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]

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!

[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?