Yes, although Deneen is not primarily known as a metaphysician. He's a political theorist, and his metaphysical commitments are often implicit rather than systematically developed.
To understand him, it's helpful to see that underneath the political arguments lies a fairly classical view of human nature and the world.
The underlying picture
Deneen is deeply influenced by:
- Aristotle
- Thomas Aquinas
- the classical Christian tradition
- aspects of Tocqueville and Burke
At the deepest level, he rejects the modern tendency to view human beings as fundamentally autonomous choosers.
Instead, he sees humans as:
- social by nature,
- dependent by nature,
- embedded in communities,
- oriented toward objective goods.
That last point is crucial.
Modern liberal thought often starts from the premise that individuals determine their own conception of the good life.
Deneen tends to think there are real goods built into human flourishing itself:
- friendship,
- family,
- civic participation,
- virtue,
- contemplation,
- religious life.
In that respect, he's operating within a broadly Aristotelian framework of teleology—humans have a nature, and that nature has ends.
You might call this a "thick" account of human nature.
What does he reject?
He is critical of a metaphysical picture associated with thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and in a different way Francis Bacon.
In his reading, modernity increasingly treats:
- nature as raw material,
- society as a contract,
- freedom as the expansion of choice,
- individuals as prior to communities.
Deneen sees this as a profound shift from classical and Christian understandings of reality.
For him, the modern self is often imagined as detached and self-creating.
He thinks that's a false anthropology.
Is he a natural law thinker?
Broadly, yes.
Though he is not primarily a natural law philosopher in the technical sense, many of his arguments make most sense if one assumes something like natural law.
That means:
- human beings have a nature,
- that nature points toward certain forms of flourishing,
- politics should help cultivate those forms.
Without some version of that framework, much of his criticism of liberalism loses force.
If there is no objective human flourishing, then it becomes harder to argue that a society of highly autonomous individuals is somehow living wrongly.
The theological layer
This is where things get interesting.
Deneen is a Catholic thinker, and beneath the Aristotelian language there is often a Christian metaphysic.
That means reality is not merely:
- material,
- mechanistic,
- value-neutral.
Rather, creation possesses an intelligible order.
Human beings are creatures, not self-creators.
Our freedom is not primarily the freedom to invent ourselves but the freedom to become what we are meant to be.
That is a very old idea, stretching from Aristotle through Aquinas into much of Christian thought.
What about technology?
Here the metaphysics becomes politically visible.
Many modern technologists implicitly adopt what you might call a Baconian metaphysics:
Nature is something to be mastered.
Knowledge becomes power.
Limits become engineering problems.
Progress means increasing control.
Deneen is suspicious of this orientation.
Not because he hates technology, but because he thinks a civilization organized around mastery eventually turns that mastery back onto human nature itself.
You start by controlling rivers and forests.
You end by redesigning families, identities, reproduction, education, and perhaps eventually human cognition itself.
To him, that isn't just a technological development. It's a metaphysical project.
Is his metaphysics distinctive?
Not really.
His political conclusions are distinctive in today's intellectual landscape.
His metaphysics is comparatively traditional.
In fact, many philosophers would say his deepest commitments are recognizably Aristotelian-Christian:
- reality has an order,
- human nature is real,
- flourishing is objective rather than purely subjective,
- freedom is connected to virtue rather than unlimited choice,
- communities are natural rather than merely contractual.
What's unusual is not the metaphysics itself.
What's unusual is that he's trying to use that older metaphysical picture to critique a highly technological, liberal, and individualistic modern society.
That's why debates about Deneen often become so fundamental. People think they're arguing about economics, politics, or AI, but underneath they're often disagreeing about a much deeper question:
Are human beings creatures with a given nature and purpose, or are they fundamentally self-authoring beings whose purposes are largely chosen?
Deneen's answer is firmly on the first side of that divide.
Yes. If you focus on Aquinas rather than on Deneen's immediate political arguments, a lot of what he's doing becomes clearer.
The important thing is that Deneen is not simply borrowing Aquinas's conclusions. He's operating within a worldview that Aquinas helped articulate.
1. Human beings have a nature
For Aquinas, a thing is not just a bundle of matter. It has a nature—a characteristic way of being and acting.
An oak tree is not merely a collection of atoms. It is the kind of thing that grows into an oak.
Likewise, a human being is not merely a consciousness making arbitrary choices.
A human has:
- rationality,
- sociability,
- embodiment,
- dependence,
- capacities for virtue and contemplation.
This sounds simple, but it is a major divide from many modern assumptions.
For Aquinas, freedom is not the ability to become anything whatsoever.
Freedom is the ability to realize one's proper good.
Deneen's critique of liberalism largely depends on this premise.
2. Teleology is real
Aquinas inherited Aristotle's idea that things are intelligible partly through their ends (teloi).
Eyes are for seeing.
Acorns are ordered toward becoming oak trees.
Human capacities also have purposes.
The modern world often avoids this language because it sounds old-fashioned or religious.
But Deneen's concern about AI, markets, education, and politics only makes sense if one thinks there are better and worse ways for human beings to live.
That is a teleological claim.
For Aquinas, politics is not simply about preventing conflict.
It is partly about creating conditions in which people can flourish according to their nature.
Deneen's dissatisfaction with a society organized around preference satisfaction comes from this Thomistic background.
3. The common good is real
This is perhaps the most important Aquinas influence politically.
For Aquinas, society is not just a contract among individuals pursuing private interests.
There is such a thing as a common good.
The common good is not merely the sum of individual preferences.
Nor is it just economic output.
Rather, it consists in the conditions that enable a community to flourish together.
This differs sharply from many modern political theories.
If you begin with autonomous individuals, politics becomes a negotiation among competing desires.
If you begin with Aquinas, politics is partly concerned with cultivating the virtues and institutions that sustain human flourishing.
Deneen repeatedly returns to this theme.
4. Freedom and virtue
Modern discussions often treat freedom as the absence of constraints.
Aquinas does not.
For Aquinas, someone enslaved to vice is less free than a virtuous person.
This sounds strange to modern ears.
Imagine two people:
- One is addicted to gambling.
- The other has disciplined control over his desires.
Modern language might say both are free if neither is coerced.
Aquinas would say the second person is actually freer because he governs himself rationally.
This idea is all over Deneen.
When he criticizes modern notions of freedom, he is often echoing a Thomistic distinction between:
- freedom as choice,
- freedom as excellence.
5. The hierarchy of goods
Aquinas thinks human goods exist at different levels.
Material goods are genuine goods.
So are:
- friendship,
- family,
- knowledge,
- virtue,
- contemplation of truth,
- ultimately union with God.
Not all goods are equal.
This matters because Deneen frequently criticizes societies that maximize lower goods while undermining higher ones.
A Thomist might say:
A society can become richer while becoming worse.
That sentence is almost unintelligible within a purely economic framework but perfectly intelligible within Aquinas's framework.
6. The rejection of mastery
This is where Aquinas and modern technological culture diverge most sharply.
Aquinas certainly values knowledge.
But knowledge is fundamentally ordered toward understanding reality and living well within it.
The Baconian-modern project increasingly understands knowledge as power.
Nature becomes something to manipulate.
Limits become obstacles.
The ideal becomes mastery.
Deneen often interprets liberal modernity as an extension of this desire for mastery:
- mastery over nature,
- mastery over society,
- mastery over tradition,
- mastery over the body,
- perhaps eventually mastery over human nature itself.
Aquinas would be wary of this because creatures do not create their own natures.
They receive them.
7. Participation rather than self-creation
This may be the deepest Thomistic influence.
For Aquinas, human beings do not invent meaning.
They participate in an order of reality that already exists.
Truth is discovered rather than manufactured.
The good is discovered rather than invented.
The self is developed rather than self-created.
Deneen's deepest disagreement with modern liberalism is arguably located here.
He thinks modern culture increasingly imagines people as self-authors.
A Thomist thinks human flourishing comes from rightly participating in an order that precedes individual choice.
What makes Deneen interesting is that he is not trying to prove Aquinas's metaphysics directly. He is doing something more indirect.
He points to phenomena like:
- loneliness,
- institutional distrust,
- family decline,
- loss of local attachment,
- political fragmentation,
and asks whether these are symptoms of a society built on an inadequate understanding of the human person.
That is a very Thomistic move. The political critique is downstream from an anthropology, and the anthropology is downstream from a metaphysics. For Deneen, the political crisis is ultimately a crisis of what we think human beings are.
That's actually quite close to how a Thomist-influenced critic like Deneen might frame the story.
The traditional Christian reading of the Fall is not primarily:
Humans wanted knowledge.
It's more like:
Humans wanted to determine good and evil for themselves.
The temptation is autonomy in a very deep sense.
Not merely freedom of action, but freedom from a given order.
A Deneen-esque retelling might go something like:
The serpent said, "Why should you accept limits? Why should you inherit obligations? Why should your nature tell you what you are for? Take and eat, and you shall be as gods, choosing your own ends."
And the fruit turns out to be individual preference.
Not because preferences are bad. Aquinas obviously thinks humans have desires and make choices.
The issue is elevating preference into the supreme principle.
A Thomist asks:
What ought I desire?
The neoliberal consumer asks:
What do I happen to want?
The difference is subtle but enormous.
You can almost imagine a satirical Thomistic Genesis:
And the serpent said unto Eve, "Have ye considered a more expansive conception of lifestyle options?"
And Eve saw that the fruit was desirable for maximizing personal choice and enhancing self-authorship.
And Adam, perceiving new opportunities for preference satisfaction, likewise partook.
What's striking is that Deneen's critique is not fundamentally economic.
People often hear "neoliberalism" and think he's talking about deregulation, privatization, or free trade.
Those matter, but the deeper target is anthropological.
He thinks both modern markets and modern bureaucracies rest on the same picture of the human person:
- an autonomous chooser,
- detached from thick communal obligations,
- pursuing self-defined ends.
The market serves those choices through consumption.
The state serves them through administration and rights protection.
They appear opposed, but in Deneen's account they are twins.
That's one reason his criticism lands in unexpected places. He can sound critical of both Silicon Valley libertarianism and technocratic managerialism because he sees both as expressions of the same underlying metaphysical assumption.
A Thomist would probably push the Eden analogy even further.
The original temptation wasn't:
Become evil.
It was:
Become self-sufficient.
The creature's desire to become its own measure.
That's why Aquinas repeatedly treats pride as the deepest sin. Pride is not just vanity; it's the refusal to accept dependence on a reality one did not create.
Viewed through that lens, some of the grander technological dreams start to look almost theological:
- freedom from biological limits,
- freedom from inherited identities,
- freedom from dependence,
- freedom from mortality,
- freedom from nature itself.
A Thomist asks whether these are genuine forms of liberation or manifestations of the ancient temptation to become "as gods."
Of course, a defender of liberalism would immediately object:
Hold on. Escaping arbitrary authority, inherited oppression, forced social roles, and rigid hierarchies isn't a rebellion against reality. It's moral progress.
And that's the real dispute.
The argument isn't between people who like freedom and people who dislike it.
It's between two conceptions of freedom.
For the liberal, freedom is increasingly self-direction.
For the Thomist, freedom is increasingly alignment with what is truly good.
Everything else follows from that divergence. Once you disagree about what freedom is, you'll disagree about technology, politics, education, family life, and even whether that apple was a gift or a poison.
No comments:
Post a Comment