On Thursday, April 3rd, 2025, students from across the Duke community joined The Lemur and the Civil Discourse Project for the inaugural meeting of Foundations: A Seminar on the Great Books of Political Philosophy. This first entry introduced students to Edmund Burke’s seminal work in conservative philosophy, Reflections on the Revolution in France. Alejandro Nina Duran contributed to this recap.
When Postdoctoral Fellow Professor Christopher Coome graced the green pastures of Duke University, he was immediately concerned with the potential dissolution of social norms when talking about politics that is unfortunately endemic to many elite college campuses. Fortunately, an opportunity sprawled within the prestigious halls of Sanford, where, with the support of the POLIS and director Abdullah Antepli, the Civil Discourse Project welcomed Professor Coome with open arms. To engage with the University’s finest minds, Professor Coome—with the help of fellow Lemur wordsmith Sherman Criner—created a seminar titled Foundations: A Seminar on the Great Books of Political Philosophy, to mainly serve as an open forum to discuss and make sense of the subliminal contours that mold our contemporary political ideologies. Edmund Burke’s seminal piece, Reflections on the Revolution in France, was discussed for the inaugural seminar. Though each participant was given a book to read beforehand, the discussion was instead framed around reading Burke’s short, pithy quotes that encapsulated Burke’s most salient thoughts, ranging from the simplicity of manners to the limitations of virtuosity and politics. The conversation started with Burke’s views on prudence, where Mr. Coome eloquently paints an all-encompassing historical backdrop that sheds light on Burke’s political and moral posture towards the Revolution. After reading the quotes, Burke’s notions of prudence elicited a palpable impulse to comment, yet the conversation gleamed with civility, and each participant’s insights continued to invite fresh perspectives.
One recurring point was Burke’s incessant belief that change was an organic process that preserves the ideas of antiquity instead of a precipitous overhaul of the traditional structures and ideas. Within the framework of Burke’s approach to change, the hallmark of a proper society, like America in Burke’s view, was the longevity of social and institutional prudence among the commonwealth of people. As you’d expect, the intellectual roundtable was itching to discuss more. Within Burke’s ideas, the participants wrestled with a moral quandary: How can prudence be conserved within the machinations of society? Among themselves, people exchanged ideas, critiqued, and built off of each other so that the conversation was productive rather than destructive.
Burke’s prescient notions about the eventual dissolution of French governance and civil society were noticed by many participants. As the conversation continued, Mr. Coome answered several questions about Burke’s beliefs while providing much-needed context. As the participants jumped from theme to theme, intellectual conversation always returned to this ostensible contradiction of moral conservatism within a dialectical human nature. Over time, the discussion grounded itself more in Burke’s personal beliefs than his abstract ideas of virtue. Burke’s elitist upbringing within the political sphere predisposed him to regard absolutism as a superior order for maintaining English governance. Trying to reconcile Burke’s fealty to aristocracy and his support for the American Revolution elicited fruitful discussion and more-than-slightly perplexed faces.
In an era where meaningful political dialogue often collapses under the weight of polarization, Professor Coome’s seminar stood as a rare forum for intellectual rigor and civil discourse. By grounding discussion in the enduring wisdom of Burke, the seminar not only offered a critical lens through which to examine the present but also modeled the very prudence Burke advocated—deliberative patience grounded in history, tradition, and mutual respect. As participants left with questions still lingering and ideas still evolving, the seminar accomplished something rare and necessary: it reminded Duke’s community that deep disagreement, when approached thoughtfully, can be the foundation for shared understanding rather than division.
By Alejandro Nina Duran
