The Irrational Foundations of Conservatism: Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke is widely considered the founder of (modern) conservatism. His best known work is an analysis of French Revolution. His answer was reason had lead men astray and they needed to follow the course of their ancestors and eschew reason.
“He argued extensively for an appeal to authority based on collective reasoning and organic reform while rejecting the use of abstract principles and individual reason in establishing mass rule.”
There is no such thing as collective reasoning. Conservatism is an attack on reason, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, Locke and the founding principles of the United States. It is time that conservatives admit that their whole philosophy is based on irrationalism.
“He argued extensively for an appeal to authority based on collective reasoning and organic reform while rejecting the use of abstract principles and individual reason in establishing mass rule.”
There is no such thing as collective reasoning. Conservatism is an attack on reason, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, Locke and the founding principles of the United States. It is time that conservatives admit that their whole philosophy is based on irrationalism.
SOURCE URL: http://hubpages.com/politics/Edmund-Burke
I think a lot of people label themselves as conservatives because they think the alternative is to be a modern liberal. When anyone asks , I label myself an individualist. I am still learning about Objectivism, a lot from the Objectivists here, and I thank you.
Jan
OK. OK. It is not as intellectual a response as the one you make, but I do enjoy watching their expressions.
Jan
Both Liberal and Conservative current strains of American politicians seem to favor an Executive with far more power than delineated in the Constitution, so it would appear both mainstream political parties have adopted Burke's "Hobbesean" position. The concepts of government promoted by Locke and Montesquieu have been abandoned by modern power brokers of political influence, primarily because concentrated power is easier to steer than distributed power.
.
"Conservatism" is like a sticky ball or Velcro. it's easy to stick something to it without having to explain why.
One of the problems with the conservative label is the implied connection with theology. Belief in religious principals is more subjective than objective and as such it requires a very different thought process than say economics or physics. As long as the conservative movement retains the dichotomy of subjective and objective reasoning it will be at war with its self. That makes it an easy target.
We currently lack examples of Liberal that is not Socialist and Conservative now means everyone-who-is-not-Liberal. I agree with much of what you say, above, but I do not agree that everyone who is termed Conservative is derived from the same philosophical foundation. It seems to me that there is some convergent evolution going on: wallabies and rabbits.
Jan
Jan
we do want to improve things by every means available,
in my humble opinion, just as you say. -- j
.
:)
But then, guess what ? I turned into my dad ! :0 But my hubby's a retired Marine so probably knows multiple ways to silence me permanently without leaving a trace, so I figure its best not to test it too strenuously.
Yes, I observed long ago that I was very patient with things ( could sit for hours to repair, put together, etc. objects) but terribly impatient with people. Now I'm just impatient with everything and everyone ! :) Maybe that is just what Life does to a person. Although I am trying to improve; no sugar and no caffeine help in that endeavor but I am not sure it's worth it !
The trick with coffee is to use dark roast French or Italian levels which removes much of the caffeine and increases the flavor without turning into a Why Bother Double Zero. Milk or Cream is good for the bones.
when they got to their Aha Moments, I felt as much tired as relieved!
there was this late night with a calculus student -- more coffee
than was humanly possible! -- j
.
Jan
It's a sham and it's something heavily favored by the likes of Nancy Pelosillyni. So if they are supporting Comrade Lube Job they are by word and deed to the left of most RINOS. Trump is no conservative by any definition. He's what you call a looter or a moocher. That leaves Rubio and the known Rinos to choose from in labeling them Conservatives and of course the top tier as RINOS are also not conservatives That leaves Rubio He'll go down next the others have to wait on the Bimbo Brigade.
But, really, what is your alternative ?
Etc. Etc. Etc. Who do I like? Truth to tell. His or Her first name is General or Colonel and his other names are Martial Law if that's what it takes but it must be above all things legal.
Who would I rather see running? None of the Above for the entire group so far mentioned. But in a form of guerrilla warfare I'm pushing the notion of Carly F. as a way to defuse the Hillary Bomb with Jindal as the VP to bring in a huge amount of votes that otherwise truly will be flushed down the Socialist toilet.
Think about it it's the most win win win scenario I can devise the others are just the right wing of the left bought and paid for. So's Carly but she's the camel's nose and Jindal is the camel's rump.
He adds votes big time and more than compensates for the Hillary lovers now she has turned her back on the Progressives and they will presumably to BS Ha Ha.
the rest post again if would like to hear why that is a win win for the Democrats win for the Republicans and a big WIN for the citizens far better than voting for evil we use her as the Devil's Advocate to gain access but the price is Jindal for VP - or someone like him.
I combined a lot of past studies in different area but the key is "Man's rational mind is his/her sole means of gaining knowledge, survival and happiness. The lesson of Objectivism. Bottom of the Preface in Objectivism in One Lesson. Why? Because it objectively examines all possibilities and determines what works and what does not work. I have enough faith and enough knowledge of history to know the the socialist fascist system does not work and never has.
There is always an out, an escape hatch, a twist, a re-definition or a new metaphor or maybe for them methapor. Spin is just another word for deceit and in that effort ..ha ha ha they are also failures. But they'll swallow the Carly Ploy in a DC second cause their asses are on the line and they know it. Hillary figured that out already and that's why she's heading back to the comfort zone in the center of the left.
And that's how you start a counter-revolution never refer to it as anything else nor as a violence prone or illegal action in any way. It is none of those. Gotta run it's time rip they a new orifice in my on going series.
One last thought. The Jindal Vote ....and it might end up including Webb...The "Consent Withdrawn Party."
If you're looking for perfection, you're going to have to run yourself for office. No one is going to perfectly fit your mold beyond yourself. So the question is are you willing to throw your ring in the hat, or just gripe about the problems in everyone else. The third choice is to vote for an imperfect candidate. I find griping to be a complete waste of everyone's time and I have neither the demeanor nor the desire to run for office, leaving me with only one option: to vote for a less-than-perfect candidate.
I'm sure your enumeration would only whet my appetite for such a worth while effort. Your choice then becomes Jindahl in 2020 or 2024 or who...Chelsea? Carly F. is perfect she could probably suck in all the progressives too they are that dumb. Tethered what is used to entice the big cats? All you HP graduates get that dish which is best served cold...and the greater purpose for once is served. Minor purpose is the left will never trust the RINOs again. "Rebuke them all let Galt sort them out!"
I think it's a noble goal, but in today's climate of low-information voters, I fear that that would backfire and instead push us wholesale into socialism. Who knows, maybe that would spur change, but I suspect that it would involve a bloody civil war first.
I read the first half and hope to go back to the second half and the other article.
I'd read Burke in college. This makes me remember a little and think I'd get something different out of it reading it at age 40 vs age 20.
I think your argument is a fallacy of inclusion. I wouldn't call every conservative a Humist or Burkist as you seem to imply. And I would seriously challenge the notion that conservatism started with those two. They presented their own views on the matter, but they certainly don't predate either Kant or St. Thomas Aquinas, who offer alternative views on the matter (not that I identify with either of them either).
In my opinion, the only difference between an Objectivist and a true Conservative is a belief in God and all that that entails policy-wise. A Conservative is absolutely for personal freedom and liberty. A Conservative absolutely is for the protection against infringement on personal freedom and liberty from both other individuals or government. A Conservative is absolutely for limits on government size and taxation. The main points of contention between a Conservative and an Objectivist stem from the philosophical difference over the existence of an afterlife and what that entails. The Tea Party are absolutely Conservative. The Republican Party (with whom I think you are confusing Conservatives) has very few actual Conservatives in its midst.
Are there fundamental flaws in the philosophies of Burke and Hume? Absolutely. But to label others as their adherents without their permission and without any proof is unacceptable.