Members banned from this thread: jet57


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: CONSERVATISM: The Fight for a Tradition

  1. #11
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Not the terms themselves, necessarily, but the specific issues, questions and controversies surrounding, as an example, families. The traditionalist view of what constitutes a family is, I think it's fair to say, something that was codified in the law for a long, long time in this country, and now - not so much. Is the traditionalist view of family or community, or the traditionalist view of what is meant by a certain clause in the U.S. Constitution, necessarily the best one for the nation and society? Arguably, it isn't.
    If something isn't the best- change it.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  2. #12
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    The OP defines the terms traditionalist and conservative. You want words like family defined for you?
    That's very weak for an answer. I asked you to define what YOU see as traditions, or can you not work within your own topic?

  3. #13
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Not the terms themselves, necessarily, but the specific issues, questions and controversies surrounding, as an example, families. The traditionalist view of what constitutes a family is, I think it's fair to say, something that was codified in the law for a long, long time in this country, and now - not so much. Is the traditionalist view of family or community, or the traditionalist view of what is meant by a certain clause in the U.S. Constitution, necessarily the best one for the nation and society? Arguably, it isn't.
    The traditional view would see the family as the main societal unit, and not the individual. The traditional view would see the community as the locus of popular polity and sovereignty, and not some remote, out-of-touch government. The traditional view would hold the Constitution as limiting government to allowing the people to choose what is good and evil, and not permitting the government to decide for the people.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (01-04-2021)

  5. #14
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    Not to redirect this convo off-topic, but where's the thread with that poll? I'd be interested in adding my vote.
    No problem: https://thepoliticalforums.com/threa...Cultural-Views
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    IMPress Polly (01-03-2021)

  7. #15
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    If something isn't the best- change it.
    Traditionalism doesn't mean no change can be made. What do you do when two traditions come into conflict? The tradition of slavery was eventually overcome by a tradition of equality before the lw.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  8. #16

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,267, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200775
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,928
    Points
    473,267
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,064
    Thanked 46,045x in 24,876 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    That's very weak for an answer. I asked you to define what YOU see as traditions, or can you not work within your own topic?

    tPF Thread Ban - Note: Please see this announcement if clarification on tPF is required. Additionally, see Rule 10 for further details.

    NOTICE @jet57 THREADBANNED by OP per tpf rules - trolling and bad faith posting



    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  9. #17
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,710, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416530
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,710
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,302
    Thanked 53,475x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    We recently took a poll on whether you leaned Progressive ... Conservative, or Traditionalist. CONSERVATISM: The Fight for a Tradition is a review of Edmund Fawcett book that looks at the latter two.



    The review and book looks at Edmund Burkecontrasted with Joseph de Maistre:




    Anyway, as I see myself, as a traditionalist, I value past traditions. I don't want to return to the past but would like to see the tried and true past reapplied to the present. Like family, community, Constitution.
    I don't agree about De Maistre or see any connection between his politics and totalitariaism. Moreover, I don't think he was a reactionary like Bonald who I know you have some knowledge of. De Maistre's musings on political legitimacy, sovereignty and the state have an almost post-modern character. You see many of the insights of modern sociology in early French conservativism.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  10. #18
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    I don't agree about De Maistre or see any connection between his politics and totalitariaism. Moreover, I don't think he was a reactionary like Bonald who I know you have some knowledge of. De Maistre's musings on political legitimacy, sovereignty and the state have an almost post-modern character. You see many of the insights of modern sociology in early French conservativism.
    OK, but I don't think the reviewer or Fawcett were trying to associate De Maistre with totalitarianism. Just, as compared to Burke, placing him on the hard right.

    I thought the contract between hard right as part the conservative tradition, rather than the far-right departure from it.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  11. #19
    Original Ranter
    Points: 297,710, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    416530
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    117,870
    Points
    297,710
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,302
    Thanked 53,475x in 36,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    1102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    OK, but I don't think the reviewer or Fawcett were trying to associate De Maistre with totalitarianism. Just, as compared to Burke, placing him on the hard right.

    I thought the contract between hard right as part the conservative tradition, rather than the far-right departure from it.
    That's the way I read the second section. It seemed to me that De Maistre was being described as an intellectual precursor of the radical or revolutionary right.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Mister D For This Useful Post:

    MMC (01-04-2021)

  13. #20
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So what can be said in favor of the principle of tradition, of living with social practices as they are and working with them in the light of experience and tradition, in opposition to the modern practice of remodeling society on abstract standards of efficiency and equality? One answer is that markets and bureaucracies need tradition. To work at all well they require a whole complex of habits, attitudes and beliefs supported by things like family arrangements, religious commitments, and standards of respectable conduct. Such things do not themselves operate on market or bureaucratic principles. They grow up informally and in ways that can’t be planned or controlled, through the growth of settled habits and attitudes among people who live together and deal with each other for a long time. They are thus essentially traditional.



    That answer suggests a kind of minimalist conservatism often found among chastened leftists and libertarians who have read Oakeshott or Hayek. Leftist or liberal goals won’t be achieved unless people have the understandings and habits—honesty, diligence, restraint, public spirit—that make it possible for bureaucracies, markets and institutions of self-government to work properly. Those understandings and habits can’t be counted on unless they are part of a stable and authoritative tradition by which people live. So grown-up leftists and libertarians must favor whatever is needed to have a generally-accepted tradition that fosters such things.



    But what is it that’s needed? It is likely to be more than minimalist conservatives expect. An analogy to socialism and free markets may be helpful. When the socialists became convinced that markets were after all necessary they tried to invent a “social market” consistent with socialist ideals. It turned out to be impossible. If the principle of central control comes first, the market suffers severely. If the principle of contract sets the tone, socialism must be given up. While bureaucracy may be useful for particular goals, the failure of attempts to save socialism indicates that in a modern economy the market must take the overall lead. From an intellectual standpoint, at any rate, libertarianism has won its argument with the left.



    A similar result seems certain in the case of an attempt to create a traditionalism that is a subordinate part of a fundamentally leftist or libertarian order. Leftism and libertarianism emphasize equality and satisfaction of individual goals within an orderly framework that facilitates such things. However, to accept tradition is to accept a great deal on trust, and so requires loyalty to something larger than the individual that can’t be fully rationalized. That loyalty is not likely to last when subordinated to equality and self-interest. Things like patriotism and love of family are not matters of calculation or personal advantage. If genuine self-sacrifice is needed, as in wartime, can the need for an orderly framework to advance self-interest and promote equality be enough to motivate it? Can that need be enough to motivate even the public honesty and stable family life indispensable for a tolerable society?



    It seems not. Tradition—the habit of loyalty toward one’s society and its ways—is necessary to establish the overall order within which social institutions like markets and bureaucracies can function. It follows that it cannot be justified by reference to market or bureaucratic considerations, which are of necessity subordinate, but must be viewed as authoritative in its own right. Since society cannot be rationalized on clear simple principles, evolved social practices must be accepted to a large extent on their own terms.



    But what personal reason do any of us have to treat tradition as authoritative? Is it only that we should do so as members of society because otherwise social order will be impossible? Or does tradition have internal qualities that make it reasonable to recognize its authority? And what about bad traditions? Surely loyalty shouldn’t be blind!



    The answer is found in the nature of human life. To accept tradition is to accept life on the whole as we find it. The alternative is to construct some new form of life based on supposed superior knowledge. However, life is too complex, subtle and all-embracing to be reconstructed in more than marginal ways. One might be able to invent a better mousetrap starting from scratch, or program a VCR simply by reading what the expert who wrote the manual has to say. More complicated things that can’t be analyzed so clearly require acceptance of a particular culture and tradition. We learn such things by imitation, by doing, and by participation in the traditions that define them. Without tradition complex human activities could not exist at all. We can’t engage in human speech, for example, without accepting and doing those things that constitute a particular language and so obediently accepting a particular tradition.



    In the case of very high-order activities, like politics, religion and the conduct of life generally, individual inventiveness and expertise that is not integrated with the practice of the activity itself become wholly subsidiary. The statesman and saint are not those who have studied religions and political systems and become experts or those who claim to have mastered those things so they can do with them what they want. They are those who live the life of religion and of politics as they exist in a particular tradition supremely well. How could it be otherwise, when such activities are so complex and subtle that no one could hope to state all their principles, and so all-embracing that an external perspective is impossible? The so-called innovations of great men only fulfill what was there already. Washington and Lincoln acted out of loyalty to their country and wanted to maintain something good it had long possessed. Christ based his teaching on the Law and Prophets and aimed only to fulfill them. How do such men compare with men like Robespierre, Lenin and Hitler who rejected and destroyed societies they considered rotten in the name of a radical new order of their own invention?




    Life depends on loyalty. To live as a human being is to accept and follow tradition. Without participation in the traditions that constitute our social world of shared habits, attitudes, beliefs and so on we would be like children fostered by wolves—dumb animals with no conception of who we are, and no goals other than immediate gratification of crude instinct. It is only because we take part in that world that we know who we are and what we want. To reject the authority of tradition is to leave that world and so become less than human.



    As for bad traditions, we know they are bad through other traditions. Ultimate standards of goodness, beauty and truth are too basic to isolate and study from outside. Since our relationship to them is part of what makes us what we are, they are beyond the reach of the ideals of neutrality and impartial expertise that have led moderns to try to base everything on economics, social science and formal abstractions like equality. Without involvement in forms of life that embody ultimate standards, we can’t know them......snip~


    Understanding Conservatism and Tradition | Turnabout (antitechnocrat.net)
    Last edited by MMC; 01-04-2021 at 08:32 AM.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    Chris (01-04-2021)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts