Reply With Quote
Doesn't stop each side from trying to blame the other endlessly though, does it?
Probably one of the more interesting articles linked here in a while.Against what he saw as this dubious backdrop, Nisbet marshaled not only the tradition of conservative pluralism but also the tradition of sociological thinking. As expounded by thinkers like Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, Nisbet argued, sociology teaches the value of seeing human beings as men-in-society, not as lone creatures in conditions of rational abstraction. Sociology thus exposes the liberal social-contract tradition of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Rawls for what it is: an attempt at omnipotence based on disregard for the social sphere that can provide only a distorted picture of the human animal.
But that does not mean conservatives should abandon the liberal project altogether. Far from it. For Nisbet, the basic values of modern liberalism—the dignity of the individual, the moral sovereignty of the people, and the possibilities of reason—are noble and defensible values vital to Western civilization, worthy of conservatives’ defense. Liberalism has only faltered to the extent that it has become unmoored from the social traditions in which it emerged. The great expounders of modern liberalism, like John Stuart Mill, were right to value what they valued—but they were wrong to imagine that a healthy form of individualism could blossom anywhere without reference to social organization. With that in mind, the task of conservatives is to reassert the importance of context—of vibrant and plural social organization—for the proper flourishing of liberal commitments.
“The symbols of liberalism, like the bells of the church, depend on prejudgments and social tradition,” Nisbet wrote. “In large part, the present crisis of liberal thought in the West comes, I believe, from the increasing loss of correspondence between the basic liberal values and the prejudgments and social contexts upon which the historic success of liberalism has been predicated.” Nisbet wanted to save liberalism from itself, and to do so he understood the necessity of saving things that seem illiberal: tradition, authority, hierarchy.
Doesn't stop each side from trying to blame the other endlessly though, does it?
There's too much $ in it, perhaps. But that's the standard simplistic view of problems in American life.
There's a natural need to impose one's view on the world, instead of seeking to change one's self, or at least to be content to live the life you think should be lived.
Would not the proper response to Nisbet's critique of modern Western life to be to live as rich a family and community life as you can? Or is it more bemused fatalism as we view the continual descent of modern man?
Well said. I'm sure that corps would rather a single man/woman, rather than one with a family, because then the single person won't be distracted by things at home.
Additionally, there is hatred of the family on the left too, in the form of those who demonize people who wish to have children. I've seen quite a few crazies on Salon and other sites that harass people for having children, as they're helping to pollute. (My polite suggestion for all of those people are to off themselves now, to help out with the problem.)
I'm hoping that there will be a correction, a pendulum swing. I can't imagine many people of my generation (20 to 30 or so) are looking at the effects of continuous warfare and seeing it in a positive light.
Ignorance isn't bliss, but there's enough damn folks trying to maintain their stupidity that one could be forgiven for thinking so.
Perhaps yes as to the family life. To go much beyond the immediate family in this society is to experience so much individuation in values that any attempt to integrate oneself into said society is to invoke a deluge of cognitive dissonance.
Doesn't it seem though that what we are describing is precisely the appeal that the extremes of either end of the political spectrum represent?
Isn't it possible that only in the far extreme can the clarity and singularity of thought be sufficiently pure in this day and age to be compelling and, resultantly, energizing?
To be wiling to exist within the 'medias res' of modern american political thought seems to me to imply a willingness to accept the possibility that truths can be coexistent with uncomfortable beliefs.
, to be willing to exist with a 'medias res' today implies rationality, which is inherently anathema to both extremes.
Eh, I don't think so. In some ways, you're correct. But such clarity has to be tempered with reality, or else you end up like [insert Godwin's Law here] Hitler in Germany.
Moderation can be a virtue unto itself; it's rare though that people talk about that. (Note: I don't think moderation should occur in every area, of course. You have to have some standards that you won't go below.)
I'm optimistic that we will eventually swing back that way. The key word being optimistic.
Impose is a bit too strong, but I think that one should make their views known. By all means, change your self is the evidence dictates, but don't let things you know to be wrong fly by without a token effort at resistance.
To oversimplify, right wing anti-family at udes show up in matters of employment, business, and war. Left wing anti-family at udes show up in matters of racism, feminism, environmentalism and all the other isms. The family is seen as an impediment to correct at udes and goals in these areas.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 02-22-2011 at 02:56 PM.
In which case traditionalism seems downright revolutionary, in my opinion.
Would that it was energizing as well as revolutionary.
And in fact Hegel would argue that if traditionalism is the synthesis of the two current extremes, that it will itself become the future thesis, at which point it would in fact be energizing as well as revolutionary.
But it is precisely that lack of 'tempering reality' that simplifies the far extremes and makes them attractive to those who would prefer not to think. Moderation is indeed a virtue. It is simply not a virtue that is very exciting to most people, and I would argue, is not a very attractive virtue in current American society.
Thus, moderates are disappearing from elected office in America.
Conservatism conserves what was once revolutionary. At least the good aspects. In theory.
But that's exactly my point. As politicians move to the extreme, they will have to keep moving in that direction or be cast out as a non-believer. Look at the right wing, and how many people call out former conservatives. As it gets more and more extreme, politicians will have to keep up (just like banks had to keep up with other banks by using CDS/etc/etc). Look at Glenn Beck lately, for an obvious example.
Eventually, there will be a line crossed, and public sentiment will swing around. Then moderation will be hailed as the hallmark of great men, sober giants reflecting on the extreme dichotomy of opinion that's been inflicted upon this great nation.
And eventually, moderation will be seen as boring, and we'll swing back the other way. (Heck, some of that occurred even during Obama's run for presidency.)
For an unrooted people with little in the way of understanding, an ideological lens through which to see the world is appealing. A way of understanding without the effort to acquire it.
Moderation in temperament comes from seeking understanding. Not necessarily moderation in thought, but the effort leads to respect for honest differences in opinion.
Perhaps the greater the vitriol, the greater likelihood that opponents are fighting over the same space. Or that the differences are slight rather than huge. If you accept the notion of a centralized state/business apparatus, then the pitch of American politics should not be surprising as the two general sides duke it out for the power, wealth, and prestige accruing.
Disclosure.
Once upon a time I tried to read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit with some philosophy grad students here in Austin. We read it line for line in our meetings at Milto's Pizza.
It was really hard, even for the PHL grads, and of course like simpletons and babes we read it in English. We only got about halfway through, and there was little agreement about the meaning of the terminology or even basic themes. Eventually, it bored us to death.
When we'd review things we just read, hilarious things would happen. People would start saying the opposite of what they said ten minutes ago, and the people who you'd think would be in natural agreement, who in fact agreed ten minutes ago, would argue the opposite too.
For me, trying to understand Hegel is like trying to set foot twice in the Heraclitean river. In Hegel's favor, existence is like that too.
Unfortunately the very high price Hegel pays for the "realism" of his PHL related to change, is unintelligibility. Trying to describe the philosophy of GWF Hegel is like trying to describe the waves or a sand dune.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-24-2011 at 05:53 AM.
(tlacuache)
(tecate)
The transition from free capitalism to forced collectivism is easy and will hardly be noticed when a population has lost the sense of social and moral participation in the former. Everything that separates the individual from this sense of participation pushes him inevitably in the direction of an iron collectivism, which will make a new kind of participation both possible and mandatory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions