The Irrational Foundations of Conservatism: Edmund Burke

Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
49 comments | Share | Flag

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.


All Comments

  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I got you now. I understand what you're after now. Thanks for your patience. You're hoping to blow up the existing political infrastructure in the hopes that it spurs a revision back to the principles of the Founders.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You misunderstand I'm not looking for perfection I'm looking for cannon fodder and she fits the bill perfectly. Why not let one of their own grind up one of their own? I'm looking for a way to 'metaphorically wink wink, blow up the system and return us to days of yesteryear. Why use up good loyal troops when we can use them the way they are used to using us. She is the PERFECT less-than-perfect candidate and doubtless will get all or most of all the opposition in ye olde firesack. The hard part was figuring out who would be in line to pick up the pieces that could offer so much (in the way of votes and what else is a VP good for) the temptation for that type of running mate would be irresistible

    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!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So I'll just chime in here and tell you that I worked for HP for seven years, including during Carly's hire and fire. She's a big a disaster as Trump. I can't endorse her and if you want specific reasons, I'll be happy to enumerate them in detail.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Excuse me, but that gets a -1. You were the one who made the assertion that all Conservatives follow Burke and Hume. I follow neither and specifically presented other philosophers many Conservatives prefer who predate Burke and Hume, and your response provides no example, no reasoning - nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion aimed as to attack my capability to reason. So I guess I'll add ad hominem fallacy to the list of logical fallacies in your argument.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you do you are blind to your own nature. You argue exactly from the positions of Burke and Hume.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
    And what if I label myself a conservative yet reject Burke and Hume?

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps. But right now what I observe is that people from different philosophical backgrounds are forced to present the same 'face' to the world in order to be electable candidates.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I paraphrase an old joke of Bob Hope and tell them that 'I am so conservative, all of the planes I fly on have two right wings'.

    OK. OK. It is not as intellectual a response as the one you make, but I do enjoy watching their expressions.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you, Jan. I used to say I was so conservative that I made the conservatives look liberal. When someone would ask what that meant, I would say, well, for one I don't believe one should vote unless he is a producer. That usually knocked em off their feet!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I understand that. However, I bet as you understand more of the philosophical basis of conservativism, the more you will see that conservatives follow these philosophical principles.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    db, this was the problem I encountered in dealing with the word 'altruism'. The meaning of the word in general use is different than its technical description. I was using 'altruism' as it is meant today (and was wrong in doing so in a philosophical conversation).

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good point Bethesda-gal. We have encountered this in other walks of life: biology, geology, medicine. If you get the granularity wrong, no analysis makes sense.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like your answer, Mamaemma. I will sometimes call myself an Objectivist or a Randist when I am in the company of liberals, just to give them a handy label to tell 'where I am coming from'. But in this company, I think that 'individualist' is a better term. (That way, I don't trip over someone else's definitions.)

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The reason is they are the only unit left with frontal aviation close air support left now that the Air Force has refused battle once again. (Exception are C 130 gunships and drones. Air Force has plenty of the latter in the Pentagon.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I had to end up with the same formula. No Sugar use Stevia and no more caffeine...but no less. Of course I don't have to set the rooster on my alarm to seven if I don't wish to do so and even when it crows incessantly I can safely ignore 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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Former Marines always welcome. But Pathfinders set up the Drop Zones selected by A Teams or SEALs. I hope he laughs when he reads this. USMC is US Army Infantry's best friends now the A10's are gone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not short, just vertically challenged. Kidding. :)
    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 !
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hahaha. Yea, I think I already did that. Except he was called my dad. That's why I ended up marrying the opposite. ;)
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    my tutoring always seemed to take more out of me than the student;;;
    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
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Okay I can be short. I have been told I am the worlds best (worst) math tutor also. I admit I have shorter patience than average. The funny thing is that despite being considered the worlds worst math tutor, a number of people asked for my help with their calculus and when in college people often asked me to tutor them on other subjects. That is not to say they enjoyed the experience.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo