# Conservatism in hard places



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

(I hoped to summarise my questions in the end so that it is easy for the people here to respond to; but I find it quite hard to do. So I put the detective emoji where there is a possible question/answer)

For quite some time, I have been in a state of dilemma of sorts. I'm currently reading Scruton's _Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition_, while it is quite impossible to pin down a definition for conservative philosophy; the main tenets of it are not hard to put forward; that it is a "desire to sustain *networks of familiarity and trust* on which a community depends on for its longevity". Another brilliant quote, "...the point has been made differently at different times that we rational beings *need customs and institutions* that are f*ounded in something other than reason*, if we are to use our reason to good effect. This insight, indeed, is probably the *principal contribution* that conservatism has made to the self-understanding of the human species. In the following chapters I will spell it out in more detail."

"For the conservative, human beings come into this world burdened by obligations, and subject to *institutions and traditions *that contain within them a *precious inheritance of wisdom*, without which the exercise of freedom is as likely to destroy human rights and entitlements as to enhance them."

"Burke here recognises that freedom is always in jeopardy and must be protected by the law. And he is clear that a modern society must be organised politically, by a government that is to a certain measure independent of religious, tribal and family ties. But he defends *religion* and family as forms of collective wisdom,"

Further in his work, Scruton describes the American Revolution as "an attempt to protect the *ancient* rights and privileges of the people, as defined and discovered by the law." But the French Revolution "was the product of philosophical reflection, an attempt to transcribe into politics ideas that had *previously had no overt presence there*, and which owed as much to the abstract arguments of philosophers as to the American example."

(all emphasis mine)

One gets the gist of it; a desire to preserve institutions and traditions since they are founts of wisdom from preceding generations, while neglecting the wisdom contained in those institutions and seeking to tear them down and start afresh was the philosophy of the French Revolution and later liberalism. I read all this as a Christian and give a hearty amen. The institutions can be seen as the church, family etc (in a very broad and general sense) and the traditions are Christian traditions. Sir William Blackstone defends the common law tradition as applications of natural law.

But what if the institutions that are to be conserved are of Non-Christian origin? In the Middle East, or my country India? The traditions to be conserved are Hindu traditions. Are the institutions to be seen as precious founts of wisdom the eastern pantheistic musings? I can amen Scruton. I can applaud Burke. I can praise Jefferson. But can I stand with Jaithirth Rao (Indian Conservative author):

"The Right also views this Indian culture as having a largely Hindu texture to it. The Hindu patina is not dismissed as majoritarian, but seen as respectful of the sentiments of the majority – an idea also articulated by the British philosopher, Roger Scruton."

"It is important to note that both Rammohan Roy and Bankim fell back on Indian, even Hindu traditions as they developed their intellectual positions. The former was influenced by the Bible, but chose to go back to the Upanishads to seek the wellsprings of his roots. The latter decided that Krishna was the archetypal hero he would recommend to his countrymen and countrywomen." Source: https://scroll.in/article/942278/wh...-jerry-rao-explains-the-ideas-behind-his-book. I don't want to litter this posts with links, but those interested, with a rudimentary search of this author one can find some more articles on this. He is also the author of a book on Indian conservatism; _The Indian Conservative: A History of Right-Wing Thought._

Indian Conservatives have a lot of praise for Burke, Scruton, Adam Smith, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson et al, the same folks who many Christian conservatives in Europe and West adore. I completely understand that conservatism is less about Christ and more about traditions and institutions and so I'm not expecting "gospel-centered" politicians. To be honest, I don't know what I want. Maybe a strong Christian-influenced tradition to fall back on. Maybe something else. I'm certainly not looking for a biblicist type approach where there is a "Christian" approach to everything. But it would be equally untrue to state that I am not looking for a Christian perspective, for then why would I seek answers from the PB. I guess I could say I'm looking for a Christian "appraisal" or "viewpoint".

So should one look to, in the public sphere, conserve and draw from the wells of the these traditions, whatever they may be, Islam or Hinduism? It's easy to be a conservative in the West (in the sense that they have a Judaeo-Christian ethic). But what is my conservatism in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? I can cheer on the liberals as they seek to "liberate" society from the Hindu religion and tradition in India ("hey as long as it is not my religion and tradition"), but I'm certain that soon I will be standing amongst rainbow flags and pride parades(I say this, while also noting that the Hindu traditions are quite accepting of LGBTQ stuff, so much so that conservatives here are not really pushing back _as far as I have seen _but rather look to rebuke the Left for calling them "homophobic"). And it's quite difficult to stand with those seeking to preserve Hindu tradition while proclaiming the exclusivity of Christ.

I think this is heavily linked to the debates on engaging culture. A theonomist will answer differently from a Kuyperian. The responses from the two strains of 2K thought (Littlejohn/Wedgeworth/Davenant Institute and VanDrunnen/Horton/Hart/WSCal) would also vary in this respect. I'm glad to hear from these viewpoints. But at the same time, I'm looking for *some consensus* on this.

I haven't done a good job of summarising my questions. Maybe it all reads like a rant; rambling on incessantly and not coming to the point. Like I stated at the beginning, I'm in a dilemma between the hard place of Indian Hindu conservatism and the rocks of liberalism and it's quite hard to put my exact questions into simple bullet points. But if I could, I would ask; What must conservatism _really be _about? We are certainly can't be liberals, so what of those in other cultures, not influenced much by the Judeao-Christian traditions?

Hopefully folks well read in the in theology (this need not even be stated since this is PB) traditional conservatism can help me out.

Thank you.


----------



## reformed grit (Apr 21, 2022)

Have you read much from Zavi Zacharius? I know he fell on hard times, but he does OK from an Indian and Eastern philosophy perspective.
I think you're correct that _conservatism _needs to be considered much differently through an eastern philosophy lens that what you're reading now, as especially differentiating between the Orthodox Church of the East & what is found in the historic religions of India (esp. Hinduism & Zoroastrianism).

Sir Roger Scruton, of the West, is naturally contrasting an 18th century Enlightenment _conservatism _with communism, socialism, and liberalism. Of course when he contrasts with the East, he's thinking more along those lines than Eastern religious philosophy.

One is hard-pressed to find a better world-in-life-view than what one finds reading Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, or even Ravi Zacharius. In that sense a _ conservationism_ would look more similar to a preservation, a continuing of what the Reformed Faith finds in the Holy Scripture of Christianity (though many may call Jesus a _ liberal_ rather than a _ conservative_). I would recommend the reading of every (or any) book Francis Schaeffer ever wrote.

As a side note, there are political movements within a Reformation or Reformed perspective. One might look to Rousas John Rushdoony e_t al. _His Chalcedon movement has turned out to be... challenging... but the Christian Right here in America continues to have influence and sway akin to what you may be envisioning politically.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 21, 2022)

I thought that book really demonstrated the fatal deficiency of conservatism. Over against merely _destructive_ impulses, one certainly appreciates it. But where is the _constructive _impulse to come from? The people in the past who built the things we want to conserve were more than conservative. It seems to me that being _reformers_ rather than _revolutionaries _allows us to value and preserve from the past what is worthwhile; but it also acknowledges that more is required.

Or as Michael Malice observes over and over: "Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit." Absent some deeper principle, the mere cast of thought of many conservatives has them defending as an institution today, what yesterday they considered an abhorrent novelty.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

On one hand, there are some conservative cultures, such as parts of Hindu India, that do not need to be conserved. Widow-burning, for example. The manly British Empire put a stop to that. What I think the legendary Scuton is trying to say, is that sometimes cultures do not need to be changed right away. Take the insane idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East. While we might prefer liberal democracy as a government, enforcing it as an alien worldview on another culture is just idiocy.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

reformed grit said:


> Have you read much from Zavi Zacharius? I know he fell on hard times, but he does OK from an Indian and Eastern philosophy perspective.
> I think you're correct that _conservatism _needs to be considered much differently through an eastern philosophy lens that what you're reading now, as especially differentiating between the Orthodox Church of the East & what is found in the historic religions of India (esp. Hinduism & Zoroastrianism).
> 
> Sir Roger Scruton, of the West, is naturally contrasting an 18th century Enlightenment _conservatism _with communism, socialism, and liberalism. Of course when he contrasts with the East, he's thinking more along those lines than Eastern religious philosophy.
> ...


Thank you for the response. 



reformed grit said:


> In that sense a _ conservationism_ would look more similar to a preservation, a continuing of what the Reformed Faith finds in the Holy Scripture of Christianity


That's exactly where I'm having trouble. Were I in the Netherlands, I can talk of preservation of the Dutch Reformed tradition; one that has had mighty influence on the politics of the Dutch. Similarly, if I were to preserve ______ tradition in the Middle East; it most certainly means Islamic tradition. Now maybe I'm focusing on the "conserving" part of conservatism too much but that is an essential part isn't it?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> . Similarly, if I were to preserve ______ tradition in the Middle East; it most certainly means Islamic tradition. Now maybe I'm focusing on the "conserving" part of conservatism too much but that is an essential part isn't it?



Not exactly. Read Phillip Jenkins' work on the Forgotten Christendom. Oriental Orthodox had a dominion in the Middle East that far surpassed the Pope's in geography.





The Lost History of Christianity (Jenkins)


Jenkins, Philip. The Lost History of Christianity. I am going to write glowingly of several Christian groups in this review. It might seem like I am sympathetic to them. If I am, it is important to note that these groups are formal heretics on the post-Chalcedonian doctrine of Christ. That...




www.puritanboard.com


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> What I think the legendary Scuton is trying to say, is that sometimes cultures do not need to be changed right away. Take the insane idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East. While we might prefer liberal democracy as a government, enforcing it as an alien worldview on another culture is just idiocy.



That makes sense. Maybe I'm so bent upon preserving that I'm not looking at the aspect of _slow _change.


RamistThomist said:


> there are some conservative cultures, such as parts of Hindu India, that do not need to be conserved.


there are parts that do need to be? what would those be?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> That makes sense. Maybe I'm so bent upon preserving that I'm not looking at the aspect of _slow _change.
> 
> there are parts that do need to be? what would those be?



I was speaking hypothetically. Scruton is reacting against the Western liberal do-gooder who just destroys the existing order without replacing it. That got us ISIS in the middle east.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

I initially typed this up but then cut it out since I thought it would turn the discussion away from the topic. But since the eastern church has been mentioned twice (by @RamistThomist and @reformed grit) I thought pasting would help. 



RamistThomist said:


> Oriental Orthodox had a dominion in the Middle East that far surpassed the Pope's in geography.






> I think you're correct that _conservatism _needs to be considered much differently through an eastern philosophy lens that what you're reading now, as especially differentiating between the Orthodox Church of the East & what is found in the historic religions of India (esp. Hinduism & Zoroastrianism).


I did intentionally leave out the Orthodox Church and their doctrine, as I thought it would complicate the post even more. But it is something I’ve given some thought about. There are traditions that date the presence of Christianity as early as the apostle Thomas, who is said to have arrived on the shores of what is now the state of Kerala. The churches that generally trace their ancestry to Thomas or the early period are the Syriac/Eastern Orthodox type churches. Liturgical, bound by traditions, etc. My knowledge of EO is very limited but it’s my understanding that studying Christian history in India would mean studying EO up to the time of the French/Portuguese/British (16th century); which is when RC and Protestantism made their way to India. I could be gravely mistaken on this. I have absolutely not read anything on Indian Christian history and the stuff I’ve just said are observations and hearsay. And that's another reason why I left out the EO aspect out of this discussion.

But I did think, that if there is a tradition of Christianity that can be traced to the early period, there’s certainly a room for some form of Christian tradition-conservatism that can be carved. But the whole

1. eastern philosophy's influence on EO- just like western philosophy of Greeks influencing western Christianity, some might disagree, particularly presups. I’m certainly talking of Aristotle and Plato. I'm _assuming_ the Eastern church had some appropriation of eastern philosophers, just like the western Christians??

2. and eastern-church-never-went-through-a-reformation

*makes things complicated. *

I’ve never been a member of any churches of that ilk. I’ve hardly been to a service of that kind. I was brought up Protestant; so I’m basically stuck with the western philosophical tradition (ie Protestantism) in an eastern country, who’s earliest Christianity is eastern. I say stuck to mean that I hold dearly to the doctrines of the Reformation.

So now I ought to know the Protestant tradition and their metaphysics rooted in western philosophy and _also _the eastern church and their (assuming here) metaphysics rooted in eastern philosophy.

Am I over-complicating something that ought to be simple?


----------



## reformed grit (Apr 21, 2022)

I may get some trouble from this, but my opinion is that all of creation bears a God-stamp of the Creator - "The heavens [every thing] declare the glory of God" (Ps. 19:1). J.R.R. Tolkien managed to find it in Norse myth. C. S. Lewis used it to _ Christianise_ a Greek myth (_'Till We Have Faces_). One may need to find the _ God-stamp_ in Indian culture and conserve that.


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I was speaking hypothetically. Scruton is reacting against the Western liberal do-gooder who just destroys the existing order without replacing it. That got us ISIS in the middle east.


You make an interesting point. I've listened to Hindus complaining of how the Brits thought they were doing much good by trying to alleviate Indians from their inferior ways of living and thinking too low of their philosophy and culture. They talk of how rich their tradition is on discussions on God, consciousness, etc. David Bentley Hart's book that is quoted in Dolezal's _All That is in God _talks a whole lot not only about Plato but also a lot of Hindu and Islamic philosophers; to make his case for classical theism (?). That doesn't sit well with me, but it did make me question, if one can draw from the Greek pagan philosophers (as the recent classical theists/Thomists/Christian Platonists do); what's stopping us from going to the eastern philosophers to draw the truths that they discerned from the book of nature?? (note: I have not read Hart's book but read a few reviews of it) At least, what is to prevent the Christians in the east from doing so?

Just as I finished typing this @reformed grit said 


reformed grit said:


> One may need to find the _ God-stamp_ in Indian culture and conserve that.


That seemed to answer my above question.


----------



## reformed grit (Apr 21, 2022)

"...that in all things he [Christ, lit. Son of his love] might have the preeminence." ( Col. 1:18).


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

py3ak said:


> I thought that book really demonstrated the fatal deficiency of conservatism. Over against merely _destructive_ impulses, one certainly appreciates it. But where is the _constructive _impulse to come from? The people in the past who built the things we want to conserve were more than conservative. It seems to me that being _reformers_ rather than _revolutionaries _allows us to value and preserve from the past what is worthwhile; but it also acknowledges that more is required.
> 
> Or as Michael Malice observes over and over: "Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit." Absent some deeper principle, the mere cast of thought of many conservatives has them defending as an institution today, what yesterday they considered an abhorrent novelty.


That's interesting. Craig Carter earlier this year called out classical liberals such as Dave Rubin and Douglas Murray as those who "_may think they are close to conservatism, but they are destroying the traditional wisdom they hope will protect them. They are progressives driving the speed limit who often say profoundly true things, but that is about it. Instead of forming a coalition with them, we should defend the metaphysical order of Christianity as the only building block for society to conform itself to—not for Christianity’s own power, but for the sake of truth, human flourishing, and the common good. The question is what is going to replace liberalism. Will it be a new totalitarianism or a return to traditional wisdom bequeathed from the Judeo-Christian worldview?" _source: https://wng.org/opinions/carter-on-new-fusionism-1638794717

And that sent me on a rabbit trail to figure out what this "Christian metaphysical order" is(I still haven't come out). Since it's coming from Carter, I assume he means Christian Platonism. Given that Scruton says explicitly that modern conservatism is a *product of the Enlightenment*, I assume he wouldn't be too big a fan of Scruton's works either(?). 

But I'm not too eager to group conservatism with classical liberalism as "progressivism driving the speed limit". These two seem poles apart. Conservatism has tradition. The question you pose though is very fitting. Where did the _conservative_ impulse come from? the "more" that is required may be I think answered as the "metaphysical order of Christianity"? (whatever that may be)

@RamistThomist ,brother any thoughts on this? Also how do you appreciate the Enlightenment product conservatism (Burke, Scruton and others) when it's generally put forward by Christian Platonists (I know you haven't used that label yourself, but you do sympathize with their works I suppose) that thats where it all went wrong?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Are the institutions to be seen as precious founts of wisdom the eastern pantheistic musings? I can amen Scruton. I can applaud Burke. I can praise Jefferson. But can I stand with Jaithirth Rao (Indian Conservative author):





Tychicus said:


> what's stopping us from going to the eastern philosophers to draw the truths that they discerned from the book of nature??





Tychicus said:


> So should one look to, in the public sphere, conserve and draw from the wells of the these traditions, whatever they may be, Islam or Hinduism?





Tychicus said:


> And it's quite difficult to stand with those seeking to preserve Hindu tradition while proclaiming the exclusivity of Christ.


I think I can summarise the gist of my post with these four quotes. The first three are the questions and the fourth is the problem I face on answering yes to the first three, even with qualifications (_finding the God-stamp etc_).

Maybe reading the early church on how they "plundered the Egyptians" would help?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

I apologize because I seem to be all over the place with my questions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> That's interesting. Craig Carter earlier this year called out classical liberals such as Dave Rubin and Douglas Murray as those who "_may think they are close to conservatism, but they are destroying the traditional wisdom they hope will protect them. They are progressives driving the speed limit who often say profoundly true things, but that is about it. Instead of forming a coalition with them, we should defend the metaphysical order of Christianity as the only building block for society to conform itself to—not for Christianity’s own power, but for the sake of truth, human flourishing, and the common good. The question is what is going to replace liberalism. Will it be a new totalitarianism or a return to traditional wisdom bequeathed from the Judeo-Christian worldview?" _source: https://wng.org/opinions/carter-on-new-fusionism-1638794717
> 
> And that sent me on a rabbit trail to figure out what this "Christian metaphysical order" is(I still haven't come out). Since it's coming from Carter, I assume he means Christian Platonism. Given that Scruton says explicitly that modern conservatism is a *product of the Enlightenment*, I assume he wouldn't be too big a fan of Scruton's works either(?).
> 
> ...



I generally agree with Carter. I am in the Tory Conservative tradition. I mean the old tradition that believes in a stable moral order that resists market changes. 

Regarding the Enlightenment. Not all Enlightenments are equal. Burke saw himself as going beyond the Enlightenment to the 1689 Revolution. Another good figure worth studying Johann Herder.

Conservatism in its American environment is closer to what Scruton is attacking. Conservatives in America, especially in politics, just aren't...well...very smart. They define conservatism as letting businesses be free from the government. That's great for mom and pop shops. It's a different monster with Disney. That's why a good, true conservative will ignore any "respect the market" claims for Disney and rather salt the earth.

I agree with Carter's desire for a "metaphysical conservatism." You see the same thing in Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk. I just don't like calling it Platonism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> You make an interesting point. I've listened to Hindus complaining of how the Brits thought they were doing much good by trying to alleviate Indians from their inferior ways of living and thinking too low of their philosophy and culture. They talk of how rich their tradition is on discussions on God, consciousness, etc. David Bentley Hart's book that is quoted in Dolezal's _All That is in God _talks a whole lot not only about Plato but also a lot of Hindu and Islamic philosophers; to make his case for classical theism (?). That doesn't sit well with me, but it did make me question, if one can draw from the Greek pagan philosophers (as the recent classical theists/Thomists/Christian Platonists do); what's stopping us from going to the eastern philosophers to draw the truths that they discerned from the book of nature?? (note: I have not read Hart's book but read a few reviews of it) At least, what is to prevent the Christians in the east from doing so?
> 
> Just as I finished typing this @reformed grit said
> 
> That seemed to answer my above question.



Hart goes a bit beyond respecting what is good in Hinduism. His attraction is much deeper. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> I think I can summarise the gist of my post with these four quotes. The first three are the questions and the fourth is the problem I face on answering yes to the first three, even with qualifications (_finding the God-stamp etc_).
> 
> Maybe reading the early church on how they "plundered the Egyptians" would help?





Tychicus said:


> I initially typed this up but then cut it out since I thought it would turn the discussion away from the topic. But since the eastern church has been mentioned twice (by @RamistThomist and @reformed grit) I thought pasting would help.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


@RamistThomist thoughts on these two posts? Hope I'm not being too persistent. I want to tie the loose ends in this thread (no pun intended). I've read some of your book reviews on political philosophy, so I would like to get your views as I'm merely thinking out loud from the very very little I have read . You can take your time to reply. Thanks in advance.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> @RamistThomist thoughts on these two posts? Hope I'm not being too persistent. I want to tie the loose ends in this thread (no pun intended). I've read some of your book reviews on political philosophy, so I would like to get your views as I'm merely thinking out loud from the very very little I have read . You can take your time to reply. Thanks in advance.



The Plundering the Egyptians was a metaphor that sounded more impressive than it was in reality. It just saw that parts of Plato--namely the existence of abstract concepts--allowed Christians to give very good analyses of doctrine.

Their political views would have been simple: they were monarchists. That was true of everyone at the time. 

As to the second one. There were various types of EO that maintained a witness even under Islam. That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## reformed grit (Apr 21, 2022)

And there's the rub. I'm on-board with a qualifying "yes" to the 3 summary questions, but it isn't the preserving of a Hindu tradition that I find worthy, any more than the Reformers did with Roman Catholocism, excepting where they found commonality of Scriptural declaration. Hinduism tends to have an internal tradition of a somewhat sychronistic acceptance of what _ good_ may be found in other religions. I indeed find this aspect worthy. But finding the _ God-stamp_ does in no way belittle the exclusivity of Christ - that as Jesus proclaims, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn. 14:6).


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

Here is where we can preserve Hindu insights: Math.


----------



## reformed grit (Apr 21, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Here is where we can preserve Hindu insights: Math.


LOL, wait, that's even more true for the Muslims and Islam.


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

reformed grit said:


> And there's the rub. I'm on-board with a qualifying "yes" to the 3 summary questions, but it isn't the preserving of a Hindu tradition that I find worthy, any more than the Reformers did with Roman Catholocism, excepting where they found commonality of Scriptural declaration. Hinduism tends to have an internal tradition of a somewhat sychronistic acceptance of what _ good_ may be found in other religions. I indeed find this aspect worthy. But finding the _ God-stamp_ does in no way belittle the exclusivity of Christ - that as Jesus proclaims, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn. 14:6).


This is very encouraging. Thank you brother.


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 21, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I agree with Carter's desire for a "metaphysical conservatism." You see the same thing in Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk. I just don't like calling it Platonism.


"metaphysical conservatism"!. You have just piqued my interest in these two. Where would be a good place to start?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> "metaphysical conservatism"!. You have just piqued my interest in these two. Where would be a good place to start?



Russell Kirk.
Richard Weaver.


----------



## ZackF (Apr 21, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Russell Kirk.
> Richard Weaver.


If you can find it, Kirk’s own autobiography would be a great place to start. “The Sword of Imagination.”

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 21, 2022)

richard weaver – Har Mo'Ed


Posts about richard weaver written by J. B. Aitken




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












russell kirk – Har Mo'Ed


Posts about russell kirk written by J. B. Aitken




tentsofshem.wordpress.com


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 22, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> richard weaver – Har Mo'Ed
> 
> 
> Posts about richard weaver written by J. B. Aitken
> ...


So you would say that Kirk and Weaver were metaphysical in the sense that Burke and Scruton weren't? 

You seem less appreciative of Burke; In one of the posts you talk of Burke being obsessed with "facts of he circumstances", is that an instance of absence of metaphysics? How then do Kirk and Weaver descend in his line of thought? Did they take Burkean conservatism and add metaphysics?

I think I may have oversimplified the the demarcation?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 22, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Also, only elite conservatism is tolerated. (Hence, the Malice metaphor). A Ron Paul conservatism would be more like it but still falling short as per your overall point…


Sorry sir, I fail to get what you mean. Could you rephrase it?

PS: isn't Ron Paul libertarian? A whole other story...?


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 22, 2022)

ZackF said:


> If you can find it, Kirk’s own autobiography would be a great place to start. “The Sword of Imagination.”


Thank you sir. If you would be so kind as to weigh in on post #14 and #29?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> So you would say that Kirk and Weaver were metaphysical in the sense that Burke and Scruton weren't?
> 
> You seem less appreciative of Burke; In one of the posts you talk of Burke being obsessed with "facts of he circumstances", is that an instance of absence of metaphysics? How then do Kirk and Weaver descend in his line of thought? Did they take Burkean conservatism and add metaphysics?
> 
> I think I may have oversimplified the the demarcation?



Scruton is highly metaphysical. I love Burke. He simply had a weak argument in _Reflections. _He argued on a "We've always done it this way" when he tried to justify the 1689 Revolution.


----------



## Tychicus (Apr 22, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Scruton is highly metaphysical. I love Burke. He simply had a weak argument in _Reflections. _He argued on a "We've always done it this way" when he tried to justify the 1689 Revolution.


Ah, so you as a Tory, disagree with the Whig Burke. Tories weren't too supportive of the Glorious Revolution were they...

So Scruton has the metaphysics that Carter talks of?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Ah, so you as a Tory, disagree with the Whig Burke. Tories weren't too supportive of the Glorious Revolution were they...
> 
> So Scruton has the metaphysics that Carter talks of?



I think Burke was inconsistent (and many Whigs disliked him). Whether Tory or not, the Stuart monarchies did erode older British liberties.

Yes, Scruton has those metaphysics.


----------



## reformed grit (Apr 22, 2022)

... and not even completely dead yet.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 22, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> But I'm not too eager to group conservatism with classical liberalism as "progressivism driving the speed limit". These two seem poles apart. Conservatism has tradition. The question you pose though is very fitting. Where did the _conservative_ impulse come from? the "more" that is required may be I think answered as the "metaphysical order of Christianity"? (whatever that may be)


It's clear that there's a difference between someone like G.K. Chesterton and someone like William F. Buckley. The meaning of conservative has been widened or diluted so much that it's not terribly useful anymore as a description. In an American setting, it seems to mostly mean a mindset (one already described by Anthony Trollope), that while change is inevitable and probably good, it's important not to change too quickly or be very destructive, and it's okay to regret what can't be preserved.

That sort of conservative, who is only ever interested in holding the line but never in retaking territory, seems to me aptly summarized as "progressivism driving the speed limit."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## reformed grit (Apr 22, 2022)

... and then conservatism left him as it left me... "as it left her... marooned for all eternity in the centre of a dead planet - buried alive! Buried alive!!"

- sorry, I got a wee dramatically carried away there for a moment.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2022)

Ron Paul is a noble politician and better than most, but he is not a conservative. He is a classical liberal. I think he would even agree with that. In America conservatism = not as much government. That rules out all other conservative definitions in history (that are often far older than the modern one).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2022)

This is the historic position at its broadest. If you can't sign off on these, you aren't conservative:








Ten Conservative Principles


Visit the post for more.




kirkcenter.org





1. *An enduring moral order*.
2. *Custom and conventions
3. Custom and conventions
4. Civilizational diversity.
5. We are not made for perfect things
6. The importance of Private property
7. Community, not collectivism.
8. Power can't be destroyed
9. Importance of prudence
10. Balance permanence with progression*

As a High Tory, following Ron Dart, I add the following:

High Tories:
1) are concerned about the wisdom of tradition.
2) have a passion for the commonweal and the commons
3) do not separate ethics from economics.
4) have a deep and abiding respect for the land. They do not worship it, as the Left does, nor do they exploit it, as does the Right.
5) They do not artificially separate state and society. A healthy state safeguards mediating structures and is able to stare down Big Corporate interests.
6) believe the state should protect the commons for the good of the people.
7) believe the task of education is to awaken the conscience to important things.
8) believe that human nature is imperfect and finite.
9) cherishes religious structures.
10) believes reality cannot be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. In other words, politics allows of a good, better, best and bad, worse, and worst.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 22, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> This is the historic position at its broadest. If you can't sign off on these, you aren't conservative:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Many minarchists/classical liberals can fit the first definition.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 22, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> Many minarchists/classical liberals can fit the first definition.



That's true, and it reflects the fact that Kirk, an American, wrote it.


----------

