The conservative philosophy

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You've clearly never urinated on an electric fense before.

You're trying to talk to me about electricity?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
My opinions are based on my logic. Your own logical disposition is different to mine, thus your logic and hence opinions are different.

No, my premises and hence opinions are different. Logic is a constant, described nicely by skywalker

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In order to make that latter proposition, you need to establish an indpendent judge, aka, an objective. In the absense of any objective all is equally valid, which does not bely a contextual or pseudo objective. In that sense, we would say that athelete A is best for a given context, but theres very little you can do with that beyond the context. For anything to be unequal without an objective, requires an objective. Thus we have a dud (imho).

And that is what I disagree. I think you can have many subjectives floating about, some higher than others, none the same, none equal, without an objective. Just because we have no objective time does not mean we do not know something happened before something else.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That is obviously flawed with regards to qualitative disciplines, and indeed it can be shown to be dubious for the far easier quantified disciplines. We are dealing with a qualified discipline here.

I disagree, and go with skywalker on the nature of logic.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
EDIT: I recall you saying a long time ago that logic was a mental construct. I remember agreeing and saying that was an example of cognetive relativism!

I don't remember that. I don't think I'd every say anything as flowery as "logic is an example of cognetive relativism!"

Originally posted by skywalker
Logic is objective. Their are only four axioms in logic: "P implies Q" & "P" implies "Q", "P implies Q" & "!Q" implies "!P", "P implies Q" & "Q implies R" implies "P implies R", and "P implies Q" implies "!Q implies !P" (all of this I learned in Geometry a few years ago when we did logic proofs ). Only premises differ.

[Whaleboy]

You're trying to talk to me about electricity?

Point taken with a not inconsiderable degree of shock

No, my premises and hence opinions are different. Logic is a constant, described nicely by skywalker

See my above post.

And that is what I disagree. I think you can have many ibjectives floating about, some higher than others, none the same, none equal, without an objective. Just because we have no objective time does not mean we do not know something happened before something else.

To define those objectives, you need an independent observer. In other words, an objective.

I disagree

I could have told you that! . I take it then that you think there is a logical standard for qualitative concerns, such as an objective measure for the validity of philosophical concepts? You thinking what I'm thinking?

Lets put this another way, is an objective logical means of validating qualitative premises? If so, I humbly concede .

I don't remember that. I don't think I'd every say anything as flowery as "logic is an example of cognetive relativism!"

I said the bit about logic and cognetive relativism. You said logic is a mental construct. I concurred.

[Whaleboy]

Off for some beauty sleep... bonsoir!!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Point taken with a not inconsiderable degree of shock

Originally posted by Whaleboy
To define those objectives, you need an independent observer. In other words, an objective.

Nope. Imagine two points. One is higher than the other, however you do not know where overall. There is no objective, there are merely all the subjectives, at different positions. You do not have an objective position to measure from, and so do not know the ultimate position, but you can say one is higher than the other.

Moreover, it is not that I necessarily believe that one is higher than the other, merely that I haven't seen any evidence or reasoning why they all have to be equal. I don't believe I, nor anyone else, can claim which, objectively, which are higher than others, but that is not to say that some are not higher than others.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I take it then that you think there is a logical standard for qualitative concerns, such as an objective measure for the validity of philosophical concepts?

I think there is, but I don't think anyone could say what it is, necessarily. I think we can say some things are more logical than others. For example, given that my aim is to cause as little pain to myself as possible, stabbing myself is not a logical move. However if my aim was to cause pain, it would be. That is why conservatives and liberals seem to have different logic, because they have different premises, and thus one may see a philosophy as logical, while another may not. Either may be acting logically or illogically, but you do not know whether or not they are, because you do not know what their premise is. Their actions anbd beliefs could be either. That is why you shouldn't state if anothers action/belief is logical or not, since you do not know their aims and premises.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You thinking what I'm thinking?

I sincerely hope not

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Lets put this another way, is an objective logical means of validating qualitative premises?

No. the validity of the premises rests on your subjective beliefs as to their merits. Logic doesn't come into that. However you cannot say someone logic is flawed, without knowing their premises entirely, which is impossible, since you are not telepathic.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You said logic is a mental construct.

Still seems not like I'd have put it. Mental contruct is hardly my type of phrase or opinion. Simple rule, if it doesn't state, or at least imply in some way, that Louise is beautiful, then it probably isn't an opinion of mine

[Berzerker]

Ned -

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.

They don't believe in (1), the Founders did and we all can see how far we've departed from their system of limited government.

They believe in individualism? Hardly, look at all the government subsidies they want to hand out much less the freedoms they've destroyed with their liberal brethren. For all their rhetoric about individualism and freedom, they are much more collectivist in nature as long, of course, as when they are in the majority. When they lose the "might makes right" majority position, they resort to arguments about freedom and the Constitution protecting them from majority rule.

(3) Yes, and this "principle" over rides the first two. However, conservative "morality" is a relativist morality. If a conservative decides a personal behavior is "immoral", then it becomes "moral" to steal other people's money ("taxes") to cage the offenders...even millions of offenders... And if you need proof of the conservative hatred of individualism, just look at the paradox created by (2) and (3). Their hatred of "libertinism" exemplifies this paradox because what is libertinism if not "individuality"? Libertinism is free thinking, and personal behavior outside society's "norms", i.e., individualism. How can conservatives believe in individuality when they also believe their "morality" must be imposed on everyone else, especially the libertines? They can't...

[Q Classic]

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

1 and 2 work together. 3, however, often comes into conflict with 1 and 2. particularly with how most of the christian right uses it.

libertarians are at least consistent in respect to those three things.

[Spiffor]

We had a similar thread about it some time ago, and my mind hasn't changed since.

"Conservative" is an incredibly variable concept across humanity. Today's conservatives in the US formally advocate small government, whereas ancient conservatives in China (the emperor's bureaucrats) were staunch proponent of the biggest government possible. Today's conservatives tend to be weary over abortion or gay rights (and some aren't even weary). Yesterday's conservatives were the ones who staunchly loathed contraception and non-marital sex. Today's conservatives in the US defend strongly freedom of speech. Today's conservatives in Russia are favorable to censorship. British conservatives before Thatcher preserved the welfare system. British conservatives after Thatcher spat on the welfare system...

Etc, etc. There are so many wild variations between conservatisms on Earth and in History that it is delusional to believe there is a timeless ideological content to conservatism.

That's why I believe conservatism couldn't be accurately described by an ideology, but rather by a general worldview. I define conservatism as being fundamentally cautious / weary towards the future, and as seeing the past with a positive outlook. Conservatism, to me, consists in trying to preserve the past, or in reluctantly accept the changes, rather than embracing them.

[Immortal Wombat]

Conservatism, to me, consists in trying to conserve the past, or in reluctantly accept the changes, rather than embracing them.

[Spiffor]

Yep. Nothing like big government/small government. Nothing like individualism/collectivism. Nothing like religion/atheism. Really simply, a reluctance towards the future, and a more or less blatant idealization of the past.

[Berzerker]

Today's conservatives in the US formally advocate small government, whereas ancient conservatives in China (the emperor's bureaucrats) were staunch proponent of the biggest government possible.

Ironically, those chinese conservatives would just love the government created or maintained by US conservatives.

[Whaleboy]

Nope. Imagine two points. One is higher than the other, however you do not know where overall. There is no objective, there are merely all the subjectives, at different positions. You do not have an objective position to measure from, and so do not know the ultimate position, but you can say one is higher than the other.

But you need to determine that height. You need to determine which is higher, which requires an objective. Until that point, what we would call height is merely a property, without examination and analysis, for example, an objective person measuring, then such a notion is a fallacy.

Moreover, it is not that I necessarily believe that one is higher than the other, merely that I haven't seen any evidence or reasoning why they all have to be equal. I don't believe I, nor anyone else, can claim which, objectively, which are higher than others, but that is not to say that some are not higher than others.

In that absense of a factor that would make something unequal, all is equal.

I think there is, but I don't think anyone could say what it is, necessarily. I think we can say some things are more logical than others. For example, given that my aim is to cause as little pain to myself as possible, stabbing myself is not a logical move.

But everything there is open to interpretation. As a writer I cannot help but seek the full meaning of a text, moving beyond the literal, or indeed even within the literal. Again your example is not very useful, as it leaves itself closed to other factors and can be defined mathematically anyway. Who is to logically qualify idealism as being more logical than realism? Nonetheless, if we dont know what this objective logic standard for qualitative concerns, then as far as this debate is concerned, it does not exist. Any attempt to define it as far as I can see will merely result in a system based on premises and subjective as the opinions they are attempting to judge. For example, "a better philosophy is one that is easily implemented or that causes greatest happiness", as a subjective means of judging it, who is to say that "the better philosophy is one that the beholder finds more logically consistent" is not a valid means of judgement. Fundamentally, it boils down to "to each his own".

No. the validity of the premises rests on your subjective beliefs as to their merits. Logic doesn't come into that. However you cannot say someone logic is flawed, without knowing their premises entirely, which is impossible, since you are not telepathic.

Which is what I've been trying to say. I, as one subjective, cannot make an objective decision over another subjective in my context. The key thing here is that as a subjective, I can make an opinion, but that is no less subjective than me, and since there is no objective logical means of judging these qualified disciplines, alls opinions are equally valid.

Still seems not like I'd have put it. Mental contruct is hardly my type of phrase or opinion

Its a saved msn conversation, I'll dig it out.

Still seems not like I'd have put it. Mental contruct is hardly my type of phrase or opinion. Simple rule, if it doesn't state, or at least imply in some way

But logic dictates that according to your own premises, that is the variable here as I believe we have established. It is my view that logic is flexible, but for the purposes of this debate we can ignore that. You have yet to show that there is a logical standard for these opinions.

(3) Yes, and this "principle" over rides the first two. However, conservative "morality" is a relativist morality. If a conservative decides a personal behavior is "immoral", then it becomes "moral" to steal other people's money ("taxes") to cage the offenders...even millions of offenders... And if you need proof of the conservative hatred of individualism, just look at the paradox created by (2) and (3). Their hatred of "libertinism" exemplifies this paradox because what is libertinism if not "individuality"? Libertinism is free thinking, and personal behavior outside society's "norms", i.e., individualism. How can conservatives believe in individuality when they also believe their "morality" must be imposed on everyone else, especially the libertines? They can't...

. A pragmatic contradiction! I like it!

Spiff: Agreed, we can say it is a world view, but at the core of that view lies certain concepts that are pretty much constant, just thinking about it in history. All the rest that we term conservative are variable.. indeed a worldview that can incorporate what you might call liberal elements, and my world view incorporating some conservative elements.

Ironically, those chinese conservatives would just love the government created or maintained by US conservatives.

Thus causing one hell of a fireworks display .

[Dis]

small goverment.

This is why Bush is not a conservative. He's spending like there's not tomorrow!!

And yes I do admit I'm conservative when it comes to economic policies

But don't dare call me a conservative, or I'll bash your brains in. Because I think conservatives are the stupidest people in the world when it comes to certain social policies.

[Whaleboy]

Its ok Diss. I'm conservative when it comes to economics.

Bush isn't a conservative. He's an idiot.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Conservative philosophy is encapsulated in the works of Edmund Burk. Basically a very slow gradual progress, where tradition isn't cast aside but built upon because tradition is the result of generations of testing and that which has trickled down to us are the winners of the historical testing process.