What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case Against the Modern World: A Crash Course in Traditionalist Thought
"The Case Against the Modern World" is a crash course in Traditionalist thought. Through its pages, ideas and arguments are presented which call into question all of the unconscious dogmas of contemporary society. One by one--from liberty, equality, and free speech to war, sex, and capitalism--none of the prejudices of the 21st century are spared. Each section (there are 5) is divided into separate arguments, beginning with a thesis--usually a quote from a well-known and reputable source--followed by an elucidation of the thesis. Sources include Alexis de Tocqueville, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Walt Whitman, C.S. Lewis, and many others. The only way to think critically about the pressing issues of the day is to break beyond those preconceptions which limit our problem-solving efforts to the status quo. The Case Against the Modern World is an attempt to enable readers to get past the stale impotence of the conventional wisdom. [Sections are also available individually on Kindle]
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
307 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 18, 2016
About the author
Daniel Schwindt
35 books13 followersDaniel Schwindt writes on social theory, politics, religion, and history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 11, 2017
****1/4
Last section is irrelevant and drags on interminably. The Kindle edition needs copyediting. Beyond that, the book contains what it says on the cover.
Rounded up to five stars to offset the negative view doubtlessly given by a democrat, republican, or some other species of egalitarian who probably didn't read the book - or at least quit before he hit the section 'On Propaganda'.
Last section is irrelevant and drags on interminably. The Kindle edition needs copyediting. Beyond that, the book contains what it says on the cover.
Rounded up to five stars to offset the negative view doubtlessly given by a democrat, republican, or some other species of egalitarian who probably didn't read the book - or at least quit before he hit the section 'On Propaganda'.
August 3, 2017
Wow!
So many thoughts, ideas, and truths float through this book that it was difficult to process them all. I had to slow way down to get through it.
If you are wondering what is really, shall I say, askew in today's world, Mr. Schwindt has many answers. Not all, but enough to get the old noodle flipping around.
The downside. Mr. Schwindt needs a good editor, at the very least, and an excellent proof reader, absolutely. I dislike it when someone who is obviously intelligent, and a focused writer, has typos! However, if you can get around the annoyance of missing words, or too many in the wrong place, oh, about every ten pages, read the book.
So many thoughts, ideas, and truths float through this book that it was difficult to process them all. I had to slow way down to get through it.
If you are wondering what is really, shall I say, askew in today's world, Mr. Schwindt has many answers. Not all, but enough to get the old noodle flipping around.
The downside. Mr. Schwindt needs a good editor, at the very least, and an excellent proof reader, absolutely. I dislike it when someone who is obviously intelligent, and a focused writer, has typos! However, if you can get around the annoyance of missing words, or too many in the wrong place, oh, about every ten pages, read the book.
May 18, 2020
Read this looking for a primer on a variety of thought that has been bubbling up here and there in our political climate. Poorly edited, unscholarly, and unconvincing. If you want to live until fifty, die of famine, subject yourself to the whims and desires of "divinely sanctioned" kings and aristocrats, and be an idiot, this is your book.
May 15, 2018
This book was interesting. After reading that Prince Charles considered himself a Traditionalist, I decided to do research, and Amazon brought me to this book.
The book itself is a series of arguments (namely in the form of quotes from Philosophers, Popes, etc.) and elucidations that explain the main point. With differing sections on Liberalism, democracy, and the like, it was an interesting book that did, in fact, help me understand the basics of traditionalist thought.
The book itself is a series of arguments (namely in the form of quotes from Philosophers, Popes, etc.) and elucidations that explain the main point. With differing sections on Liberalism, democracy, and the like, it was an interesting book that did, in fact, help me understand the basics of traditionalist thought.
June 12, 2025
Not Great, Not Terrible, but Certainly not Traditionalist
The concept of the book is interesting, for the majority of it it follows a structure where there is a quote or a passage by someone which is then elucidated further by the author, offering what should essentially be a Traditionalist critique of modernity.
The main issues which are primarily attacked are Liberalism and Democracy. The argument goes that in the Middle Ages with the "discovery of the self" began the process of separating the ordinary from religious life and made the development of the secular state possible, which is ultimately the source of all the evils of modernity. It is then that Liberalism, the arch-ideology of the modern world that is born and with it came the overemphasis on rights against duties and essentially the denial of duty at the expense of the ubiquity of right. The consequences of this are egalitarianism and individualism (or egoism renamed) which removed man from the Traditional and hierarchical world, and plunged him in a world without an external (that is, outside of man himself) moral imperative and thus leaving him essentially aimless. This was then reflected religiously (in the Reformation), in the economy (in Capitalism) and politically (in the Enlightenment and the rise of democracy). The argument then proceeds onward to attack democracy and its notion of levelling man to the lowest common denominator, to the mediocre, and posits monarchy as the preferred form of Government, one that is suitable to a man of higher civilization. Democracy, in this view, is a system that produces experts in mediocrity.
This is the basic argument of the book, summed up in one paragraph. This is certainly reductive, as there are other nuances through the book - for example, the author speaks about the separation of Church and State, there is a whole section on the view of knowledge - all certainly important, but ultimately lead to the main argument of the book. So why the 3 stars?
Essentially, the arguments that the author makes while certainly valid, are more or less in line with the critique often levelled at Liberalism and Democracy by conservatives. I understand that the idea of a "crash course" in a way requires that the arguments are basic and simple, but one can simply read Alexis de Tocqueville and basically find the same argumentation contained there. There are times where the critique is quite on point and strong, as in this line: "If democracy cannot manage to produce a culture, then it is not valid or desirable...democracy can begin to make an argument for itself when it proves conducive to the higher realizations of human potentiality. Until then we consider it on trial, and failing". While this argument is quite potent, it is one of the very few ones which are contained in the book, that go beyond and are more comprehensive and provocative.
This brings me to the second and most important objection I had with the book. The critique that the author offers cannot be called Traditionalist by any account. There are a handful of scattered references to key Traditionalist authors such as Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, and I believe a single reference to Ananda Coomaraswamy, which a book titled "Crash Course in Traditionalist Thought" should not be allowed to do. In fact, a much more appropriate position would be Reactionary Catholic, and indeed many of the ideas, and authors represented are located in the parameters between traditional conservatives and reactionary Catholics. He does confirm this in the book, that his ideas are in line with reactionary thinkers, but while in truth many Traditionalists are reactionary, their ideas are much more complex and less on-the-surface political, to lump both groups together. In fact, the reactionary Catholic position taken by the author would likely be outright rejected by some of them.
Finally, the last two sections are clearly not necessary. I mean, to include an entire section on propaganda, basically arguing that "you should not believe everything you hear in the media" seemed pointless. Similarly, the last section is just scattered references from different authors on various topics (again, authors range from Rousseau to Berdyaev) which seemed largely disconnected from the remainder of the book, and could've easily just been removed.
Add to this, the extremely poor editing and the end result is just that...Not great, not terrible.
The concept of the book is interesting, for the majority of it it follows a structure where there is a quote or a passage by someone which is then elucidated further by the author, offering what should essentially be a Traditionalist critique of modernity.
The main issues which are primarily attacked are Liberalism and Democracy. The argument goes that in the Middle Ages with the "discovery of the self" began the process of separating the ordinary from religious life and made the development of the secular state possible, which is ultimately the source of all the evils of modernity. It is then that Liberalism, the arch-ideology of the modern world that is born and with it came the overemphasis on rights against duties and essentially the denial of duty at the expense of the ubiquity of right. The consequences of this are egalitarianism and individualism (or egoism renamed) which removed man from the Traditional and hierarchical world, and plunged him in a world without an external (that is, outside of man himself) moral imperative and thus leaving him essentially aimless. This was then reflected religiously (in the Reformation), in the economy (in Capitalism) and politically (in the Enlightenment and the rise of democracy). The argument then proceeds onward to attack democracy and its notion of levelling man to the lowest common denominator, to the mediocre, and posits monarchy as the preferred form of Government, one that is suitable to a man of higher civilization. Democracy, in this view, is a system that produces experts in mediocrity.
This is the basic argument of the book, summed up in one paragraph. This is certainly reductive, as there are other nuances through the book - for example, the author speaks about the separation of Church and State, there is a whole section on the view of knowledge - all certainly important, but ultimately lead to the main argument of the book. So why the 3 stars?
Essentially, the arguments that the author makes while certainly valid, are more or less in line with the critique often levelled at Liberalism and Democracy by conservatives. I understand that the idea of a "crash course" in a way requires that the arguments are basic and simple, but one can simply read Alexis de Tocqueville and basically find the same argumentation contained there. There are times where the critique is quite on point and strong, as in this line: "If democracy cannot manage to produce a culture, then it is not valid or desirable...democracy can begin to make an argument for itself when it proves conducive to the higher realizations of human potentiality. Until then we consider it on trial, and failing". While this argument is quite potent, it is one of the very few ones which are contained in the book, that go beyond and are more comprehensive and provocative.
This brings me to the second and most important objection I had with the book. The critique that the author offers cannot be called Traditionalist by any account. There are a handful of scattered references to key Traditionalist authors such as Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, and I believe a single reference to Ananda Coomaraswamy, which a book titled "Crash Course in Traditionalist Thought" should not be allowed to do. In fact, a much more appropriate position would be Reactionary Catholic, and indeed many of the ideas, and authors represented are located in the parameters between traditional conservatives and reactionary Catholics. He does confirm this in the book, that his ideas are in line with reactionary thinkers, but while in truth many Traditionalists are reactionary, their ideas are much more complex and less on-the-surface political, to lump both groups together. In fact, the reactionary Catholic position taken by the author would likely be outright rejected by some of them.
Finally, the last two sections are clearly not necessary. I mean, to include an entire section on propaganda, basically arguing that "you should not believe everything you hear in the media" seemed pointless. Similarly, the last section is just scattered references from different authors on various topics (again, authors range from Rousseau to Berdyaev) which seemed largely disconnected from the remainder of the book, and could've easily just been removed.
Add to this, the extremely poor editing and the end result is just that...Not great, not terrible.
February 8, 2020
There are few books which can capture the matrix shattering disorientation of Descartes's First Meditation; that experience of reading an argument against truths not only certain, but against truths so foundational to one's worldview, and yet reluctantly surrendering to the critic's overwhelming logic. Daniel Schwindt allowed me the exceptionally rare opportunity to relive this experience, by arguing against many of my default beliefs that I hold as a product of the modern world.
Schwindt's "The Case Against the Modern World" is not only an excellent intellectual tool for confronting the devil's advocate, but is additionally an immensely informative "Crash Course in Traditionalist Thought." For anyone interested in the topic, this work is an excellent starting point which will introduce you to many figures and arguments to further research.
Schwindt's writing style is rather scholastic, which -while traditionalist- can not only seem stale, but at times is also confusing. The work also would have benefited from a humbler tone. With a sometimes condescending tone, and a subject matter that advocates hierarchy and authority, the writing comes of mildly pretentious.
Nietzsche referred to philosophy as a hammer; which can be used for both destruction and construction. Also like Descartes, Schwindt seems to do a better job of tearing down than he does building anew. In other words: he does make an excellent "Case Against the Modern World," but falls short of sufficiently defending his traditionalism as an alternative.
All things considered: 4 stars, an immensely interesting read, and a solid introduction into a fringe intellectual camp.
Schwindt's "The Case Against the Modern World" is not only an excellent intellectual tool for confronting the devil's advocate, but is additionally an immensely informative "Crash Course in Traditionalist Thought." For anyone interested in the topic, this work is an excellent starting point which will introduce you to many figures and arguments to further research.
Schwindt's writing style is rather scholastic, which -while traditionalist- can not only seem stale, but at times is also confusing. The work also would have benefited from a humbler tone. With a sometimes condescending tone, and a subject matter that advocates hierarchy and authority, the writing comes of mildly pretentious.
Nietzsche referred to philosophy as a hammer; which can be used for both destruction and construction. Also like Descartes, Schwindt seems to do a better job of tearing down than he does building anew. In other words: he does make an excellent "Case Against the Modern World," but falls short of sufficiently defending his traditionalism as an alternative.
All things considered: 4 stars, an immensely interesting read, and a solid introduction into a fringe intellectual camp.
October 17, 2019
A book that changes your outlook on the world.
All of one’s life a myth is constructed about our political process. This book quite successfully tears that down and after leaving you craving more knowledge.
All of one’s life a myth is constructed about our political process. This book quite successfully tears that down and after leaving you craving more knowledge.
January 8, 2020
This book was a true eye opener, it made me see the world in a completely different way.
May 2, 2020
Quite a few typos but many thought provoking arguments.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews