The conservative philosophy

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Conservatism as I define it here means "might makes right", moralistic stuff.

er... Is that definition not in itself a philosophy?

[Whaleboy]

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.

Welcome to the pacifist camp. Have a join!

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.

I use the word in the conceptual sense, not the familial, where it is nigh on impossible to have a reasoned debate because of the myriad interpretations due to "bolt on" concepts.

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

Only a good philosophy!

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

See my above post. Impractical, as irrelevant as it is, is a poor critique.

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

Conservative elements in that respect are required for the forced imposition of one will over another. To start a war, one needs to impose ones will on another, henceforth, one of course has the right to defend oneself.

er... Is that definition not in itself a philosophy?

Yep! A lame one! Though I do concede your point, it is a poor philosophy that does not stand up imho.

[Verres]

How do you judge whether a philosophy is 'lame' or not? I disagree with many philosophies, but I would not claim they dont stand up, as you put it. This implies that in order for a philosophy to be valid the ideals it promotes must be feasible in the real world, yet by your own admition, saying someting is impractical is a 'poor critique'. How would you distinguish a poor philosophy from a good one, other than simply claiming the one you happen to agree with is the most sound?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Yep! A lame one! Though I do concede your point, it is a poor philosophy that does not stand up imho.

No philosophy stands up. Thats why we keep getting new ones.

[Whaleboy]

How do you judge whether a philosophy is 'lame' or not? I disagree with many philosophies, but I would not claim they dont stand up, as you put it. This implies that in order for a philosophy to be valid the ideals it promotes must be feasible in the real world, yet by your own admition, saying someting is impractical is a 'poor critique'. How would you distinguish a poor philosophy from a good one, other than simply claiming the one you happen to agree with is the most sound?

Well, I would start by agreeing with it or not... as a subjectivist thats not quite the idiocy it sounds.

More rationally, its something thats logically consistent, for example, one fundamental philosophy, like idealism, leads to other things, and you can draw conclusions further down the line such as liberalism, libertarianism, and then back to a question of the individual. I like to think of it as a conceptual circle, where different continuous segments apply to different contexts, such as the political or the personal or the ideological.

Whether or not it stands up in the real world is ireelevant to me, as one impliments a concept piece by piece, but thats not my concern. For me, its a question of logic, based upon my own personal disposition if course.

EDIT: A concept can be useful in terms of other concepts. For example, saying "all men have beards", then "he is a man, therefore he has a beard", is logical but you can't really do anything with it. I know its going off at a tangeant but its an interesting way to measure the general grooviness of an idea .

Needless to say, objectively all ideas are as valid as all others, there is no better or worse, but I am speaking as a subjective individual, with opinions as to what is preferable to others.

[Whaleboy]

No philosophy stands up. Thats why we keep getting new ones.

Depends on how you define "stand up". I apologise for the ambiguity in my definition.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That goes without saying for anything anyone says!

No, the phrase "[it is] a pretty poor one!" suggests fact not opinion. If everything said was opinion, why would any post have IMHO written in them, as some of yours do? If it is taken as opinion it is not needed.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
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.

So if there was never a stage when the best option was war, there would be no difference between the two?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
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.

So you are taking the Mill Limit, an idea you invented, to dictate what is passive and active and thus who is a liberal and who is a conservative?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
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? .

I didn't say near impossible, I said impossible. Individual nations, while being democracies, volantarily restricting themselves, so that they do actions that are detrimental to them, will not happen.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Nonetheless, even in the pragmatic sense, elements of this idea can be implimented, for example, a particular nation adopting a pacifist foreign policy.

Only when it's in it's best interest. Otherwise it's not politically feasable, and we still run a democracy.

Impractical is a poor critique? Even the greatest ideology, if completely unfeasable, is a poor philosophy, for it can add nothing to the world. You claim that other philosophies do not "stand up", yet yours does not. Stand up to what? Your logic and morals?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
objectively all ideas are as valid as all others, there is no better or worse, but I am speaking as a subjective individual, with opinions as to what is preferable to others.

Only given that we agree with your subjective idea that objectivity theory is correct. If that is not true, then all ideas are not equally valid.

[Immortal Wombat]

Even the greatest ideology, if completely unfeasable, is a poor philosophy, for it can add nothing to the world.

Although judging whether it is, was, and will be completely unfeasable is somewhat difficult.

[Whaleboy]

No, the phrase "[it is] a pretty poor one!" suggests fact not opinion. If everything said was opinion, why would any post have IMHO written in them, as some of yours do? If it is taken as opinion it is not needed.

I take everything as opinion, no-ones views can be taken as fact unless they are stating a scientific truth, for example, the speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s, but even that is dubious, but I'll spare you this time! . I am not an agent of the truth, I am an agent of myself. The truth is a messed up enough idea as it is!

So if there was never a stage when the best option was war, there would be no difference between the two?

The ideological differences would remain, there would simply be no test to show it! Its a state that I dream of.

So you are taking the Mill Limit, an idea you invented, to dictate what is passive and active and thus who is a liberal and who is a conservative?

No, I am taking it as my belief as to where that limit should lie. It can lie in other places, liberalism/relativism requires that that limit exists, where it lies is open to debate.

I didn't say near impossible, I said impossible. Individual nations, while being democracies, volantarily restricting themselves, so that they do actions that are detrimental to them, will not happen.

Nothing is ever impossible.

Only when it's in it's best interest. Otherwise it's not politically feasable, and we still run a democracy.

As we have already established, democracy sucks!

Even the greatest ideology, if completely unfeasable, is a poor philosophy, for it can add nothing to the world.

If that is your definition of a bad philosophy, then fair enough. As you know, it is not mine, but the differences there are profound in our world views, I, as an idealist, already define my logic system.

Stand up to what? Your logic and morals?

For me, yes. As opposed to yours?

[Whaleboy]

Only given that we agree with your subjective idea that objectivity theory is correct. If that is not true, then all ideas are not equally valid.

Enlighten me.

Although judging whether it is, was, and will be completely unfeasable is somewhat difficult.

[Immortal Wombat]

Nothing is ever impossible.

In your opinion...

[Verres]

I am an agent of myself.

That must get confusing at times...

[Kuciwalker]

elijah (I refuse to call you Whaleboy ):

Your problem is you still define conservativism as meaning "we want to keep things the way they are" or "the way they were" rather than as a particular set of beliefs. Conservativism NO LONGER MEANS wanting to conserve the current or past morals and policies. It actually RERPRESENTS certain morals and policies.

[Whaleboy]

That must get confusing at times...

For which of us?

As I said before, you will always be my friend, you know too much.

elijah (I refuse to call you Whaleboy ):

Why??

Your problem is you still define conservativism as meaning "we want to keep things the way they are" or "the way they were" rather than as a particular set of beliefs.

Where did I say that on this thread?