Most western conservative thinkers (Thomas Sowell and Roger Scruton for example) do not view conservatism as acceptance of the status quo or a refusal to progress. They understand that progress and change are the way of the universe. They do however regard radical change that doesn't take into account subtle complexities, human nature, and other constraints as folly. That leads them to be cautious and fearful of bloodbaths and collapse into darker situations. Sowell explains this in "Conflict of Visions" and "Marxism".
Conservatives do not reject change outright that is correct. If change is unavoidable then conservatism accepts it because inevitability is the natural order.
Edmund Burke doesn't refuse change or necessarily accept the status quo. The point is that any change has to be done in a guarded manner, with reference to the wisdom of previous generations.
The thing is most western conservatives aren't much different, its just a different flavor of liberalism. Essentially liberals and conservatives are driving to the same place, just modern Republicans are driving in a slower car.
@@grieverff8ff9 what if foundation is the problem? and what is exactlt is the foundation that you are talking about? Religion? Racial Discrimination? Stealing Property? Or Hard work, innovation, etc? Vasts swaths of land was never obtained by hardwork or innovation in the first place.
@@RodavMetal92 they might be. Spellings of names can change over time. I changed the way I spell my surname. Partly to distance myself from certain family members. 🤣
By Aristotle logic: “we are what we repeatedly do”. As Burke did conserve what was best in society and was open to new improvements, that makes him a conservative.
Conservatism respects the 'specific and bold moral rule' created throughout whole human history, and, if necessary, chooses to innovate yet does not rebel.
Hierarchies form naturally whether we like them or not. Look at the animal world. They should be functional and fair, but not stagnant. Trying to pretend like we can eliminate them is as foolish as trying to eliminate gravity.
Summary: Burke was reacting the the turbulence of the French Revolution. (6:56) Burke is associated with two principles: - Right to resist illegitimate gov't (but only under extreme conditions) - Liberty (which has preconditions for its security) Burke defends a notion of legitimate authority to secure liberty of the people. (8:19) Burke was seen as defending authority, which had two main components: - Authority is legitimate insofar that is has popular consent. - Authority is entrenched in what we call "tradition" or "history." Readers often conflate Burke's argument with the defense of any & all sources of authority (and their traditions). Burke did not defend tradition "at all costs;" he argues for tradition as subservient to individual freedoms and rights. Tradition is a means of protecting rights, but rights were more fundamental than tradition. Thesis: Rights > tradition. Tradition is conditional. (10:20) Afterthoughts: Burke supports some for of tradition in his critique of the French Revolution, so it is fair to call him conservative with our modern categories. However, it is not fair to say that Burke pushed for a conservatism that defended tradition for its own sake. One should also note that "conservatism" as a political term did not exist in Burke's time. Furthermore, every ideology seeks to conserve something eventually, whether they are left or right leaning politically. Every long-term political project will eventually establish its own traditions. Therefore, "conservatism" is often a self-defeating label when viewed over time.
This is amazing. It's clearly a leftist approach on Burke's work, but we do not have this in Brazil anymore. The leftist philosophy is so predominant in the universities and society in general that we developted a lazy type of "intellectuals", a kind that has a very "strict diet" and do not need to confront any different ideas. Take this Corona crisis as an example. We were talking about diminishing the State before it stroke, but as soon as it came, they abbandon this proposal, showing, in truth, that nobody here really has liberty as a principle, and we're now talking about a "Marshall plan for the Economy","taxing the rich" and "universal basic income", the shocking part about this is that the elected Government and Parliament supposed to be a "Right wing" one.
The government IS a right wing one, they are giving a small amount of universal income in a dire time because of what they have mismanaged, Brazil’s handling of the coronavirus was one of the worst thanks to Jair’s constant downplaying. It’s just an attempt to get the people on their side at this point
@@jacobrayner6985 I do not see it on that way, it was one of the few countries which did respect people on their bodies and health decisions. Otherwise currency appreciation against others in the continent debunks that false assertion.
this was actually a good explanation and it made me reconsider Burke as less of the big old privileged fart he was and yk i actually began to see his point of view outside of my modern political understanding
I think something few understand about Burke is not that he is opposed wholesale to change or, more specifically, to reform. Rather, he sees those as necessary in order to preserve institutions, nations, traditions, etc. What he opposed was taking a rotten structure, blowing up its foundations, and trying to construct something entirely new that ends up being worse.
The idea of conservatism as simply an adherence to the Status Quo is a view most conservatives reject. The fundemental ideas of conservatism are things like: 1. Organic view of society 2. Human Nature as having both virtious and sinful aspects 3. Empericism rather than rationalism as foundation for political actions. The idea that "rights" are more important than these things is what Burke rejects. To say he thinks rights trump tradition would just make him a liberal of the French sort. Rather, Burke believes that the only method upon establishing rights is by recognising the ideas and values mentioned above. From these ideas that make up any conservative thinking and the problems conservatives have with liberalism. For example, conservatives see humans as social beings who need community rather than as pure individuals. Individualism is good, but only as long as the need for community and social interaction is recognised. It also means that hierarchy is seen as something good but needs to function properly were due honour is given to all members of the hierarchy. The call for more equality never manages to dismantle hierarchy, but it just leads to a new hierarchy without the same sense of nobless obliege and honouring towards the organic society. The view of Human Nature as having sinful and virtious aspects is why conservatives believe you need good institutions in order to keep human beings in check so that something like the desire to have sexual intercourse confines itself within marriage for example. This is also why religion is so valued because religion and belief in God recognises not only that mankind is broken and cannot save itself and need to repent and try as best they can to act according to good virtious and duties, but it also recognises hierarchy. God is the Creator and King that humanity should humbly honour and worship. And the reason conservatives say that tradition is of value is because it based on empericism of what has survived throughout the centuries, though changed, means that getting rid of it is not good for stability.
Fair points, but sex is way older than the institution of marriage, or any organized society. You can say want you want about the evolution of our ancestral mores/norms towards a more advantageous monogamy, but it certainly did not start with a priest and a ring. Also, there are many religious traditions that have "worked" well enough to sustain different societies, yet each have profoundly different assumptions about the world and its expectations for individuals. Christianity (& its Jewish heritage) is not the only religion that is valued by people, nor is it the oldest. Ancient Judaism regularly endorsed polygamy, but I guess that's still technically marriage. However, compared to religions rooted in cultures that didn't historically treat women like property, sex before marriage wasn't nearly as offensive as infidelity within marriage-- that last one seems rather universal. (Keep in mind that institutions don't just exist to keep us in check, they also exist to create environments of efficient cooperation.) Religions contain methodology that has proved beneficial, but also has carried superficial hitchhikers-habits that proved to be meaningless time-wasters or downright harmful. Think of the prohibition from eating pork if you're Muslim. It makes some sense, considering it is a dangerous meat to eat if undercooked or unclean, but in our modern world that is hardly a concern. If you're protestant: think of all the Catholic superficialities like the recognition of Papal authority. Even Homer Simpson admits the Catholics have time-tested morals, but that doesn't mean shouldn't be skeptical. On the more extreme side, Hindus toss their babies for good luck, Shiite Muslims (and Catholics in the past) have a tradition of self-flagellation, and the Mayans had human sacrifice. Some of these strange traditions even performed important functions in their societies, but I think its worth the effort to reorganize society if we can spare hurting ourselves. As an organized society we need institutions, but we need *good* institutions: institutions and hierarchy that serve the people, do not harm or exploit the people, and ones that are fair & impartial-- meaning that they enforce equality to a degree. Bad institutions demand reform, so we should not be surprised if exploitative hierarchy spurs the masses toward a violent and sudden change if problems have been ignored for too long. To be a responsible conservative is to be proactive in seeking relevant & constructive systemic changes. If we fail to do so, radical "progressive" revolutions become completely warranted. Conservatism may be more communal compared to leftist-neoliberalism, but it is certainly miles more individualistic than leftist socialist/Marxist ideas, or that of tribal/clan systems. And mind you, these are only considered left-wing because of how much change it would take the current system to adopt them. Also, don't forget about libertarian conservatives, who (are technically still neoliberals and) completely reject a communal organization of government and society and focus solely on individual rights and freedoms.
@R Berger Jefferson was a liberal of the most progressive sort. The fact that the Declaration of Independence is valued more than the Constitution, which was actually based on tradition, is the origin for why the US evolved such a progressive and anti-traditional state. The only regard that the US is not progressive has been it's strong religious tradition. In that regard, the US has a deeply conservative soul, but the political philosophy of Jefferson was liberal and progressive. The Jeffersonians have dominated US politics and shaped it more than Washington and his friends like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. If you look to their views, they were much more conservative than Jefferson, who supported the French Revolution and justified all it's violence. Jefferson famously said "The Earth belongs to the living" and that the dead having neither rights nor powers over it. This was in stark contrast to Burke who says that society is a "contract" between the dead, the living and those not yet born. This is why the American self-understanding has consisted of a rejection of European tradition and a belief in American exceptionalism for so long. It's a view that rejects viewed America as a nation of new ideas, a new order and one which sought to spread it's worldview around the world.
@@333_studios "Sex is older than marriage" Yes, but marriage came about after the agricultural revolution and mass society sprang into being. Before, when there were Hunter-Gather societies where you knew almost everyone in that society personally, and in those societies sex still consisted mostly within the confines of monogamy. "Keep in mind that institutions don't just exist to keep us in check, they also exist to create environments of efficient cooperation." Fair enough, I should have mentioned that as well. The point is that creating good enviroments for efficient cooperation is part of regulating human passions and impulses. But you are right, that this is an important function of institutions. "Religions contain methodology that has proved beneficial, but also has carried superficial hitchhikers-habits that proved to be meaningless time-wasters or downright harmful" Yes, which is why traditional conservatives subscribe to the idea of a transcendent order and natural law which is avaliable in most traditions. C. S Lewis called this "the Tao", the Chinese word for "Way", which summarised a moral view of the world which is common to most human societies. One can ask which traditions follows the Tao the best and seeks its fullest realisation and therefore ask which traditions breaks with the Tao? If you look at the traditions that have practiced immoral behaviour, like human sacrifice, it has usually been because of some false beliefs in the benifits of human sacrifice. "If I sacrifice this human, the world will continue to live" at it's best, and at it's worst "I offer the gods this human so that I can benifit". It is not therefore, just a matter of inheritance of a custom created by an invisible hand, as Hayek would put it. As for the more obscure ones, those are the perrogatives of each faith. If Muslims and Jews refuse to eat Pork because of a commandment, that is their tradition and I see no problem in following it. Yes, maybe in our present sense we see it as an unnecessary restriction, but if their religious traditions were to be correct, it would prove that they show loyalty to God and their peers. Even such traditions might have important functions for those respective communities, that if broken, would damage the communites. Same with papal authority. If Catholics stopped adhearing to papal authority, it might invite in forces wishing to fundamentally alter their faith, with no regard even for the Bible. Keep in mind, I am not a Muslim, a Jew or a Catholic, but I respect each of them in their own traditions where it does not break with the moral law. "As an organized society we need institutions, but we need good institutions" Also a fair point that I failed to mention. It is not simple institutions, but institutions that have proven the test of time and hardship. But many institutions might serve functions that we are unaware of, and just because a different society lacks that institution does not mean that the existing society can get rid of it without unforseen negative consequences. One therefore needs to carefully examine what it is one is getting rid off before one ultimately decides to do so. Chattel-slavery as an institution was a good thing to get rid off, because unlike other forms of hierarchy, the slave was not provided with rights and a degree of justice that was afforded to other members of society. If you were a peasant, a degree of justice and good living might still be provided towards you by the structures that were in place, you had your rights and freedoms. Therefore, you could be a peasant and support the existing power structures with lords, dukes and kings, because you still had harmony. By contrast, nobody wanted to be a slave and slave traders were shunned by most of society. In Roman times, for example, slave traders were looked down upon and St. Paul even condemns slave-traders as those who break God's commandments.
@R Berger Lol, you just admitted that Jefferson saw the constitution was temporal and should not be preserved but renewed. Then if that is the case Jefferson is only a conservative as to his own opinions and writings, any other piece of Law, tradition or institution is subject to constant renewal. The declaration of independence is obviously a liberal and progressive peace, especially when it regards the justification for the secession. He does point to concrete violations, but these violations are not violations of English Law, but of Natural Law, in Jefferson’s views. Jefferson appeals to abstract laws of government rather than the concrete violations that warrent secession. Hamilton, Jay and partly Washington viewed the grounds for secession on the basis on concrete violations of rights that Englishmen traditionally had. John Adams saw his own writings and beliefs confirmed by Burke and that they were on the same page as to the justification for the American revolution. Jefferson on the other hand was supportive of the French revolution and funded news papers spreading pro-French views and funded the Whisky rioters, which acted like the French revolutionaries. You just cannot say Jefferson was in any way a conservative when you look at his support for the French revolution. Period!
@Robert Berger You still don't get it. Whatever Jefferson might have said in a personal letter to someone about his Declaration of Independence, it is irrelevant to what he as a person represented: Out with the old and in with the new. His own personality and beliefs contradict the idea that the Declaration of Independence even COULD be considered timeless, because if the Earth belongs to the living then the Declaration should be seen as not relevant, even if he came up with some BS reason why it should not. I mean, what a guy! "Everything should be renewed, except what I wrote because that was so perfect nobody could possibly object!" Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence has no legal bounding whatsoever. It is not the constitution, which has legal and actual binding. To prioritise what the Declaration of Independence says over something like the Federalist Papers as the founding philosophy of America is arbitrary at best. The Federalist Papers were written by several founding fathers, the Declaration was written by one, and corrected by two. I define progressive as someone who believes that we can change what has been considered timeless wisdom and by changing or disregarding old institutions, beliefs, values and norms, we will advance to a better society. Jefferson VERY much believed this, and so was a progressive. He was not a modern progressive, but the ideas that modern progressives believe, disregard for the past in order to progress, is at the core of Jefferson. That is why Hamilton clashed with him so immensely, because Hamilton believed that America should look to their Anglo-Saxon roots and traditions in order to best build upon America. It's also why Jefferson supported the French Revolution (even helped write Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), funded radical papers against the Washington and Adams administration and supported the French during the Quasi-War. A true Classical Conservative looks not to what just one man wrote, but to the wisdom of all the past, but especially to those institutions that have survived long through turmoil. That is why a Classical Conservative supports things like, hierarchy, tradition, religion, old ethical principles like those found in Confucius, Aristotle or Jesus & his Apostles and an organic view of society.
When i was younger (like moste idelaists) i thought the freanch revolution was a good thing WRONG! when u study the aftermath of revolution the effects of it on a society are in both the long or short term never good. After the revolution in france you had the Terror which in 1 year was reponseable for the sluaghter of 55,000 pepole. , then for a while there was unstability, then napolion took power but was himself nothing more than a dictatore, then finally the royals were restored but only for about 25 years . in short Revolution allmost allways never works out well and cuases more damage than good.
i find the line in the thumbnail "why is a revolution a self-destroying power?" very misleading... Bourke does not say anything about "revolution" generally, only about The French Revolution in particular, nor do I think this claim of self-destruction is even asserted by Bourke, he only clarifies why the 18th century thinker Burke considered the French Revolution self-defeating, the video is mainly about being mindful of Marxist views of history that many today seem to have around the French Revolution and the complications of understanding old political thought in terms of modern concepts like conservatism
Progressive conservatives, neoliberals and neoliberalism, socialists democrats, Communists, neoconservatives, anarchists, Christian democrats, they are come from different ideologies and human thoughts and beliefs and hopes for the future. It's us against them. It reflects that we all differ in life about how things should be done ✅...some believe in constant change and others that we should preserve the status quo and protect it.
Thank you for this very understandable explanation of conservatism, I probably watched 5 videos and read 3 essays on the subject and still could not understand. Until now!
Maybe this is clear intellectual, thought. I have always thought of myself as being comfortable with nuance. I found this to be terribly tortured. Maybe it was the style of presentation more than the substance that I am reacting to. Others seem to find it illuminating.
It's you.... They DO find it illuminating, OBVIOUSLY. You are like that "that seems to be a totally huge conflagration of fire there in that forest !! Oh, really, you don't know :)
You're talking in such a careful and calculated manner that I can't even relate to the human situation you're trying to describe. One could droll out Germany's justification for WW2 in such a dull and inhumanly surgical way.
Conservatism is a very flexible ideology. They transcendents any rigid political concepts in a lot of ways. Progressive movements themselves can become conservative if they become accepted and something challenges them down the line. Preservation on historical precedence is how conservatism manifests itself in any context. So what we consider progressive/liberal today can become de facto conservative if challenged.
Well, the point missed by you is , It is not your place to police who is and is not conservative. If you are enlightended then follow it.But don't become the Stasi of Correctness.
Eagleton is right about Bourke: “Lurking beneath this account is a political animus that never really speaks its name. It would be good if it came out into the open.”
Most western conservative thinkers (Thomas Sowell and Roger Scruton for example) do not view conservatism as acceptance of the status quo or a refusal to progress. They understand that progress and change are the way of the universe. They do however regard radical change that doesn't take into account subtle complexities, human nature, and other constraints as folly. That leads them to be cautious and fearful of bloodbaths and collapse into darker situations. Sowell explains this in "Conflict of Visions" and "Marxism".
Conservatives do not reject change outright that is correct. If change is unavoidable then conservatism accepts it because inevitability is the natural order.
Edmund Burke doesn't refuse change or necessarily accept the status quo. The point is that any change has to be done in a guarded manner, with reference to the wisdom of previous generations.
Cautious liberalism. Is a good definition of Conservatism, conservatives are all for progress so long as it doesn't destroy the foundation.
The thing is most western conservatives aren't much different, its just a different flavor of liberalism. Essentially liberals and conservatives are driving to the same place, just modern Republicans are driving in a slower car.
@@grieverff8ff9 what if foundation is the problem? and what is exactlt is the foundation that you are talking about?
Religion? Racial Discrimination? Stealing Property?
Or Hard work, innovation, etc? Vasts swaths of land was never obtained by hardwork or innovation in the first place.
Bourke on Burke.
ahahahhahah
I thought they were related until I noticed the “ou”.
@@RodavMetal92 they might be. Spellings of names can change over time. I changed the way I spell my surname. Partly to distance myself from certain family members. 🤣
By Aristotle logic: “we are what we repeatedly do”.
As Burke did conserve what was best in society and was open to new improvements, that makes him a conservative.
Conservatism respects the 'specific and bold moral rule' created throughout whole human history, and, if necessary, chooses to innovate yet does not rebel.
Conservatism is about retaining the lessons of the past while innovating very carefully.
The modern world needs a little bit more conservatism.
Hierarchies form naturally whether we like them or not. Look at the animal world. They should be functional and fair, but not stagnant. Trying to pretend like we can eliminate them is as foolish as trying to eliminate gravity.
Exactly.
True..now so called liberals are calling natural things as patriarchy
The left inevitably creates the worst authoritarian regimes.
Especially in war times. A group that eliminates hierachies will demise first.
ps. And we have been waking war nonstop since the dawn of time.
Is it just me or is it funny that Bourke is talking about Burke
He even looks like him
They're related - Bourke is a cognate of Burke. Both are descended from the Anglo-Norman de Burghs who arrived in Ireland during the reign of Henry II
Someone call the Swedish Chef!
The irony that conservatism is a new movement is marvelous.
It was always a movement.
How is it new?
the reaction to the french revolution didn't exist before the french revolution, mind boggling
It's not that ironic. The reason conservatism is new is because people started to question and rebel against what everyone before took for granted.
Summary:
Burke was reacting the the turbulence of the French Revolution.
(6:56) Burke is associated with two principles:
- Right to resist illegitimate gov't (but only under extreme conditions)
- Liberty (which has preconditions for its security)
Burke defends a notion of legitimate authority to secure liberty of the people.
(8:19) Burke was seen as defending authority, which had two main components:
- Authority is legitimate insofar that is has popular consent.
- Authority is entrenched in what we call "tradition" or "history."
Readers often conflate Burke's argument with the defense of any & all sources of authority (and their traditions).
Burke did not defend tradition "at all costs;" he argues for tradition as subservient to individual freedoms and rights.
Tradition is a means of protecting rights, but rights were more fundamental than tradition.
Thesis: Rights > tradition. Tradition is conditional.
(10:20) Afterthoughts:
Burke supports some for of tradition in his critique of the French Revolution, so it is fair to call him conservative with our modern categories. However, it is not fair to say that Burke pushed for a conservatism that defended tradition for its own sake. One should also note that "conservatism" as a political term did not exist in Burke's time.
Furthermore, every ideology seeks to conserve something eventually, whether they are left or right leaning politically. Every long-term political project will eventually establish its own traditions. Therefore, "conservatism" is often a self-defeating label when viewed over time.
Thank you very much.
This is amazing. It's clearly a leftist approach on Burke's work, but we do not have this in Brazil anymore. The leftist philosophy is so predominant in the universities and society in general that we developted a lazy type of "intellectuals", a kind that has a very "strict diet" and do not need to confront any different ideas. Take this Corona crisis as an example. We were talking about diminishing the State before it stroke, but as soon as it came, they abbandon this proposal, showing, in truth, that nobody here really has liberty as a principle, and we're now talking about a "Marshall plan for the Economy","taxing the rich" and "universal basic income", the shocking part about this is that the elected Government and Parliament supposed to be a "Right wing" one.
The government IS a right wing one, they are giving a small amount of universal income in a dire time because of what they have mismanaged, Brazil’s handling of the coronavirus was one of the worst thanks to Jair’s constant downplaying. It’s just an attempt to get the people on their side at this point
@@jacobrayner6985 I do not see it on that way, it was one of the few countries which did respect people on their bodies and health decisions.
Otherwise currency appreciation against others in the continent debunks that false assertion.
this was actually a good explanation and it made me reconsider Burke as less of the big old privileged fart he was and yk i actually began to see his point of view outside of my modern political understanding
I think something few understand about Burke is not that he is opposed wholesale to change or, more specifically, to reform. Rather, he sees those as necessary in order to preserve institutions, nations, traditions, etc. What he opposed was taking a rotten structure, blowing up its foundations, and trying to construct something entirely new that ends up being worse.
The idea of conservatism as simply an adherence to the Status Quo is a view most conservatives reject. The fundemental ideas of conservatism are things like:
1. Organic view of society
2. Human Nature as having both virtious and sinful aspects
3. Empericism rather than rationalism as foundation for political actions.
The idea that "rights" are more important than these things is what Burke rejects. To say he thinks rights trump tradition would just make him a liberal of the French sort. Rather, Burke believes that the only method upon establishing rights is by recognising the ideas and values mentioned above.
From these ideas that make up any conservative thinking and the problems conservatives have with liberalism. For example, conservatives see humans as social beings who need community rather than as pure individuals. Individualism is good, but only as long as the need for community and social interaction is recognised.
It also means that hierarchy is seen as something good but needs to function properly were due honour is given to all members of the hierarchy. The call for more equality never manages to dismantle hierarchy, but it just leads to a new hierarchy without the same sense of nobless obliege and honouring towards the organic society.
The view of Human Nature as having sinful and virtious aspects is why conservatives believe you need good institutions in order to keep human beings in check so that something like the desire to have sexual intercourse confines itself within marriage for example.
This is also why religion is so valued because religion and belief in God recognises not only that mankind is broken and cannot save itself and need to repent and try as best they can to act according to good virtious and duties, but it also recognises hierarchy. God is the Creator and King that humanity should humbly honour and worship.
And the reason conservatives say that tradition is of value is because it based on empericism of what has survived throughout the centuries, though changed, means that getting rid of it is not good for stability.
Fair points, but sex is way older than the institution of marriage, or any organized society. You can say want you want about the evolution of our ancestral mores/norms towards a more advantageous monogamy, but it certainly did not start with a priest and a ring. Also, there are many religious traditions that have "worked" well enough to sustain different societies, yet each have profoundly different assumptions about the world and its expectations for individuals. Christianity (& its Jewish heritage) is not the only religion that is valued by people, nor is it the oldest. Ancient Judaism regularly endorsed polygamy, but I guess that's still technically marriage. However, compared to religions rooted in cultures that didn't historically treat women like property, sex before marriage wasn't nearly as offensive as infidelity within marriage-- that last one seems rather universal. (Keep in mind that institutions don't just exist to keep us in check, they also exist to create environments of efficient cooperation.)
Religions contain methodology that has proved beneficial, but also has carried superficial hitchhikers-habits that proved to be meaningless time-wasters or downright harmful. Think of the prohibition from eating pork if you're Muslim. It makes some sense, considering it is a dangerous meat to eat if undercooked or unclean, but in our modern world that is hardly a concern. If you're protestant: think of all the Catholic superficialities like the recognition of Papal authority. Even Homer Simpson admits the Catholics have time-tested morals, but that doesn't mean shouldn't be skeptical. On the more extreme side, Hindus toss their babies for good luck, Shiite Muslims (and Catholics in the past) have a tradition of self-flagellation, and the Mayans had human sacrifice. Some of these strange traditions even performed important functions in their societies, but I think its worth the effort to reorganize society if we can spare hurting ourselves.
As an organized society we need institutions, but we need *good* institutions: institutions and hierarchy that serve the people, do not harm or exploit the people, and ones that are fair & impartial-- meaning that they enforce equality to a degree. Bad institutions demand reform, so we should not be surprised if exploitative hierarchy spurs the masses toward a violent and sudden change if problems have been ignored for too long. To be a responsible conservative is to be proactive in seeking relevant & constructive systemic changes. If we fail to do so, radical "progressive" revolutions become completely warranted.
Conservatism may be more communal compared to leftist-neoliberalism, but it is certainly miles more individualistic than leftist socialist/Marxist ideas, or that of tribal/clan systems. And mind you, these are only considered left-wing because of how much change it would take the current system to adopt them. Also, don't forget about libertarian conservatives, who (are technically still neoliberals and) completely reject a communal organization of government and society and focus solely on individual rights and freedoms.
@R Berger
Jefferson was a liberal of the most progressive sort. The fact that the Declaration of Independence is valued more than the Constitution, which was actually based on tradition, is the origin for why the US evolved such a progressive and anti-traditional state.
The only regard that the US is not progressive has been it's strong religious tradition. In that regard, the US has a deeply conservative soul, but the political philosophy of Jefferson was liberal and progressive.
The Jeffersonians have dominated US politics and shaped it more than Washington and his friends like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. If you look to their views, they were much more conservative than Jefferson, who supported the French Revolution and justified all it's violence.
Jefferson famously said "The Earth belongs to the living" and that the dead having neither rights nor powers over it. This was in stark contrast to Burke who says that society is a "contract" between the dead, the living and those not yet born.
This is why the American self-understanding has consisted of a rejection of European tradition and a belief in American exceptionalism for so long. It's a view that rejects viewed America as a nation of new ideas, a new order and one which sought to spread it's worldview around the world.
@@333_studios
"Sex is older than marriage"
Yes, but marriage came about after the agricultural revolution and mass society sprang into being. Before, when there were Hunter-Gather societies where you knew almost everyone in that society personally, and in those societies sex still consisted mostly within the confines of monogamy.
"Keep in mind that institutions don't just exist to keep us in check, they also exist to create environments of efficient cooperation."
Fair enough, I should have mentioned that as well. The point is that creating good enviroments for efficient cooperation is part of regulating human passions and impulses. But you are right, that this is an important function of institutions.
"Religions contain methodology that has proved beneficial, but also has carried superficial hitchhikers-habits that proved to be meaningless time-wasters or downright harmful"
Yes, which is why traditional conservatives subscribe to the idea of a transcendent order and natural law which is avaliable in most traditions.
C. S Lewis called this "the Tao", the Chinese word for "Way", which summarised a moral view of the world which is common to most human societies. One can ask which traditions follows the Tao the best and seeks its fullest realisation and therefore ask which traditions breaks with the Tao?
If you look at the traditions that have practiced immoral behaviour, like human sacrifice, it has usually been because of some false beliefs in the benifits of human sacrifice. "If I sacrifice this human, the world will continue to live" at it's best, and at it's worst "I offer the gods this human so that I can benifit".
It is not therefore, just a matter of inheritance of a custom created by an invisible hand, as Hayek would put it.
As for the more obscure ones, those are the perrogatives of each faith. If Muslims and Jews refuse to eat Pork because of a commandment, that is their tradition and I see no problem in following it. Yes, maybe in our present sense we see it as an unnecessary restriction, but if their religious traditions were to be correct, it would prove that they show loyalty to God and their peers.
Even such traditions might have important functions for those respective communities, that if broken, would damage the communites. Same with papal authority. If Catholics stopped adhearing to papal authority, it might invite in forces wishing to fundamentally alter their faith, with no regard even for the Bible.
Keep in mind, I am not a Muslim, a Jew or a Catholic, but I respect each of them in their own traditions where it does not break with the moral law.
"As an organized society we need institutions, but we need good institutions"
Also a fair point that I failed to mention. It is not simple institutions, but institutions that have proven the test of time and hardship. But many institutions might serve functions that we are unaware of, and just because a different society lacks that institution does not mean that the existing society can get rid of it without unforseen negative consequences.
One therefore needs to carefully examine what it is one is getting rid off before one ultimately decides to do so.
Chattel-slavery as an institution was a good thing to get rid off, because unlike other forms of hierarchy, the slave was not provided with rights and a degree of justice that was afforded to other members of society. If you were a peasant, a degree of justice and good living might still be provided towards you by the structures that were in place, you had your rights and freedoms.
Therefore, you could be a peasant and support the existing power structures with lords, dukes and kings, because you still had harmony.
By contrast, nobody wanted to be a slave and slave traders were shunned by most of society. In Roman times, for example, slave traders were looked down upon and St. Paul even condemns slave-traders as those who break God's commandments.
@R Berger
Lol, you just admitted that Jefferson saw the constitution was temporal and should not be preserved but renewed.
Then if that is the case Jefferson is only a conservative as to his own opinions and writings, any other piece of Law, tradition or institution is subject to constant renewal.
The declaration of independence is obviously a liberal and progressive peace, especially when it regards the justification for the secession.
He does point to concrete violations, but these violations are not violations of English Law, but of Natural Law, in Jefferson’s views.
Jefferson appeals to abstract laws of government rather than the concrete violations that warrent secession.
Hamilton, Jay and partly Washington viewed the grounds for secession on the basis on concrete violations of rights that Englishmen traditionally had.
John Adams saw his own writings and beliefs confirmed by Burke and that they were on the same page as to the justification for the American revolution.
Jefferson on the other hand was supportive of the French revolution and funded news papers spreading pro-French views and funded the Whisky rioters, which acted like the French revolutionaries.
You just cannot say Jefferson was in any way a conservative when you look at his support for the French revolution. Period!
@Robert Berger
You still don't get it. Whatever Jefferson might have said in a personal letter to someone about his Declaration of Independence, it is irrelevant to what he as a person represented: Out with the old and in with the new.
His own personality and beliefs contradict the idea that the Declaration of Independence even COULD be considered timeless, because if the Earth belongs to the living then the Declaration should be seen as not relevant, even if he came up with some BS reason why it should not.
I mean, what a guy! "Everything should be renewed, except what I wrote because that was so perfect nobody could possibly object!"
Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence has no legal bounding whatsoever. It is not the constitution, which has legal and actual binding. To prioritise what the Declaration of Independence says over something like the Federalist Papers as the founding philosophy of America is arbitrary at best. The Federalist Papers were written by several founding fathers, the Declaration was written by one, and corrected by two.
I define progressive as someone who believes that we can change what has been considered timeless wisdom and by changing or disregarding old institutions, beliefs, values and norms, we will advance to a better society. Jefferson VERY much believed this, and so was a progressive.
He was not a modern progressive, but the ideas that modern progressives believe, disregard for the past in order to progress, is at the core of Jefferson.
That is why Hamilton clashed with him so immensely, because Hamilton believed that America should look to their Anglo-Saxon roots and traditions in order to best build upon America. It's also why Jefferson supported the French Revolution (even helped write Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), funded radical papers against the Washington and Adams administration and supported the French during the Quasi-War.
A true Classical Conservative looks not to what just one man wrote, but to the wisdom of all the past, but especially to those institutions that have survived long through turmoil. That is why a Classical Conservative supports things like, hierarchy, tradition, religion, old ethical principles like those found in Confucius, Aristotle or Jesus & his Apostles and an organic view of society.
When i was younger (like moste idelaists) i thought the freanch revolution was a good thing WRONG! when u study the aftermath of revolution the effects of it on a society are in both the long or short term never good. After the revolution in france you had the Terror which in 1 year was reponseable for the sluaghter of 55,000 pepole. , then for a while there was unstability, then napolion took power but was himself nothing more than a dictatore, then finally the royals were restored but only for about 25 years . in short Revolution allmost allways never works out well and cuases more damage than good.
i find the line in the thumbnail "why is a revolution a self-destroying power?" very misleading... Bourke does not say anything about "revolution" generally, only about The French Revolution in particular, nor do I think this claim of self-destruction is even asserted by Bourke, he only clarifies why the 18th century thinker Burke considered the French Revolution self-defeating, the video is mainly about being mindful of Marxist views of history that many today seem to have around the French Revolution and the complications of understanding old political thought in terms of modern concepts like conservatism
Dude seriously the amount of pee in the political pool is unacceptable even if it makes it warmer.
Progressive conservatives, neoliberals and neoliberalism, socialists democrats, Communists, neoconservatives, anarchists, Christian democrats, they are come from different ideologies and human thoughts and beliefs and hopes for the future. It's us against them. It reflects that we all differ in life about how things should be done ✅...some believe in constant change and others that we should preserve the status quo and protect it.
Thank you for this very understandable explanation of conservatism, I probably watched 5 videos and read 3 essays on the subject and still could not understand. Until now!
Look at this comment section
After listening to this I learned,.. Anyone from the past can be interpreted in any way, to suit the needs of contemporary wishes. Thanks
Maybe this is clear intellectual, thought. I have always thought of myself as being comfortable with nuance. I found this to be terribly tortured. Maybe it was the style of presentation more than the substance that I am reacting to. Others seem to find it illuminating.
"terribly tortured". Yep. "Deconstructed," we might say.
It's you.... They DO find it illuminating, OBVIOUSLY. You are like that "that seems to be a totally huge conflagration of fire there in that forest !! Oh, really, you don't know :)
very well put thank you .
Doesn’t get to any kind of point until 5minutes in.
And umm ahhh , ummm , uh, ummm
rf4life
No, consistent use of “filler” words shows a lack of pre planning of what you are saying so you have to plan mid way through your sentence
Very vague.
You're talking in such a careful and calculated manner that I can't even relate to the human situation you're trying to describe. One could droll out Germany's justification for WW2 in such a dull and inhumanly surgical way.
So, everyone is conservative, and no one is conservative, except for Edmund Burke, who is not conservative? Riiiight.
Conservatism is a very flexible ideology. They transcendents any rigid political concepts in a lot of ways. Progressive movements themselves can become conservative if they become accepted and something challenges them down the line. Preservation on historical precedence is how conservatism manifests itself in any context. So what we consider progressive/liberal today can become de facto conservative if challenged.
What a mess politics are, am I right?
Well, the point missed by you is , It is not your place to police who is and is not conservative. If you are enlightended then follow it.But don't become the Stasi of Correctness.
“Retrograde” :)))
this video is so boring, throw some maps up or something
Eagleton is right about Bourke: “Lurking beneath this account is a political animus that never really speaks its name. It would be good if it came out into the open.”