logo
Alasdair MacIntyre, philosopher who saw a ‘new dark ages,' dies at 96

Alasdair MacIntyre, philosopher who saw a ‘new dark ages,' dies at 96

Boston Globe2 days ago

Advertisement
MacIntyre belonged to a different moral universe.
In his best-known book, 'After Virtue' (1981), he argued that thousands of years ago, the earliest Western philosophers and the Homeric myths generated 'the tradition of the virtues,' which was treated as objective truth. Value neutrality, to Mr. MacIntyre, was the goal of 'barbarians' and a sign of 'the new dark ages which are already upon us.'
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Such language might make Mr. MacIntyre seem like a wistful reactionary. In fact, his worldview was far less predictable.
He never entirely disavowed his youthful Marxism, applauding Karl Marx's critique of the individualistic and acquisitive spirit of capitalism. He maintained a certain sort of modesty from his days as a self-appointed champion of the working class — he never earned a doctorate and disliked being called 'professor' — and he continued showing the dialectical passion of a Trotskyist, occasionally launching into what one colleague called 'MacIntyrades.'
Advertisement
His chief opponent was what he called 'modern liberal individualism,' a category in which he included not just supporters of the Democratic Party but also conventional conservatives, leftists, and even anarchists. All were guilty of 'emotivism': the belief that humanity was essentially a collection of autonomous individuals who selected their own principles based on inner thoughts or feelings.
This starting point, Mr. MacIntyre argued, could lead only to eternal, unresolvable disagreement. He went so far as to suggest that every tradition of modern politics had come to 'exhaustion,' and he rejected many essential tools of modern moral philosophy: Thomas Hobbes' social contract, John Locke's natural rights, Jeremy Bentham's moral consequences, and Isaiah Berlin's pluralism.
Instead, he valued storytelling, tradition, and rational debate, embedded within a shared moral community. He found these qualities in the thinking of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who promoted 'a cosmic order which dictates the place of each virtue in a total harmonious scheme of human life,' he wrote in 'After Virtue.' Within such an order, moral truth was objective.
'After Virtue' gained extraordinary popularity for a work of late-20th-century moral theory, selling more than 100,000 copies, Compact magazine wrote in a piece published after Mr. MacIntyre's death, titled 'Postliberalism's Reluctant Godfather.'
That was an apt label for someone who managed, in recent years, to earn multiple tributes from Jacobin, a journal on the socialist left, and First Things, which is on the religious right. Mr. MacIntyre seemed to grow increasingly uncomfortable with his influence as it came unavoidably into focus.
Advertisement
In 'After Virtue,' he wrote that morality arose out of a belief in human telos — the ancient Greek notion of purpose being intrinsic to existence. People of the modern world, he said, had two choices: Follow Friedrich Nietzsche in trying to honestly face a world without the traditional notion of a human telos, rendering moral thought baseless, or follow Aristotle and recover moral purpose by fostering a society dedicated to the cultivation of virtue.
Mr. MacIntyre illustrated what that might look like with an analysis of what he called 'practices' — shared, skillful activities including chess, architecture, and musicianship — as examples of where virtue still had meaning. These pursuits, he said, intrinsically provide 'standards of excellence' and reward traits such as justice, courage, and honesty. In them, he saw a possible modern basis for virtue.
'After Virtue' was acclaimed by leading philosophers, including Bernard Williams, who in a 1981 review for The Sunday Times of London wrote that even Mr. MacIntyre's exaggerations were 'illuminating'; that his intellectual history of the moral self was a 'nostalgic fantasy' and yet also 'brilliant'; and that, whatever questions the book raised, 'the feeling is sustained that one's question would get an interesting answer.'
In a subsequent book, 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?' (1988), Mr. MacIntyre provoked sharper criticism. His argument now promoted Roman Catholicism with Aquinas, not Aristotle, as its paragon of moral thought.
Philosopher Martha Nussbaum wrote a memorable takedown in The New York Review of Books accusing Mr. MacIntyre of dropping some of his own principles — such as his devotion to local traditions — when discussing Aristotle, Augustine, and the pope. What really interested Mr. MacIntyre, she argued, was not reason but authority: the ability of the Catholic Church to secure wide agreement, and, by extension, order.
Advertisement
She was one of several distinguished thinkers to challenge Mr. MacIntyre's idealized view of the past, arguing that historical societies were not as unified as he claimed and that unanimity itself was not so great.
In a review of 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?' published in The Times Literary Supplement, Thomas Nagel wrote, 'MacIntyre professes to be freeing us from blindness, but he is really asking for the return of a blindness to the difficulty of moral thought that it has been one of the great achievements of ethical theory to escape.'
Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre was born on Jan. 12, 1929, in Glasgow, Scotland. His parents, John and Emily (Chalmers) MacIntyre, were both doctors. In the 1930s the family moved to London, where his parents treated patients in the working-class East End neighborhood.
In 1949, he earned a bachelor's degree in classics from Queen Mary College at the University of London. In the 1950s and '60s, he earned master's degrees in philosophy from Manchester University and Oxford while holding several lectureships.
As a student, he joined the Communist Party, but he also steered debates of Britain's Student Christian Movement as its chair.
In about 1970 he moved to the United States, where he taught at Brandeis University and gradually left Marx for Aristotle. In the 1980s, he converted to Catholicism and took to seeing Aquinas as the master thinker of the Aristotelian tradition. He had a series of academic appointments but mostly taught at Notre Dame, where his wife, Lynn Joy, is also a philosophy professor.
Advertisement
His two previous marriages ended in divorce. In addition to Joy, his survivors include several children. He and Joy lived in Mishawaka, Ind., a city near Notre Dame.
For decades, no single tendency seemed to define readers who took inspiration from Mr. MacIntyre's work. There were heterodox Marxists, the skeptic of liberalism Christopher Lasch, and former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
But more recently, one constituency claimed Mr. MacIntyre's work most completely and prominently: the Trump-supporting, religious, anti-consumerist, and illiberal right. Two leading commentators of this world, Patrick Deneen and Rod Dreher, have written books that pay tribute to Mr. MacIntyre.
In 2017, the publication of one of these books, Dreher's 'The Benedict Option,' prompted an odd debate between Dreher and Mr. MacIntyre, with each man accusing the other of commenting on a book of his that he had not actually read.
During a lecture at Notre Dame, Mr. MacIntyre deplored becoming part of an ideological battle of his own time.
'The moment you think of yourself as a liberal or a conservative,' he said, 'you're done for.'
This article originally appeared in

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Carville accuses Jewish donors of abandoning Democrats for GOP because they just want their ‘f-----g tax cut'
Carville accuses Jewish donors of abandoning Democrats for GOP because they just want their ‘f-----g tax cut'

Fox News

time25 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Carville accuses Jewish donors of abandoning Democrats for GOP because they just want their ‘f-----g tax cut'

Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville said on Wednesday he doesn't believe it when wealthy Jewish donors tell him they're ditching the Democratic Party because of antisemitism among its members. He says they're doing it for a "f------ tax cut." During the latest episode of his "Politics War Room" podcast, the former Bill Clinton advisor said these donors' concerns that the Democratic Party has encouraged antisemitism on college campuses are an excuse so they can vote for President Donald Trump's tax cuts. "No, you just want your f------ tax cut," he declared. The topic came up with co-host Al Hunt ripping Trump for billing himself an ally for Jewish people. "Trump fighting antisemitism is a joke," he said, referencing a recent New York Times article accusing the president of fanning the "flames" of antisemitism in America. Carville replied by calling Trump a "complete fraud," but added that the group really exposed by the article are the wealthy Jewish people who stopped giving to the Democratic Party and supported Trump in 2024. "I tell you who this exposes in a more profound way. And I hear this all the time… a lot of really wealthy Jewish fundraisers – And they say, 'Look James, I'm a Democrat, but I can't be a part of the party because of what happened at Columbia.'" "What the f--- did the Democrats have to do with what happened in Columbia?" Carville demanded. Columbia University, like other prominent U.S. universities, has been a hotbed of anti-Israel demonstrations since Hamas' terror attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. This wave of anti-Israel sentiment, and perceived indifference or support by some Democrats, has caused certain Jewish figures to stop giving to the party and to begin donating to Trump's campaign. Wealthy tech expert Jacob Helberg donated over $1 million to Trump's 2024 campaign, despite being a Democratic donor in the previous presidential election. Helberg, who serves as a senior policy advisor to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, gave his reason for the switch, stating, "It became very clear that an organizing principle on the left increasingly became based on a divvying up of the world between oppressors and oppressed. It's just an organizing principle that I fundamentally disagree with." He added that he feels "like a lot of the thin crust of civilization that separates today's world from the dark world of yesterday is going to unravel in some really scary ways," he said. "You're seeing that with these incredibly dark, antisemitic protests on university campuses, in the streets of Dearborn, Mich., and these slogans that are somehow gaining popular attraction." During the podcast, Carville attacked this reason, saying that Jewish donors like Helberg and Bill Ackman – who Hunt called out by name – are donating to the GOP just to help their bottom lines. "Most Jewish people see right through [Trump], but the ones that don't see through it, they just don't – at the end of the day, they just want their f------ tax cut. And you can see it every day," he said.

Exclusive-Ukraine hits out at Europe's payout from frozen Russian cash
Exclusive-Ukraine hits out at Europe's payout from frozen Russian cash

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Exclusive-Ukraine hits out at Europe's payout from frozen Russian cash

By Tom Balmforth and John O'Donnell KYIV/BRUSSELS (Reuters) -Ukraine's government has criticised a decision to take billions of euros of Russian wealth frozen in Europe and hand it to Western investors, warning that it weakened Europe's stand against Moscow. The criticism follows a move last month by Belgium's Euroclear to take 3 billion euros ($3.4 billion) of Russian investor cash held at the clearing firm to pay Westerners who lost out when Moscow seized their money held in Russia. Now Ukraine has warned that it sends a wrong signal and threatens to weaken Europe's hand when dealing with Russia, while it debates using the entire $300 billion of Russian wealth stranded in Europe to rebuild and defend the battered country. "If private investors are compensated before the victims of war, it won't be justice," said Iryna Mudra, a senior official in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's office, in Kyiv's first public comments on the move. "It creates a perception of inconsistency, of Europe wavering in its resolve," Mudra, a deputy head of Ukraine's presidential administration, told Reuters. "International law requires that the aggressor is to make full reparation to the victim and not to investors who ... entered a high-risk jurisdiction," said Mudra, who is in charge of legal affairs in Zelenskiy's administration. The criticism comes at a critical time for the Western alliance backing Kyiv, with U.S. President Donald Trump's administration distancing itself from Europe and casting doubt over its commitment to Ukraine's defence and Russian sanctions. Mudra, one of a small circle of officials that set policy, also stressed the importance of maintaining control of the frozen Russian assets, which chiefly belong to its central bank with the majority held at Euroclear. The central bank assets were frozen at the outset of war in the single most powerful sanction directed at Russia over its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a penalty that is deeply resented in Moscow. Euroclear in March gained clearance from Belgium, its principal legal authority, to make the payout, people familiar with the matter have told Reuters, after the European Union changed its sanctions regime last year to make this possible. A spokesperson for the Belgian government said: "This is not a Belgian decision but the application of a European regulation decided unanimously by the member states." Euroclear has emphasised that it only implements sanctions and does not take decisions about lifting them. 'MIND BOGGLING' Three Russian sources recently told Reuters that Russian President Vladimir Putin's conditions for ending the war include the resolution of the frozen assets issue. Ukraine, meanwhile, is campaigning fiercely against any return of the money to Moscow. Euroclear alone held 195 billion euros of cash in March - mainly Russian central bank funds, with some belonging to Russian investors. "If it is returned to Russia, it will be converted into tanks, missiles, drones, training of new troops," said Ukraine's Mudra. "The world ... must demonstrate that unlawful war brings irreversible financial consequences." Some see the frozen Russian wealth as a lifeline for Kyiv. In the past, the West has engineered loans and payments to Ukraine from the interest on the stranded Russian stockpile, which Putin denounced as theft. Ukrainian officials fear the Euroclear payout, even though it does not affect the central bank money, could undermine their efforts to secure an agreement on using the wider pool of Russian assets to help their country. Mykola Yurlov, an official at Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said the payout set a bad precedent, while Kira Rudik, a Ukrainian parliamentarian, was also critical. "Western companies were operating in Russia at their own risk. Why are these companies basically asking their societies to compensate for this risk?" Rudik told Reuters. "We need this money to rebuild and defend Ukraine." Last month's move also drew criticism abroad. "It is mind boggling that the priority is to reimburse corporate interests rather than spend the money defending Ukraine," said Jacob Kirkegaard, a sanctions expert with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington-based think tank. While the payout to investors left frozen Russian central bank reserves untouched, it made a dent in the stockpile of Russian wealth that gives the EU leverage over Moscow. More importantly for critics, it sets a worrying precedent. European Union leaders are expected to renew sanctions, including a freeze of Russian assets, at a summit meeting in June, although they could yet face an attempt by Hungary to derail those efforts. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Can Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, become the next mayor of New York City?
Can Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, become the next mayor of New York City?

Associated Press

time39 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Can Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, become the next mayor of New York City?

NEW YORK (AP) — Zohran Mamdani has buzz and some momentum in New York City's mayoral race. But can a 33-year-old democratic socialist — or anyone else — beat former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary? Mamdani picked up a key endorsement Thursday from U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said in a statement that the state lawmaker 'has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack.' The endorsement, made the day after the first Democratic debate of the campaign, is likely to help solidify Mamdani's standing as a liberal darling in the contest, now in its final three weeks. It remains to be seen whether it will help him overcome Cuomo, whose campaign juggernaut has won the backing of some of the cities biggest unions as he attempts a comeback from the sexual harassment scandal that ended his reign as governor in 2021. Mamdani's laser-focus on lowering the cost of living in one of the world's most expensive cities has helped him climb from relative obscurity to become one of the race's leading figures. His criticisms of Israel, socialist label, and relative lack of experience could hurt him, though, with centrists. Mamdani, who would be the city's first Muslim and Indian American mayor, was born in Kampala, Uganda, before he and his family moved to New York City when he was 7. He became naturalized as an American citizen a few years after graduating from college, where he co-started his school's first Students for Justice in Palestine chapter. His mother, Mira Nair, is an award-winning filmmaker. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is an anthropology professor at Columbia University. Zohran Mamdani was elected to the state Assembly in 2020, representing a district in Queens. His most-known legislative accomplishment was pushing through a pilot program that made a handful of city buses free for a year. His mayoral campaign has been full of big promises — free child care, free buses, a rent freeze for people living in rent-regulated apartments, new affordable housing and raising taxes on the wealthy — all packaged in well-produced social media videos. Critics say his hopeful visions get blurry when it comes to detail, and have also questioned the cost and feasibility of his proposals, many of which would need support from the state Legislature and governor. Cuomo, during Wednesday night's debate, took aim at Mamdani's relative inexperience, saying the state Assembly member has a good online presence but actually 'produces nothing,' adding 'He's been in government 27 minutes. He's passed three bills. That's all he's done.' Some Jewish voters, an important voting bloc, might be turned off by Mamdani's support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and his use of the term 'genocide' to describe Israel's war on Gaza. Mamdani has also vowed to have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if he came to the city. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu last year, saying he had committed war crimes by using starvation as a weapon during Israel's military campaign in Gaza. Pressed during the debate on whether he thought Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, Mamdani said 'I believe Israel has the right to exist,' but 'as a state with equal rights' for people who aren't Jewish. As the June 24 primary approaches, Mamdani appears aware of another issue he and every other candidate not named Cuomo is having: name recognition. Mamdani, in a recent social media video, noted that 'a third of New Yorkers still haven't heard of us,' though he framed that as a positive, indicating he still has room to grow. At a recent election rally in Manhattan, Maria Walles, a 54-year-old Bronx voter, said she didn't like Cuomo or Eric Adams, the incumbent mayor who faced federal corruption charges, then decided to skip the Democratic primary and run as an independent after President Donald Trump's Justice Department abandoned that prosecution. But Walles said she wasn't quite sure about the alternative candidates. 'Zo ...,' she said, grasping for Mamdani's name when asked about the candidate field. As it turns out, Mamdani was at the rally, which was organized by a tenant advocacy group, and received a standing ovation for his speech. To win, Mamdani will need to expand his support beyond the city's young, progressive crowd to the more moderate voters who have been a critical factor in past elections. In an interview with The Associated Press, Mamdani said if you speak to the people directly about issues they care about, such as the sky-high cost of living, you can successfully build a coalition, regardless of 'what we have been told is the politics that can succeed in this city and the ways in which we have been told how to run a campaign and who we actually have to speak to.' 'Often times people try to characterize New York City politics through the lens of political constituencies that they define as hard and fast. And in reality there is no ideological majority in New York City,' he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store