focus of this new religion-like movement, not because of how it works. Del Noce could not care less about scientific freedom and research based on objective facts (philosophers are dangerous that way, and Plato's Republic, where they rule, would be a nightmare): if the woke mobs were doing their cancellations and using social pressure to enforce Christian ethics, the bashing of hedonism and "irregular" sexuality, hopefully mandatory prayer in schools, and especially obedience to the Church hierarchy, Del Noce would be writing panegyrics.
That is to say, there are interesting insights to be found in the thought of Del Noce (as there are in Chesterton's, who had a more charming personality). But they point to places, and offer solutions, that are much more incompatible with the Enlightenment than they are with the woke creed.
Your essay describes the political pressure on scientists today that results in incuriosity and intellectual laziness--heretofore two character traits that defined a scientist whose goal was the search for truth. Thank you for this essay and introduction to Augusto Del Noce.
This is a very insightful look into totalitarianism. I was not aware of Del Noce's works, thank you for this concise introduction.
Thank you for introducing Del Noce. Having lived in the USSR, I concur that, while claiming to be secular, the construct was religion-like (cult of personality that continues in some parts of its remnant). Every time we look with horror at ancient sacrifices to forces of nature, we must remember tens of millions of their own people that communist regimes have exterminated (all in the name of ridding the society of the “enemies of a great cause”). And, indeed, it was a modern phenomenon.
There are many things that Del Noce (along with a number of other thinkers) identified correctly: the development of the ideological structures of both Communism and Fascism as forms of religious thought, as well as the pitfalls of dogmatic rationality. Reading his works reminds us that man has an intrinsic tendency for religious thought.
But let us not forget, Professor Lancellotti, where Del Noce stood and what Del Noce thought, what ideal society he advocated (you know this well, I see from the magazine where you published your mentioned article). Del Noce did not happen to be a Catholic. He was a Catholic philosopher, which in Italy, at the time he was alive especially, meant a staunch traditionalist (half of my family is Italian, I am bilingual and studied philosophy at the University of Bologna between 1970 and 1974, so I read what I read of Del Noce's work in the original language). Del Noce is a believer for whom there can be no "liberation without the Redeemer", a strong denier of the possibility of any wisdom without faith, a critic of modernity on the basis of tradition, which for him meant the Christian tradition and in particular the Catholic tradition. He was no friend of the Enlightenment or of classic liberalism, which he saw as the forerunners of the fall of society in the clutches of godless hedonism. Neither he was a great friend of reason or science, despite using much reason and logic in supporting his positions... but he denied the validity of sciences and philosophies that questioned the authority of (the Christian) faith in determining ethics and politics. One of his main points is that without authority being based on the revealed Truth of the Christ (through the Church of Rome, of course) a society can only degenerate.
Del Noce lived in times in which the only forms of totalitarianism that mattered were Fascism and Communism... the theocratic states of today might have baffled him, but he would have dismissed them as intrinsically connected to their being non-Christian, while he kept dreaming (in a very phislosophical, subtler way) of a Catholic theocracy or at least a society that strongly embraced the Christian dogmas.
What he would make of the new totalitarianism? Surely it would have horrified him, in the same way as sexual liberation and Freud horrified him... because of the groups which are the focus of this new religion-like movement, not because of how it works. Del Noce could not care less about scientific freedom and research based on objective facts (philosophers are dangerous that way, and Plato's Republic, where they rule, would be a nightmare): if the woke mobs were doing their cancellations and using social pressure to enforce Christian ethics, the bashing of hedonism and "irregular" sexuality, hopefully mandatory prayer in schools, and especially obedience to the Church hierarchy, Del Noce would be writing panegyrics.
That is to say, there are interesting insights to be found in the thought of Del Noce (as there are in Chesterton's, who had a more charming personality). But they point to places, and offer solutions, that are much more incompatible with the Enlightenment than they are with the woke creed.
Fascinating!
Nice article; I also was not aware of Del Noce's work. Minir point: Pwoplw often forget that science requires belief in thing that cannot be proved -- existence of fixed nature, truth, etc, https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/35/2/the-faith-of-science
JS
Great work on unpacking the complexities of political ideology! Well done!!
Your essay describes the political pressure on scientists today that results in incuriosity and intellectual laziness--heretofore two character traits that defined a scientist whose goal was the search for truth. Thank you for this essay and introduction to Augusto Del Noce.