Arch-reactionary ?
Sir: By saying that 'intellectually most of Burke's political philosophy is utter rubbish,' Professor J. H. Plumb (5 May) displays a facile super- ficiality characteristic of the rationalist approach.
'Why,' he asks, 'should a reliance on intellect be regarded as foolishly optimistic or. hopelessly idealistic . . . ?' The short and obvious answer is that the intellect by itself is inadequate; to be fully effective it must be combined with other facilities and instruments of man.
Professor Plumb advocates 'a rationalist intel- lectual approach to the problems of human organisation.' He does not appear to appreciate that—man being a social animal—what he calls 'human organisation' is the source of the intellect and almost everything else which distinguishes man from beast. The very complexity of the task implied by such an approach should deter the attempt, the consequences of which are illustrated by the failure of so-called economic planning. The intellect might find it humiliating; but should not find it extraordinary, that the conditions in which it develops are too complex for its comprehension.
In itself, however, a predictable failure might not do much harm: indeed, from the infusion of wisdom consequent on such a failure benefits might be expected to accrue, were it not for the destruc- tive influences generated. For the stability of society depends on adherence to much that the
intellect would not necessarily justify : the gener- ally accepted rules of morality, such as respect for property and promises and obedience to the powers that be, are examples. What Professor Plumb would call Burke's 'addiction to tradition, ancestral wisdom and the mysteries of Providence' is a recognition of the necessity for such adherence.
Obviously we must reform in a changing world. This is best done by discovering the wisdom we find in existing institutions and extending it. Burke may sometimes have overstated his case, but Professor Plumb really must learn to pause before he dismisses something which he clearly does not understand as 'utter rubbish.'
We regret that Professor Lancelot Forster, author of last week's letter on the Brain Drain, was in- correctly described as 'Laurence Forster.'
Previous page
