For a while now I’ve been trying to wrap my head around philosophy ;mainly that of Plato and Aristotle. I thought that the summer break would be the ideal opportunity to do so, instead I found much of my reading and efforts wasted and the texts quite dense. The main subject areas I’m interested in are ethics, Catholic social teaching (Distributism) and the High Tory ideology.

The main topic I’m often debating against involves the Enlightenment version of (hedonistic) liberty and it’s bastard children… republicanism and Marxism. So far I’ve largely been able to hold my own in debate, although I need to expand my knowledge on these topics. Thus I need help finding good resources on Catholic and Counter- Enlightenment philosophy.  

I can't say that I am all that interested in High Tory ideology, but I can at least point you in the direction of Catholic counter-revolutionary and counter-"Enlightenment" texts.

Beginning with my favourite political philosopher and the one who has had the most influence over my own intellectual development, I would like to introduce you to the great Joseph de Maistre, a Savoyard lawyer from a comital family who was a member of the Sardinian-Piedmontese assembly for a few years before being sent to St. Petersburg for twenty years as ambassador to Russia.  He was friends with Tsar Alexander I and advised him against the enfranchisement of the serfs, ran afoul of the Tsar for converting too many Russian noble ladies to the Holy Catholic Faith, and also -- and this is extraordinary -- persuaded the Tsar himself into believing ("[as] my personal belief," the Tsar made a point of clarifying) in the double procession of the Holy Ghost (!).  In fact, it is rumoured that the Tsar may have faked his own death and retired to a Uniate monastery in secret, considering that he died suddenly and unexpectedly while far away from the capital, near the Black Sea, and that when the Soviets exhumed his sarcophogus from its resting place, they found no body.

The Count (as I like to call him, since that is the persona he adopts in his work "The Saint Petersburg Dialogues") particularly emphasises the operation of Divine Providence upon states and nations throughout history and has a very refined and well-illustrated explanation of God's justice and the punishments he imposes on mankind.  He is a stauch defender of Authority as such, the natural hierarchies of society, organic constitutions as opposed to written ones, the role and office of the Pope, and, of course, monarchy.

His writing is described by a political enemy as such : "That brief, nervous, lucid style, stripped of phrases, robust of limb, did not at all recall the softness of the eighteenth century, nor the declamations of the latest French books: it was born and steeped in the breath of the Alps; it was virgin, it was young, it was harsh and savage; it had no human respect, it felt its solitude; it improvised depth and form all at once… That man was new among the enfants du siècle."  He was and is universally loathed by liberals.

Here are some of his works :
http://www.maistre.polthought.cam.ac.uk/translations.html

I also recommend , which includes Maistre's "Reflections on Protestantism in Relation to Sovereignty," which is genius, and excerpts from "On the Pope."  It also includes the "Thoughts" of Louis de Bonald, who wrote a book that you can get called "On Divorce."  During the Bourbon Restoration, Bonald successfully banned divorce in France and also passed the Anti-Sacrilege Act, which punished those who stole the Most Blessed Sacrament with death.  Likewise, the book includes excerpts from Frederic Le Play, a Catholic social theorist, Rene de La Tour du Pin, a Catholic corporatist, and Emile Keller, another anti-capitalist and anti-socialist Catholic social theorist.  (Note :  While similar to distributism, these are not, properly speaking, distributist works; distributism as such is an English school of thought pretty much exclusively.)  It also includes an essay by Chateaubriand against Buonaparte and in favour of the Bourbons.

There are also the writings of Juan Donoso Cortes, a Spanish thinker (but not a Carlist) who was consulted for the drafting of the Syllabus Errorum and Quanta Cura, and then there are the writings of Edouard Cardinal Pie, of Poitiers (which St Pius X said he read a little bit from every day -- St Pius X also subscribed to Action Francaise and complimented Charles Maurras in an audience with the latter's devout Catholic mother, but Cardinal Pie seems to have had a great impact on St Pius X's intellectual development).  Good luck finding Cardinal Pie in English, though.  There are a few excerpts on the Angelus website, if I recall correctly.

And then there are the great works of Juan Vazquez de Mella, a Spaniard and a very devout Carlist, who was described as "living like a monk" and who was famous for his outstanding skills as an orator.  Very little of what he has written has been translated into English, but you can find long quotations from his articles and speeches in a chapter about him in the book "[url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967996058/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0967996058&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 Carlism and Polish Nationalism."  Its worth the buy for that reason alone; I do not own it but read about Vazquez de Mella from a copy owned by a friend.  The book also gives a general description of Spanish Carlists in the other essays.  As for the Polish Nationalists, well, they're not precisely counter-revolutionary or counter-"Enlightenment," but you can learn about them in that book if you are interested.  Raoul is Spanish and Polish; maybe he'd like that book, too.

Thanks for the resources, I'll certainly have a good look through them. Maistre certainly seems to be an interesting character, and I'm sure his works will be enlightening... in the good sense of the word! XD

One text which I found rather influential upon my own political thought, is Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha. Ignoring the "Papist" references in the first chapter, the theory in the book is largely sound; the fact that God gave paternal authority to Adam, who had the right and obligation to use said authority over his household, and how the rights and responsibilities of king are merely the extension of those of fathers. The only hole in his thesis stems from his Anglicanism; he said that God in order to preserve the natural law may will or tolerate revolutions, of course republics in his line of thinking are against the natural law and the "Commonwealth of England's" existence in the wake of the cινιℓ ωαr would contradict this. The only conceivable solution, would be if there was one organization... perhaps a Church with a Head with the power of Binding and Losing over both men and kingdoms; of course to an Anglican no such man exists.  

http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm

You can read a bit of Schochet's book here.

Raoul is Spanish and Polish; maybe he'd like that book, too.

I doubt I would like it, I am against Action Française.  I would even go farther and say that this group, which has been resurrected in a new form -- think Vincent Reynouard -- is being used by the devil to hijack the restoration of the monarchy and lead France into a sort of uber-Gallicanism.   I greatly resent how Action Française associated themselves with the monarchy, making it seem as if those who reject them also reject the monarchy.  I just don't care for their methods at all and don't accept Charles Maurras as a leader of Catholics, despite his supposed deathbed conversion ( another one!  like Napoleon, George Washington, etc. )  

I believe the devil will take this resurgence of Catholic zeal and twist it into a sort of crazed nαzι-like statism.  When this hit me, it instantly rang true.  I had always wondered how the Great Monarch's kingdom could collapse so rapidly.  I see no other way it could happen except this.  I'm not saying I know for sure, but it makes sense.  The devil can use rigor just as he uses laxism, puffing up pride and creating monsters.

Just as Vatican II is a far-left error, perhaps Antichrist will be a far-rightist as well -- gathering together the influence of the Jansenists and Gallicans and merging it with religious indifferentism.  

What I'm talking about is not much of a concern for people on this site.  But it is a big deal among the trad remnant in France.  There are pro-Maurras and anti-Maurras factions that don't get along at all.  It is also notable that the pro-Maurras faction express an "admiration" for the nαzιs while generously admitting that they had some faults  :rolleyes:  There is a kind of perverse combination of French extreme nationalism and German national socialism that is brewing.  They try to play on monarchist sympathies but these are not my kind of monarchists.  Their spirit is not the spirit of the Great Monarch.

As for the Carlists -- I don't know anything about that.  I know the pro-Maurras group talks about them a lot.  I'm not sure what the angle is there.  But I won't use guilt by association and condemn the Carlists until I know who they are.

Heh, good.  You would like them; they have nothing in common with those perfidious ralliés orléanistes of Action Française.  I follow the French monarchist and Catholic circles, too, and while, as you point out, this forum does not have much interest in those things, I think it should.  The Great Monarch (lieutenant of Christ, Eldest Son of the Church, the only sovereign on earth blessed by holy chrism from Heaven, the King of France, Mary's own Kingdom by special predilection) and his renewed French will be the means of the Restoration, in partnership with the Great Pope sitting on the throne of Moses and leading his people on pilgrimage to Jérusalem.  Period.  Those who want to participate in this great work of God and these grand events would do well to familiarise themselves with the dramatis personae and the scène upon which they will happen.  Furthermore, I believe North America will -- must -- be subject to this happy empire, whether directly or as a godson to the King.

... have a real effect on restraining mens' wicked nature and lifting their hearts to God.  The Monarch, furthermore, and the Holy Pope, will destroy these heresies of Gallicanism and Jansenism and their artifice, Orléanism, thus enabling a true renewal of the Church in a unified spirit.  Therefore, I think we can be morally confident in the glory of the Church lasting at least until the fourth generation, the generation of the Restoration inclusive.  Think of the psychological power of the stories of the deeds of the Holy Pope and Holy King alone, their associates, their words, the wisdom of their judments and laws, the impression of the buildings and art they foster, the camaraderie of the traditions and institutions they establish.  Not only that, but think of the nations as yet unreached by the Gospel and whose lands still need to be permeated with grace and holy knowledge.  It does not seem natural that the Restoration's influence would be so short-lived and unstable, since that would almost be a mark of its own disorder and the inefficacy of its authors.  So, while relatively brief, I don't see how it is unreasonable to suppose that two hundred years will pass from the Monarch until the Antichrist, the period when the foundations for the Antichrist are set beginning upon the death of the Monarch.  But nature must take its course -- men must forget.  Therefore, four good generations will hold out, each less excellent than its predecessor, before the rot finally sets in, and over several generations society becomes even more wicked and lax than it is today.  It was two hundred years from the Council of Trent until the French Revolution, after all.  Anyway, that's what I've got for a theory for now; I am interested in what you think of it.