Brainwashing 101

[Odin]

Imran has a point in that radical change that doesn't take the traditions of a society in account has "backlash" written all over it. What is wrong with History being a guide (I agree with Oswald Spengler about many things, mock me if you must), Many things that has made Western Civilization what is are traditions, removing the traditions is like removing collumns holding up a celling.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Agathon
Conservatism on the other hand is just stupid. Let's say that "history and tradition are to be our guides". Now only a moron would argue that nothing should ever change, since change often forces itself on us whether we want it or not.

People who appeal to tradition are just being stupid. Nobody could reasonably support everything which has been held as a tradition in even one society in any case. Tradition on its own cannot guide action without some other justification which renders it irrelevant in decision making.

It's just moronic.

It seemed initially like Agathon was making this case just to slander conservatives and paint them as just unprincipled people that resist change. However most of the people in this thread defending conservatives are making exactly that case, hehe. That conservativism is about respecting tradition, following history, and supporting gradual not radical change. But what tradition? Change towards what? That doesn't make any sense.

Progressive is a stupid term as well. This whole spectrum of "change" is meaningless unless presented in a context of ideology. Resisting change or embracing change depends on what you change TO. Those in Russia in the early 90's who were pushing for a return to a market economy were liberals, whereas the conservatives were trying to preserve the traditions of the past (i.e. communism). That turns on its head the traditional understanding that "moving forward" is moving towards socialism. So conservative or liberal are relitive terms if you use them to refer to "change".

If however you use them to broadly describe political parties or ideologies then that's different. That's how I was using them. Conservative as neocon, or free market, or religious morality, or law & order. These are clear ideological preferences.

But Aggie is right, if people take conservative to simply mean being traditional and resisting change, then that's stupid and meaningless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So conservative or liberal are relitive terms if you use them to refer to "change".

Well, DUH! And yes, what is conservative and what is liberal/progressive is dependent on the society. Both simply refer to their views on 'progress', which is highly different from society to society (though Burke's conservativism was in the context of liberalism, classic liberalism, and the goal was liberty for him, just to be careful how quickly you shake up things because for every step forward, you may be making two steps behind).

If however you use them to broadly describe political parties or ideologies then that's different. That's how I was using them. Conservative as neocon, or free market, or religious morality, or law & order. These are clear ideological preferences.

Yes, but Agathon thinks that those ideologies are simply a masking of their want of inequality.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

This is risible. My point has nothing to do with radical social engineering. If you want to hold that tradition is a reliable guide in every case (even when we have to deal with entirely new problems) then be my guest. Enjoy a world where women know their place and blacks can be bought and sold.

You don't even understand the argument. What a laugh. You pathetic clown.

So you're confirming that the term is essentially meaningless. I already knew that, but thanks for confirming it.

You don't have anything, because you're all thick.

You haven't understood the argument. Read it again, or get someone to read it out to you and explain it very slowly.

Read the argument again, you've missed the point wildly. My argument applies with equal force to those who wish change for its own sake.

So it's an empty theory. Burke is without doubt a moron for a start and the others won't get you anything coherent.

And you repeat the same idiocy.

Conservatism is a point of view that is essentially meaningless. It's espoused by people who desire inequality, although they dare not say that openly these days.

You've failed to deal with my argument. That's not really a surprise, since conservatives tend to be stupid.

What I find amusing is that either you are willfully ignorant of important streams of thought in our society(ies), or you are deliberately mischaracterising the views of your opponents in a thread about conservatism and its reception on campuses, together with your desire to be a professional academic.

Heh.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If I allowed myself to wet my toe, I'd come up with these criteria for conservatism:

-valuing law and order over contestation and change;

Or, valuing what has been demonstrated to work over change for the sake of change, or radical change. Some change is good, but be careful how you do it.

Different conservatives will identify different things that could stand some change, but almost all will see some things that should be different than they are now. However, none of them, or not many at least, would advocate overthrowing the government to remake it from scratch.

-valuing tradition over academic debate;

Why do you say this?

The free exchange of ideas is a tradition I very much want to conserve.

-being intolerant about semantic density and uncertainty. The practical corollaries of this proposition are to reject contemporary art and to adopt a retributivist moral system, where 'evil' is to be 'eradicated' to restore an imaginary balance, instead of being addressed through macro-level policies.

I feel you've grounded into left field here.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


It seemed initially like Agathon was making this case just to slander conservatives and paint them as just unprincipled people that resist change. However most of the people in this thread defending conservatives are making exactly that case, hehe. That conservativism is about respecting tradition, following history, and supporting gradual not radical change. But what tradition? Change towards what? That doesn't make any sense.

That depends on what else the conservative holds dear.

There are conservatives who would like to see morality enforced and religious views supported by the state.

Some other conservatives want the state out of our affairs as much as possible, and view individual liberty as one of the most cherished traditions that we should guard at all costs.

These are both conservative views. What defines them is a view toward tradition, although different traditions.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, DUH! And yes, what is conservative and what is liberal/progressive is dependent on the society. Both simply refer to their views on 'progress', which is highly different from society to society (though Burke's conservativism was in the context of liberalism, classic liberalism, and the goal was liberty for him, just to be careful how quickly you shake up things because for every step forward, you may be making two steps behind).

Exactly. This is why, though I'm a socialist, I am agaist rapid, possibly destabilizing change. ideology-based violent revolutions rarely turn out well. I have always had a good deal of respect for Burke, probaly because I wan't introduced to him as "the father of Conservatism", but in my High School US history class as a supporter of the American War of Independence (I don't like the term "American Revolution" because it was a seccesion, not a revolution).

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That depends on what else the conservative holds dear.

There are conservatives who would like to see morality enforced and religious views supported by the state.

Some other conservatives want the state out of our affairs as much as possible, and view individual liberty as one of the most cherished traditions that we should guard at all costs.

These are both conservative views. What defines them is a view toward tradition, although different traditions.

But the motivating idea that drives those two kinds of conservatives is a love of individual liberty and a love of religious morality. Those are concrete ideologies (as Ag said). "Tradition" is meaningless.

[Flip McWho]

Tell us how retarded it is to place importance on history and tradition in guiding current actions.

Why do you want that to guide? Histories been nothing more than a collection of wars, political/religious suppression, poverty whilst traditions been nothing short of feudalism, racism and poverty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Why do you want that to guide? Histories been nothing more than a collection of wars, political/religious suppression, poverty whilst traditions been nothing short of feudalism, racism and poverty.

As the quote goes (more or less), we should learn history lest we repeat it. History gives us many lessons and tradition has been what has filtered down to us from those historical lessons learned by our ancestors. We'll add our own lessons for our descendants, and I hope they don't throw away that wisdom which we've found out simply because the past has been so bad. After all, failure can teach the best lessons (the Iraq War, I feel, will teach a pretty big one).

[q=OzzyKP]But the motivating idea that drives those two kinds of conservatives is a love of individual liberty and a love of religious morality. Those are concrete ideologies (as Ag said). "Tradition" is meaningless.[/q]

You've missed the point. If their motivating ideas are so different how can they both be under the same heading "Conservative"? The root of conservative is 'conserve' after all, and what links them is that they go after their 'motivating ideas' through an extrapolation from tradition.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


As the quote goes (more or less), we should learn history lest we repeat it. History gives us many lessons and tradition has been what has filtered down to us from those historical lessons learned by our ancestors. We'll add our own lessons for our descendants, and I hope they don't throw away that wisdom which we've found out simply because the past has been so bad. After all, failure can teach the best lessons (the Iraq War, I feel, will teach a pretty big one).

[q=OzzyKP]But the motivating idea that drives those two kinds of conservatives is a love of individual liberty and a love of religious morality. Those are concrete ideologies (as Ag said). "Tradition" is meaningless.[/q]

You've missed the point. If their motivating ideas are so different how can they both be under the same heading "Conservative"? The root of conservative is 'conserve' after all, and what links them is that they go after their 'motivating ideas' through tradition.

I have never understood why people think tradition is inheirently bad, after all, the intellectual inheiritence of the Graeco-Roman civilization, which is tradition, is the basis of Western philosphy (and therefore Aggie's job) and werstern jurisprudence. The civilization that cuts itself off from it's traditions and history (like people like Aggie apparently want to do) is the civilization that distroys it's own foundation. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flip McWho

Why do you want that to guide? Histories been nothing more than a collection of wars, political/religious suppression, poverty whilst traditions been nothing short of feudalism, racism and poverty.

History is also full of good ideas that have been proven to work. Rule of Law, individual liberty, even collective relief of marked inequities (if I, as a Red Tory, might add).

I don't look to the past as a sheet of granite to imprison today's society within. Rather I favour it as an observable quantity over the uncertainty of unproven, radical social, economic, and political change.

[Odin]

Originally posted by notyoueither


History is also full of good ideas that have been proven to work. Rule of Law, individual liberty, even collective relief of marked inequities (if I, as a Red Tory, might add).

I don't look to the past as a sheet of granite to imprison today's society within. Rather I favour it as an observable quantity over the uncertainty of unproven, radical social, economic, and political change.

This is exactly the problem, too many people on the left see the past as all bad, a story of oppression, parasitical ruling classes, atrocities, and injustices and so try to invent a better world on purely theoratical grounds without trying to learn from history.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


But the motivating idea that drives those two kinds of conservatives is a love of individual liberty and a love of religious morality. Those are concrete ideologies (as Ag said). "Tradition" is meaningless.

No. The past is observable. It offers far better lessons than the unproven ideas of people who might not be able to balance their cheque books, let alone be trusted with their proposals for unhinging our economy, or society to replace it with a pet theory.

If I were unhappy with where our society is, I would be much less likely to be a conservative.

[Agathon]

As the quote goes (more or less), we should learn history lest we repeat it. History gives us many lessons and tradition has been what has filtered down to us from those historical lessons learned by our ancestors. We'll add our own lessons for our descendants, and I hope they don't throw away that wisdom which we've found out simply because the past has been so bad. After all, failure can teach the best lessons (the Iraq War, I feel, will teach a pretty big one).

Most Conservatives take it much further than this. At root the idea they wish to resist at all costs is the idea that human decision making and human action can be the subject of scientific analysis and prediction.

If that comes to pass, and all indicators lie in that direction, then religion is effectively dead, as is any notion of metaphysical freedom. Our crude attempts so far have already pointed the way - conservatives hate Marx, Nietzsche and Freud above all others because they all have in common the rejection of metaphysics and the false (and inherently religious) notion of human freedom.

We are currently living on a blank check of tradition in the very way that most of us think about personal identity. However, the theological backbone of this conception has long been discredited and the end result will be the total annihilation of the traditional view of the person. You can see the practical consequences of this shift in the abhorrence that conservatives have for diagnoses of mental illness in criminal cases. This is because they know that scientific explanations of deviant phenomena presuppose a causal picture that undermines the norm of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility and personal freedom as conservatives conceive of it is a metaphysical fiction -- in practice it means the set of behavioural norms that are common among wealthy white men. It's just fortunate that poor people, women and non-whites now have more of a voice and have begun to overturn it.

We aren't even half way there yet, but when we do get there the scientific management of society will become a reality and there will be no need to appeal to tradition, just as contemporary scientists do not appeal to folk beliefs in other, more developed, areas of investigation.