The conservative philosophy

[Whaleboy]

It has occured to me that none exists!!!

Liberalism tends to be grounded in certain philosophies, for example, the relativist, the idealist, the empiriclist, which leads to more pragmatic philosophies, the libertarian, the pacifist, whereas it seems that conservatism only begins at best in this respect, and even there I find it to be more dubius... the greater disposition towards war and vigilantism being one of them.

On the other hand, one element of conservatism in that absense of such a philosophy is a more pragmatic approach in each situation. For example, given a potential war that is in nation A's interest, the conservative in nation A may decide to support it on the ground that it benefits him and nation A. The cetacean liberal may not, because she has a relativist, pacifist ideology that means she may consider nation B, seeing things in a wider context.

In that respect, there are merits to both, for example, a pragmatic approach, such as pro-capitalism and libertarianism (traditionally bastions of conservatism (right wing economics that is), though lib. is a liberal concept ). In that sense, I would adopt the conservative approach in dealing with ones own society and interests, whereas when dealing with others, liberalism, as the context gets bigger. A limit to that (almost utilitarian) conservatism is obviously required to keep one subjective from imposing on another, like a war or a breach of liberty. Mill Limit!!!

Discuss, dont troll (at least when I'm not around).

[Nubclear]

da repukes suxorz hahahahahahha

[Whaleboy]

Say again?

[Ned]

It depends on how you define conservative, and conservatives varies issue by issue.

Generally, today's conservatives have three overriding pholosophical priniciples:

1) Least government is the best government;
2) Individualism; and
3) Morality and ethics as opposed to relative morality and libertinism.

[Drogue]

Re: The conservative philosophy

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It has occured to me that none exists!!!

Which is not correct. If you state that conservatives will go to war if it is in their interest, that is a philosophy. the belief in doing what is good for your nation is a philosophy in itself. You may disagree with it, but to say they have none is untrue.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Liberalism tends to be grounded in certain philosophies, for example, the relativist, the idealist, the empiriclist, which leads to more pragmatic philosophies, the libertarian, the pacifist, whereas it seems that conservatism only begins at best in this respect, and even there I find it to be more dubius... the greater disposition towards war and vigilantism being one of them.

So liberalism has many words to describe different aspects, and that makes it better? However you can be a pacifist and a conservative, or an idealist and a conservative (indeed, conservatives, generally having a stronger set of ideals that wish to impose, may be more prone to this).

Originally posted by Whaleboy
On the other hand, one element of conservatism in that absense of such a philosophy is a more pragmatic approach in each situation. For example, given a potential war that is in nation A's interest, the conservative in nation A may decide to support it on the ground that it benefits him and nation A. The cetacean liberal may not, because she has a relativist, pacifist ideology that means she may consider nation B, seeing things in a wider context.

Or the other way too. Liberals may support nation A's war it because it supports liberal values such as tolerance, whereas conservatives may support non violence because they don't want to spend the money on fighting a war. A liberal doesn't have to be a relativist just as a conservative doesn't have to believe in empire and oil.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In that respect, there are merits to both, for example, a pragmatic approach, such as pro-capitalism and libertarianism (traditionally bastions of conservatism (right wing economics that is), though lib. is a liberal concept ). In that sense, I would adopt the conservative approach in dealing with ones own society and interests, whereas when dealing with others, liberalism, as the context gets bigger. A limit to that (almost utilitarian) conservatism is obviously required to keep one subjective from imposing on another, like a war or a breach of liberty. Mill Limit!!!

So your saying that when it comes to that individual society you support conservative economics, but when it comes to international relations you support liberal non-violence? Where does the mill limit come in there, and how is it to be enforced in international relations?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Discuss, dont troll (at least when I'm not around).

Yes, this thread was really set up as that This deserves a low troll rating at that IMHO.

[Whaleboy]

Cetacean liberalism ( ) means relative morality and thus liberalism.

Conservatism as I define it here means "might makes right", moralistic stuff.

1 and 2 are inconsequential imo, indeed, if we are to take the word conservative literally, then looking at the progression of history, the movement towards liberalism has meant more individualism and less totalitarianism.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Say again?

da repukes suxorz hahahahahahha

[Whaleboy]

Which is not correct. If you state that conservatives will go to war if it is in their interest, that is a philosophy

A pretty poor one!

So liberalism has many words to describe different aspects, and that makes it better?

No-one said anything about better or worse

However you can be a pacifist and a conservative, or an idealist and a conservative (indeed, conservatives, generally having a stronger set of ideals that wish to impose, may be more prone to this).

You need to back up that proposition. One can be a pacifist and a conservative, just as Mill was a utilitarian and a libertarian, but take it far enough and they become logically inconsistent. Incidentally, wanting to impose ideals on people, or fighting to do so is something that I term "non-pragmatism" (where pragmatism is keeping your head below the proverbial parapet). I mean idealism in the Platonic way.

Or the other way too. Liberals may support nation A's war it because it supports liberal values such as tolerance

A small context liberalism being overridden by a larger context conservatism, that is inconsistent. For example, I can be a freedom lover, a liberal trait, yet the desire to impose it on others beyond my own subjective, in a wider context is conservative.

A liberal doesn't have to be a relativist

According to me, they do. And looking at most liberals, they would concur. Of course you can have conservative relativists (to a point), which just goes to show how much relativism rocks!

So your saying that when it comes to that individual society you support conservative economics, but when it comes to international relations you support liberal non-violence? Where does the mill limit come in there, and how is it to be enforced in international relations?

Do I look like the UN? I'll leave such matters to chairwarmers, I'm merely a conceptualiser. The Mill Limit, as well as being an inherently right wing idea (freedom, capitalism), is a logical boundary to prevent one subjective from imposing itself upon another, for example, a conservative nation (in terms of domestics), following the Mill limit nationally, is using a liberal foreign policy.

Yes, this thread was really set up as that This deserves a low troll rating at that IMHO.

Its not a troll, the original post was not trying to said "liberalism rocks, conservatism sucks", I'm trying to explain an otherwise complex concept that is my position.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, if you define conservatism the way you do, the Saddam Hussein was the posterboy for conservatives.

And yet, conservatives hated him.

You obviously are completely wrong in your theories about conservatives.

[Whaleboy]

No, I merely have a very specific view of conservatives. Conceptually, I am correct, it is others that simplistically attach other traits to the word where they are not necessarily related. For example, I am a right wing liberal, which I believe to be the most consistent position, though even that definition is far too simplistic and two-dimensional.

Incidentally, Saddam Hussein was about as conservative as they come!! Not all conservatives have to agree with each other!! Hence we have humanities long and bloody history of needless wars.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
A pretty poor one!

You forgot the IMHO

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No-one said anything about better or worse

So liberalism is grounded in certain philosophies, that conservatism "only begins at best in this respect"? Care to elaborate on what you mean? In what respect?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You need to back up that proposition. One can be a pacifist and a conservative, just as Mill was a utilitarian and a libertarian, but take it far enough and they become logically inconsistent.

Where does conservative and pacifist become inconsistent? A conservative can believe in pacifism to the same extend as a liberal.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Incidentally, wanting to impose ideals on people, or fighting to do so is something that I term "non-pragmatism"

Even when imposing them is in your best interests, and therefore, the pragmatic approach? Its non-pragmatic in your terms, but pragmatic in English?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
A small context liberalism being overridden by a larger context conservatism, that is inconsistent. For example, I can be a freedom lover, a liberal trait, yet the desire to impose it on others beyond my own subjective, in a wider context is conservative.

When you've show that Liberalism de facto means non-interference, then yes. But it doesn't. Someone who wants to export liberalism to another nation is still a liberal.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
According to me, they do. And looking at most liberals, they would concur. Of course you can have conservative relativists (to a point), which just goes to show how much relativism rocks!
Then you are wrong. Liberalism does not mean relativism.

Liberals may have far more of a predisposition to relativism, but a liberal does not have to be a relativist, and vice versa. Also there are degrees of relativism, since nobody I know wishes complete relativism, that is, not influencing or guiding anyone, letting them decide everything for themselves.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Do I look like the UN? I'll leave such matters to chairwarmers, I'm merely a conceptualiser. The Mill Limit, as well as being an inherently right wing idea (freedom, capitalism), is a logical boundary to prevent one subjective from imposing itself upon another, for example, a conservative nation (in terms of domestics), following the Mill limit nationally, is using a liberal foreign policy.

So the Mill Limit, a static object, can be liberal in one sense and conservative in another? And I will answer my own question. No-one. It is impossible to police. However good an idea it is, the fatc it is impossible makes it useless.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
the original post was not trying to said "liberalism rocks, conservatism sucks"

yes it's not a troll?

I have to agree with Ned:

You obviously are completely wrong in your theories about conservatives

[Ned]

Whaleboy, well if your definition of a conservative is as you say it is, and if Saddam was/is a true conservative in your view, well I too must proudly say that I am a right wing liberal.

However, the way you use the word conservative in contexts where it clearly does not apply, only confuses people rather than leading to a rational discussion.

[St Leo]

Don't you need brains to have a philosophy?^-^

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I am a right wing liberal, which I believe to be the most consistent position, though even that definition is far too simplistic and two-dimensional.

Ideologically consistent maybe, however in the real world, it is impractical (with regards to the Mill Limit policing especially).

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Incidentally, Saddam Hussein was about as conservative as they come!! Not all conservatives have to agree with each other!! Hence we have humanities long and bloody history of needless wars.

While I do agree with Ned, in that I believe you are not using the terms liberal and conservative as they are usually meant, it is true that Saddam could easily be seen as a conservative. However liberals can cause wars. Just look at tghe French Revolution. Both sides can kill in large numbers.

[Whaleboy]

You forgot the IMHO

That goes without saying for anything anyone says!

So liberalism is grounded in certain philosophies, that conservatism "only begins at best in this respect"? Care to elaborate on what you mean? In what respect?

The most fundamental philosophy is "all there are, are thoughts". Out of that comes idealism, then empiricalism, then relativism, yadda yadda.

Where does conservative and pacifist become inconsistent? A conservative can believe in pacifism to the same extend as a liberal.

Where the best option for one subjective nation becomes war with another. A conservative in the larger context will do war, whereas a liberal in that same context will not.

Even when imposing them is in your best interests, and therefore, the pragmatic approach? Its non-pragmatic in your terms, but pragmatic in English?

Mine is consistent according to the definition of "pragmatism" in the penguin dictionary of philosophy, and what I have learned in my courses.

When you've show that Liberalism de facto means non-interference, then yes. But it doesn't. Someone who wants to export liberalism to another nation is still a liberal.

The Mill Limit applies here. One can purport and promote liberalism in another land, even go so far as take passive measures to make it so, but cannot impose it, i.e. war. A forced will is unacceptable according to this.

Liberals may have far more of a predisposition to relativism, but a liberal does not have to be a relativist, and vice versa.

According to Cetecean liberalism, they do, however you can disagree with me and say that it is a trend and a stronger disposition, and what I am saying will still stand.

Also there are degrees of relativism, since nobody I know wishes complete relativism, that is, not influencing or guiding anyone, letting them decide everything for themselves.

Total relativism is a contradiction in terms of course, but then one goes back to idealism there anyway. Nonetheless, that is irrelevant here as we are dealing with the context of human societies. Here, moral and cultural relativism apply. Are you saying that by being relativist we are imposing that upon them? If so, I use the analogy I have used frequently with you of the contradiction of imposing greater liberty. The word imposing means a reduction of liberty, whereas with increased liberty, it is your choice how to use it.

Incidentally, relativism does not prevent influencing or guiding people. It merely prevents imposing things on people. In this context, war.

So the Mill Limit, a static object, can be liberal in one sense and conservative in another?

It is not a static object, and it, as a concept is independent to liberalism and conservatism, but my liberalism is not independent to ML. Its a one way job . Liberal in the libertarian sense, conservative in the capitalist sense, and the freedom to be conservative (in the utilitarian sense, but of course with a limit).

And I will answer my own question. No-one. It is impossible to police. However good an idea it is, the fatc it is impossible makes it useless.

Can you imagine a world where we avoided things that are difficult or near impossible, or didn't chase a dream whose implimentation would lead to a better world, because that implimentation was hard? . Nonetheless, even in the pragmatic sense, elements of this idea can be implimented, for example, a particular nation adopting a pacifist foreign policy. It seems like a pragmatic and relatively realistic thing to me, difficult yes, but in my lifetime, reasonable.

I have to agree with Ned

Then perhaps you and Ned would enlighten me and show me the error of my ways!