the philosophy of liberalism and conservatism

[SoundMaster]

Ok, so this BB is reserved for philosophy and not politics, right?
Wrong. The two are almost always intertwined.

And I'm buzzed right now, so this might sould incoherant.

With that said, I pose a question:

- is it natural to be liberal? I think not.
Now, before we go further, please allow me to state that I do consider myself to be liberal. I simply find that it leads to a far better society than conservatism.

Anyway, in my opinion, conservative views are generally at the base level of human motivation, whereas liberal views - again, in my opinion - are at a level somewhat larger. I don't mean "larger" in an elite sense, either.

Rather, most liberal views tend to favor the many as opposed to the one, or the self, which are the core of the conservative philosophy ("why share of myself with others, let them fend for themselves").

With that said, evolution and life in general, usually proves that man is a selfish beast, with little worry for those that aren't in his daily 'circle'. Why or how then did liberal views ever arise? Sure, the promotion of society is what has made mankind into the most successful animal on this planet, but underneath it all, underneath that facade, man would rather NOT have to rely on his fellows to do the things that he himself can not do.

And, I think that the current scope of the Western world - particularly in the US - tends to show that most folks are NOT liberal (not in the truest sense of the word, anyway). I could be way off in this judgement, but it's simply how I see it (at least here in America).


ps....speaking of America, let's not use the Democratic party when discussing liberalism as the party is really "conservative light" or "diet conservative". The Dem party rarely represents a liberal view and has steadily moved to the center since the Carter admin.

 

[infoterror]

Liberalism appeals to those with low self-esteem. Then again, in terms of philosophy, the conservative parties are quite liberal.

I think all we have in America are do-nothing moderates.

 

[SoundMaster]

Liberalism appeals to those with low self-esteem. .

There may be some truth to this.
Generally, those of low self-esteem are want to help others. To be liked.

I highly doubt a man like Dick Cheney has low self-esteem.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i don't think either strongly liberal or strongly conservative ideals should be maintained on a universal scale. without balance, the system degenerates.

 

[Cythraul]

Liberalism appeals to those with low self-esteem.

You're quite the psychologist.

 

[Demiurge]

Liberal views do tend to favor the many. I find this appeals to the moral standards ingrained in us by the values we're fed by the status quo and its proponents. The problem is the practical implications. Many people are interchangeable, some are essentially useless. The liberal system expends too much of its resources attempting to carry these people at the expense of the most capable. The latter should be cultivated before resources are spent on lesser persons, those of unfortunate endowment. Worse yet, programs are established which punish the exceptional. Liberalism is okay in an idealistic sense, but in practice, it panders to the lowest common denominator and worst of all, attempts to create a society of mediocre equality.

We have different perspectives on classifications. I see both parties as being moderate, but leaning toward the left. It's amazing how rigidly people have adapted to fit into their categories. Liberals are pro-environment, for instance. How does this tie in to liberalism, exactly? Ancient societies had great respect for the natural world. I might add, they in no way resembled our current liberal democracy. Hitler was concerned with the environment. The Nazis were also opposed to animal abuse. These are core liberal values. These words have come to be constraining constructs to trap people into our binary political climate.

Society is a necessary compromise. We give away our freedom for protection and easier life. We accomplish more as a community. That's the whole idea behind it.

To use these terms I detest, I have some liberal beliefs, some conservative, and some which I shouldn't be able to have because they fall outside the parties' ideologies.

 

[Bloody Pollyanna]

With that said, evolution and life in general, usually proves that man is a selfish beast, with little worry for those that aren't in his daily 'circle'. Why or how then did liberal views ever arise?

perhaps it's related to the development of communication and greater interactions. as societies grow, groups grow more connected, and also connected with other groups. their interests intertwine, so liberalism or more liberal views tend to cater to what were seemingly 'conservative' default human motivations. or maybe that just paints a bleak view of liberal philosophy, and one which i tend not to agree with. hrm.
i'm not sure.. it's an interesting thing to ponder though.

 

[speed]

Liberal views do tend to favor the many. I find this appeals to the moral standards ingrained in us by the values we're fed by the status quo and its proponents. The problem is the practical implications. Many people are interchangeable, some are essentially useless. The liberal system expends too much of its resources attempting to carry these people at the expense of the most capable. The latter should be cultivated before resources are spent on lesser persons, those of unfortunate endowment. Worse yet, programs are established which punish the exceptional. Liberalism is okay in an idealistic sense, but in practice, it panders to the lowest common denominator and worst of all, attempts to create a society of mediocre equality.

We have different perspectives on classifications. I see both parties as being moderate, but leaning toward the left. It's amazing how rigidly people have adapted to fit into their categories. Liberals are pro-environment, for instance. How does this tie in to liberalism, exactly? Ancient societies had great respect for the natural world. I might add, they in no way resembled our current liberal democracy. Hitler was concerned with the environment. The Nazis were also opposed to animal abuse. These are core liberal values. These words have come to be constraining constructs to trap people into our binary political climate.

Society is a necessary compromise. We give away our freedom for protection and easier life. We accomplish more as a community. That's the whole idea behind it.

To use these terms I detest, I have some liberal beliefs, some conservative, and some which I shouldn't be able to have because they fall outside the parties' ideologies.

I totally agree with your comments Demiurge on the problems of liberalism. I also agree with your point that no one party or political belief system is entirely liberal or conservative, but a bastardization and patchwork of many different beliefs.

I for one really have no set political belief system; I reserve my right to mock them all equally.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i agree. my beliefs are my own, and i don't subscribe to any of the political parties in action in my country because i disagree with all of them.

 

[ProjectedBlack]

I used to consider myself extremely Conservative and I was a big fan of the American Right-Wing policy. However I've shyed away from politics and the conformity of being a slave to ideals and see politics as it is, a pit of corruption.

I guess I'd still be considered in the Conservative scale in terms of social issues. Economically...well, I'm starting to really doubt the neccasity of society so my economic views arn't very broad.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

If we are speaking on liberal and conservative in the dictionary sense and not the American sense, I take elements of both into my own worldview, though I tend to veer more towards the liberal side. Speaking in a very general sense, conservativism tends to be more focused on the self and liberalism tends to focus more on the group. Looking at nature there is a definite dichotomy between these two concepts in most every entity. Though the focus is more often then not on the sucess of the induviudal, most species, especially within the animal kingdom, have some form of protectivty over the comminity. Nature also has a large number of checks and balances to further keep the Earth in balance, such as disease, stravation and so forth. Humans however have an uncanny ability to overcome such issues and because of this have managed to expand to a much greater degree then any other animal of our size. If society generally focuses on the self rather the or ecosystem as a whole, the balance of nature is knocked terribly off course. The current American worldview would be a perfect example of such a state. On the other hand if a recognition of the dependency that all living beings have on their ecosystem is recognized, then one must give up some induviudalistic benifits for the betterment of the whole. This can be seen in many "paganistic" cultures from all over the world. I think both nature and human societies need a balance of power to stay in a healthy state. When this does not occur things get (ie ARE getting) ugly fast. Anyhow, like I said this is broad, as both concepts are not so cut and dry. But nevertheless as an overall this is why I tend to support more liberal policies then conservative.

 

[SoundMaster]

If we are speaking on liberal and conservative in the dictionary sense and not the American sense, I take elements of both into my own worldview, though I tend to veer more towards the liberal side. Speaking in a very general sense, conservativism tends to be more focused on the self and liberalism tends to focus more on the group. Looking at nature there is a definite dichotomy between these two concepts in most every entity. Though the focus is more often then not on the sucess of the induviudal, most species, especially within the animal kingdom, have some form of protectivty over the comminity. Nature also has a large number of checks and balances to further keep the Earth in balance, such as disease, stravation and so forth. Humans however have an uncanny ability to overcome such issues and because of this have managed to expand to a much greater degree then any other animal of our size. If society generally focuses on the self rather the or ecosystem as a whole, the balance of nature is knocked terribly off course. The current American worldview would be a perfect example of such a state. On the other hand if a recognition of the dependency that all living beings have on their ecosystem is recognized, then one must give up some induviudalistic benifits for the betterment of the whole. This can be seen in many "paganistic" cultures from all over the world. I think both nature and human societies need a balance of power to stay in a healthy state. When this does not occur things get (ie ARE getting) ugly fast. Anyhow, like I said this is broad, as both concepts are not so cut and dry. But nevertheless as an overall this is why I tend to support more liberal policies then conservative.

You've perfectly explained the same views I hold.
Ironically, my liberal leanings can also be seen as being "selfish", from a point of view.
I'd rather feed the poor, through my own pocket, than leave them starving forcing them to TAKE food from my mouth. It's no coincidence that poor areas, generally speaking, have higher crime rates. Common sense actually.
I was very conservative until about the age of 21 (I'm 33 now). Over time, I recognized the futility of that stance, however.

 

[Demiurge]

But conservatism is concerned with the community, not the individual. That is at the essence of it. If one examines the social organization of traditional societies, they're hierarchal, yet holistic. It's almost like you're confusing libertarianism(degenerate, both socially and economically) with true conservatism, which has no american representative. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a sort of subversive utilitarianism. Any attempt to deal with the community is clouded by idealistic presuppositions, which in effect make it seem like communism-lite.

 

[speed]

But conservatism is concerned with the community, not the individual. That is at the essence of it. If one examines the social organization of traditional societies, they're hierarchal, yet holistic. It's almost like you're confusing libertarianism(degenerate, both socially and economically) with true conservatism, which has no american representative. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a sort of subversive utilitarianism. Any attempt to deal with the community is clouded by idealistic presuppositions, which in effect make it seem like communism-lite.

Now that is quite well said.

Demiurge are you familiar with Joseph De Maistre?

 

[Demiurge]

Now that is quite well said.

Demiurge are you familiar with Joseph De Maistre?

I've read Considerations on France, which was interesting and decidedly different than other historical accounts.

 

[speed]

De Maistre is to me the more eloquent, practical, detached, and religious version of Evola. In my opinon, Evola was trapped in that ridiculous mystical-historical movement of the early 20th century; whereas De Maistre was free himself of mystical inclinations and true to the history of catholicism and tradition; a true reactionary longing for the truth of the past.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I like to take a pragmatic view on this, I like to use whatever works best as a political belief

 

[infoterror]

But conservatism is concerned with the community, not the individual. That is at the essence of it. If one examines the social organization of traditional societies, they're hierarchal, yet holistic. It's almost like you're confusing libertarianism(degenerate, both socially and economically) with true conservatism, which has no american representative. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a sort of subversive utilitarianism. Any attempt to deal with the community is clouded by idealistic presuppositions, which in effect make it seem like communism-lite.

Absolutely.

Interestingly, most materialist philosophies end up being "individualistic," with that subversive utilitarianism you mention.

Liberalism is a philosophy of revolt against those who have something, because in liberal theory, they don't deserve it.