Just read a saying by Leo Strauss, about whom I know very little, but I like this:
'Science is the successful part of modern philosophy, and philosophy is the rump 1.' — Wayfarer

Leo Strauss is loved by neo-conservatives, not really by traditional conservatives. Eric Voegelin or Russell Kirk would be examples that are more friendly to traditional conservatives. There's many branches of conservative thought - the main stem, the traditional one which flows from Cicero to Burke is the one focused on social issues primarily.

I take humanism to be the valuation of human beings for the sole reason that they are human beings, a valuation that can't be augmented or diminished by any particular circumstance or quality of the human being beyond belonging to this abstract class. The humanist believes that all human beings have an intrinsic worth, and this worth is not gradable or essentially modifiable.

I reject it because I would rather celebrate individual cultures and accomplishments on their own terms, even if this means accepting that there is no abstract human essence in which all of them share (so that it is in theory possible for multiple cultures to exist with mutually incompatible values, or mutually incompatible ideas of what it is to be human). Forcing every unique culture into this abstract valuation necessarily destroys all of them insofar as they are not mutually compatible, and they can't be mutually compatible so long as they're real and substantive. So it isn't possible to be humanist without trivializing culture. — The Great Whatever

Very well, I largely agree with this, although I have never thought of it that way, and always thought of myself as a humanist. What would you say about a "culture" or call it way of life as that promoted by ISIS? Isn't that something that other cultures, even if they hold differences between each other should eliminate and fight against?

Furthermore, I think the word humanist will be applied in practice generally to people who value and love human beings and do something to help them. For example - the religions are frequently seen as humanist in these terms - wanting to help the poor, etc.

Because there are many political elements of conservativism I don't agree with. I'm socially conservative in questions of marriage and family but I support regulation of the financial sector, active government, public health and education, and so on. Socially conservative but politically progressive. — Wayfarer

Depends - conservatism generally and historically refers to social policy. Someone can be a conservative with a socialist view of economics, nothing contradictory in that. In fact, my economics are probably slightly left-leaning as well (free education, free healthcare, government restriction of multinational corporations, etc.) Marx had something that he called reactionary socialism (because such a socialism was practiced before) - which is very alike to social conservatism coupled with socialist leaning economics.

I don't really believe in the 'expression of the individual,' I guess, in that there is no individuality to express outside of a heritage. I'm not saying any individual culture is guaranteed to be great or even not horrible to some individual or class of individuals. But what we're seeing is the option of having a culture essentially forcibly removed. — The Great Whatever

Yes!

The same solipsism that leads to humanism I guess. — The Great Whatever

What do you take humanism to be, and why do you reject it?

But I don't think the notion of a society constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual makes sense, except insofar as this is something the culture privileges. This is not IMO the modus operandi of secular humanism, which is interested in the destruction of culture through multiculturalism, not in maintaining a coherent culture of liberty. — The Great Whatever

I highly agree.

Modern secular humanist society tries to maximize the freedom of the individual by treating the individual as nothing but an abstract particular, a human. It provides no avenues for being free, but merely tries to make freedom in virtue of destroying cultural bonds that might stop this abstract human from developing in whatever direction it pleases. It's the difference between an absence of culture, only being able to see culture as restrictive, and a positive commitment to liberty as a culture. — The Great Whatever

Very perceptive observations, I agree also here.

In the context of philosophy, secularism basically amounts to none.

(A) religion is altered from a giver of insight and wisdom to anyone, to nothing more than the personal outlook without any more force than something like a piece or entertainment or commentary. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, which is tragic.

"there is nothing necessary about you." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Interesting abstraction :D

I agree with much of what you say about the importance of tradition, but I'm divided over conservatism. — Wayfarer

Why so?

Those statistics you cite are merely that; statistics, and they don't necessarily reflect the status of love and friendship in the vast lebenswelt. — John

:-! That is your opinion, personally I think statistics give us insight into what is happening in society, especially when we look at how they're changing. It doesn't give us insight into an individual's life - yes that could be unaffected by such problems, either because the individual himself took care to organise his life in such a way and choose his/her marriage partner or friends to make this possible, or because s/he was just lucky. But it certainly gives us insight into the life the average man in that society can expect.

a social structure wherein the companionship and love of a few friends and family is possible? — John

Divorce rate: 50%+
Out of wedlock birth rate: 40% (in some populations even higher 70% in blacks)
Infidelity rate: 50%

Family is becoming increasingly difficult in such an environment, and will become increasingly rare in the future. Friendship is also becoming rare, when everyone is driven to compete against one another principally driven by greed. This generation, who are now in their 20s, some of them may still get away with things, and sneak through all the difficulties. But the problem is for coming generations - they will feel it in a big big way. Oh and real love - yes, maybe in the afterlife, that has already become almost impossible down here amongst us Western mortals :)

I think your mistake lies in confusing what should (should in the moral sense) be the general purpose behind human actions with what actually is the general purpose behind human actions. — hunterkf5732

It is the purpose, whether someone is actually fulfilling it (or is aware it is the purpose, or wants to fulfil it) is a different story.

Finally, this isn't entirely true. There are lots of external circumstances which could take away your virtue. — hunterkf5732

Such as?

Remember that virtue is merely a notion dealt with by a certain portion of our brain. If some external factor, say a car accident, were to damage this part of the brain, our capability of even understanding what virtue is, would disappear along with it. — hunterkf5732

Yes, and you would disappear along with the virtue in that case - you would take it with you. It's similar for example to the woman who tries to be chaste until marriage but is raped before she gets married. Does that mean the virtue of chastity was taken away from her? Absolutely not, because virtue has less to do with physical aspects and more to do with her character (what her will is directed towards) which remains the same.

I was fortunate to escape the baleful influence of decadent continental intellectuals by attending a small state college in the midwest starting in 1964. — Bitter Crank

Probably you also found the local atmosphere to be more decent and welcoming than a large metropolitan college would have been

But the most non-conformist history professor derived his non-conformity from his Unitarian church. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think this happened?

"The Beat Generation" ("beat" derived from "beatitude") of people like William Burroughs, Jack Kerouac, Allan Ginsberg, and the like were the home-grown American decadent immoral set -- I don't think they were brought into being by European decadence. — Bitter Crank

I only know of William Burroughs in more detail from the three - from memory I remember that he came from quite a wealthy family and went to a private boarding school. He was a homosexual from school, but I don't think homosexuality in itself is necessarily a vice (and even if it is, it would be a minor one) - if by that we mean attraction to the same sex. It's about how one uses their sexuality that I would count as the source of the main sexual vices (as nothing can be a vice which isn't in one's control). However - he was shaped by the time he spent in Europe, if I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), after college - which seemed to be very significant for a large share of his views. The other two I don't know much about.

The difference is in the meaning of "tell". They're not the same. There's a difference between "so-and-so told me not to do this" and "I can tell that something bad will happen if I do this". The former (use of the verb "to tell") is a command, and is required to make sense of a normative claim, whereas the latter isn't. — Michael

Maybe a theoretical difference, but I see no practical one... both tellings play exactly the same role.

I just explained how this shift of framework can happen. — schopenhauer1

No - you described a change in material conditions, and not a change in consciousness, which is what I am referring to. There is a change in consciousness that occurred between modernity and before, which is not economic but spiritual in nature. I disagree for example that the Ancients were too preoccupied with their survival. That was important - surely - but it wasn't the main thing that drove them. You're still looking at the Ancients from your modern consciousness - they would not have felt like you would. Furthermore the experience of boredom was rare - boredom requires a stronger separation of self and world than was available to the Ancient consciousness. For example, Epicurus sitting in his garden, he didn't seem to be bored, and yet most of his time was leisure, ie doing nothing. Epicurean writings on boredom are extremely rare. People just didn't have that trouble as much. You try doing that today, and you will get bored. Not because the activity is boring but because your consciousness has changed. This is a spiritual change that has occurred, independently of the material changes, and I argue that this spiritual change is negative.

Alas, poor Burke. He could be perceptive, but his creepy infatuation with Marie Antoinette, so extravagantly expressed, makes him appear, ultimately, to be a ridiculous figure.

As for this bit, Aristophanes did this sort of thing much better, but Aristophanes had a sense of humor and it's unclear whether Burke did. This complaint has a long, long history. As a result, I think it's more tedious than insightful. — Ciceronianus the White

Did you know Cicero was a conservative Ciceronianus? ;)

I disagree with you about Burke - whose favorite philosopher was none other than Cicero in fact. Burke supported the French monarchy because replacing it by force and all of a sudden instead of gradually would cause more chaos and suffering than anything else. And it did - it gave rise to Napoleon Bonaparte who re-established it, as Trump said, bigger and better than ever before - he made Monarchy into Imperial Dictatorship. Burke prevented the same thing from happening in England by fighting against both Monarchy, AND the revolutionaries who wanted to do away with religion and traditions, and yes monarchy.

And thanks for the suggestion of Aristophanes - I wasn't aware he was a conservative :) .

I'm also curious about this, Agustino. Can you point to an example of a country with the system of government that most closely fits your ideal? — Baden

None. All previous systems of government of the sort I am talking about have been regional and geographical, generally governing a majority of people which shared the same language, customs, traditions and religion. It is only in today's world, that with the introduction of the internet, globalisation and migration of people that we have societies where there are multiple religions which interact frequently, on a day to day basis together. My proposal is the conservative response to this change of circumstances in order to prevent the destruction of traditions and morality which is currently underway, precisely because of the presence of alternatives, causing people to have lost faith in any one particular religion. That's why we need an umbrella - to hold all religions under it - a meta-religion formed of the natural morality (virtues) that all religions share in, which permits for each religion to still nevertheless develop according to its own traditions and customs, and which as I see it, is the only thing that can bring about a cultural revival. This allows individual people to explore their ancestral roots and respect them, all the while feeling part of the larger community which includes different traditions.

I would say though that the moral imagination is largely a product of, and constrained by (sensibly I would contend) the moral environment. Don't ask me to be Jesus when there are Romans around. — Baden

You have to do a calculation in that case. Is it worth it to die in the fashion of Jesus himself or of Socrates to teach a valuable lesson to your brothers and sisters in moral courage and resolution in opposing evil, and the triumph of the human spirit? Or is it worth saving yourself by lying for example, in order that you may protect your family from being killed as well?

I know, but you've said other things which fit that description. In this discussion, for example, you imply that you want to return to a time before atheism was as widespread and accepted amongst young minds as it is today, and since it has been in modern times. And you speak out against it with the use of slanderous and emotive language ("polluted", "odious", "contemptible", "immoral", "vice", "decadence", etc.), sometimes accompanied with little-to-no substance, as in the opening post. — Sapientia

I speak against a certain kind of atheism which is popular. I have little to quarrel with the pious atheism of Epicurus for example. I have something against modern atheism which is used as a justification for lack of restraint, for attacking tradition, for demanding radical change, and for inciting people to rebellion. In summary, I have something against that which threatens order and stability, because chaos harms everybody. Instead of slowly looking for ways to reform society to eliminate the problems while minimising the difficulties generated, it hurries with a solution that is most often worse than what it appears to cure.

Rather, they attack certain traditions - those which they believe do more harm than good - and what some consider to be constitutive of morality - which may well be utterly wrongheaded. — Sapientia

I'm not concerned with what intellectuals may claim they do. I'm concerned with the effect their actions have in practice, on the thinking, attitudes and beliefs of the common man in the street. What I see is that many people have become intolerant of religion, and disrespectful towards people who are religious. I'm using these terms as I understand them. A moral person by my understanding is religious even if they are atheists. And I'm talking about the common man here. And you can hear it in their discourse. They talk disrespectfully to and about moral people, and I don't think this is good either for them or for society, as it discourages something which is necessary for happiness - morality.

Again, I'll point out that you don't have the authority to the exclusive use of the term "morality" as applicable only to those views which you happen to agree with. You should say instead that they don't share your view on morality, and you find that objectionable. A little humility wouldn't go amiss. Especially for someone so keen to maintain virtue and avoid vice. — Sapientia

This is an abstraction so I am not sure what specific thing you're referring to. I think morality is something universal (hence my usage of natural morality), which can be summarised by the virtues, including humility, yes. The example I gave you before is decency. All religions promote decency - including by the way the atheism of Epicurus or Hume. Now the religious traditions surrounding this are different, yes. A Muslim friend wants his wife to wear a hijab. Humility for me in this case is understanding that ultimately he aims at the same virtue I aim at, decency, but achieves it using a different way than I would. So I congratulate him, and commend him for encouraging his wife to uphold their traditions and respect decency, even though the way he does this isn't the same way I would. I am humble about my tradition and don't think it superior to another's. The most common manifestation of humility though is being aware of one's vices and limitations and not creating a narrative to justify them. Most of the time though we see the opposite - you see someone like Amy Schumer for example coming and saying how easily she got a man to have sex with her - that's a story she makes to justify a vice as a virtue - that's not humility, that's pride. That shouldn't be praised or sustained, but it should be attacked and labelled for what it is. On the other hand, false humility is when someone refuses to accept merit for a virtue that he or she does in fact possess. I'm being neither prideful nor humble now - I'm not saying I am virtuous and you're not or anything of that sort, and if I have implied that please forgive me. I am defending morality - whether or not I uphold it or not is besides this point.

As a generality, I'm inclined to agree, but as an absolute, I'd take issue. It's about freedom of expression. And if some are free to express an objectionable religious belief, then others should be free to object. — Sapientia

It depends on whether their religious belief has anything to do with you, or it just has to do with their own religious community in such a society.

Well, that's certainly not an impartial or charitable way of seeing it. — Sapientia

In regards to progressive intellectuals maybe - in regards to public manifestations of progressivism by the common man, then I think it's quite on point.

No, they shouldn't necessarily be religious - which doesn't by any means rule out valuing morality and tradition. In fact, it's entirely possible to have a religious government leader who doesn't in some ways respect morality or tradition — Sapientia

Ok under your definitions. And for the latter yes - but this isn't good usually.

I think that it's ill-considered to make blanket statements like that. What about harmful traditions? — Sapientia

They should gradually be replaced.

Or an atheist Prime Minister who promotes the good to be found both within various religions and outside of them. — Sapientia

Atheist under your definition isn't really atheist. David Cameron is an atheist under my definition - probably under yours he's a believer just because he talks about his Christian faith, and calls the UK a Christian nation.

For a core moral value, that is remarkably trivial. — Sapientia

Yes but it's part of that core. There are others, some of which aren't so trivial - love, courage, respect, patience, humility, temperance, kindness, charity, chastity, decency, etc.

You seemed to be against it, yet here you seem to be arguing in it's favour. — Sapientia

Nope - there's two atheisms - one let's call it pious atheism (think about Epicurus, or even that CONSERVATIVE David Hume), and the other one impious atheism. In the former atheism is just a personal belief about the existence of a deity. In the latter it is a justification for permissible moral behaviour, with the intent of overthrowing tradition. I don't accept the latter as moral, to make this clear.

Even if that was the case, it ain't going back any time soon. There can be an argument that we were too preoccupied with survival lifestyle where the paramount need was to understand how to live immersed in a particular natural setting in a tribal context. Thus, the instrumentality that was always there was just never realized. Perhaps that could be the way it was "meant to be" in terms of the setting for our original evolutionary needs, but for contingent reasons of much of humanity's cultural lifestyle shift to agriculture and thus civilization, we can thus realize this. — schopenhauer1

I meant to tell you that this framework through which you see the world - this framework through which you look at, feel and perceive the world, namely "turning our boredom into pleasure and entertainment, ensuring survival", this is a modern framework. Your way of experiencing the world is therefore alien to most people who have lived until today. They didn't feel this way about the world, they didn't think about it in these terms, they didn't relate to it through these categories. It's the difference between an anxious person looking at a spider, and one who has no fear looking at the same spider. The two experiences are completely alien from each other, and very often the one having no fear can't understand the one being anxious, and the one being anxious can't understand the one having no fear.

The word "reactionary" primarily denotes views critical of modernity and progressivism and favours a return to the status quo ante. — Sapientia

I didn't say I want to return to the pope being both king and spiritual leader though.

It is also a word associated with a certain set of characteristics, some of which are characteristic of your own views. — Sapientia

Yes - some of them are the same. Not all of them, and my views fit better with a traditional form of conservatism.

But moving on, if you don't agree with authoritarianism, then why did you choose to target secular progressivism, and why did you contrast this with just conservatism (in which the term "secularism" is noticeably absent)? — Sapientia

Because secular progressives use secularism as a way to destroy and attack tradition and morality, which I am defending.

The alternative to secularism is religious authoritarianism, where one or more religious group has the authority to meddle in state affairs. — Sapientia

Depends what you understand by secularism. I don't understand by secularism a disrespect of religion, a disrespect of tradition and a disrespect of morality. I think the secular state should work together with all major religions present in the country to form a community which is friendly to the believers, and not antagonistic. I think Muslim communities in the UK for example should be allowed to encourage their people to dress according to their traditions, and they should be protected from having those traditions mocked in schools, university, etc. (with the exception of violence, that should not be tolerated). Same applies to Christianity and the other religions present. What I see the secular progressive as understanding by secularism is what the French revolutionary understood - a way to change the power structure of society, destroy tradition and put in place of natural morality, a new invented morality. I think government leaders should be religious in the sense of valuing morality and tradition, and setting up examples to follow. For example a Christian Prime Minister, who talks about his faith and at the same time respects the right of Muslims AND ENCOURAGES them to have different religious traditions. All religions ultimately share the same core moral values - for ex. both Christianity and Islam and Buddhism say people should dress decently. From then on, each has different traditions regarding dressing. But each of those traditions respects that core element of decency. So I believe people should appreciate their traditions and honor their ancestors.

The focus should not be this savage attempt to convert anyone and everyone to your own religion. Much rather we need an umbrella under which all religions (including atheism) can thrive - because all religions share the same fundamental values, they merely have different traditions. This umbrella I believe is conservatism. Religious - but not partisan to one religion.

Thanks for expanding on this. Curious. Do you think it's possible to remain an atheist and achieve happiness, or do you think faith in some religion is necessary? — Baden

Ok no worries. I think it depends on what is meant by atheist. See I claim to believe in God now. But for quite a long time I identified as an atheist, and still I advocated the same positions on sexuality, and other elements of life. Recently - let's say the past 2 years - I've spent a lot of time reading and studying the past - especially Ancient Greek culture, as well as Christian tradition. This changed the way I perceive the God issue. I'm not concerned with the question of existence. The question "Does God exist?" means nothing to me. First I see issue with what does it even mean for God to exist? We never quite clarify. Second of all, is belief in X, whatever that X is, just claiming that I believe in X? I don't think so. I think belief is acting as if that belief is true. Therefore does God exist is answered by "are you virtuous? or not?" - someone who is virtuous and lives with love in their heart, care for their fellow human beings, and strives for excellence - such a person is a devout believer in God, even if he calls himself an atheist because what it means to believe in God is precisely to be virtuous. This is most excellently illustrated by Socrates.

Second of all, I've grown to appreciate tradition (including religion), and its role in teaching morality and love to the common man. Sure it isn't anywhere near close to perfect - and it has been abused many times. But it's still, in my opinion, the only vehicle that can teach morality to the mass of people. And in the end - the purpose of life is to live the truth, not to know the truth, and so if everyone needs to go through a long journey to reach the truth, and read and study the philosophers, life is indeed very mean - most people will be old by the time they know the truth, where's the time to live it as well? I would have much rather preferred to be born and have lived as a peasant somewhere far from the world of learning, just with the simple things of life, a wife, a family, children, animals, community, and religion that would have kept all of us together and united.

To answer your question: yes I believe someone can call themselves an atheist and say God doesn't exist and still achieve happiness. I would just say they haven't understood what it means for God to exist :)

I would add Baden that ultimately it's as Kierkegaard states an aesthetic choice - belief in God. We all make the choice, not through words, but through our actions. In the face of the anxieties of life, you can choose virtue and morality - or you can choose power. You can escape by faith, or you can escape by power. And it's a choice precisely because there is no intellectual reason to choose virtue over power, or power over virtue - that's why in the end analysis it's an appeal to your moral imagination.

Joking aside, all I see here is a desire to make the world in your own image so you can feel more comfortable in it. Join the club. We'd all like the world to reflect our particular ideals. There's no morality in that. It's more the drive for preservation writ large. — Baden

That is because, following Nietzsche, all that you see in morality is another tool to dominate others. To have power. You see in morality a power structure. Your consciousness is so focused on power structures and sees nothing beyond. I don't see morality as just a power structure, or as a way to remake the world. I see morality as something that I myself struggle to approach - I struggle to be a moral person, and I fail many times, but nevertheless I struggle towards it. Why? Because that's what is excellent in a person, that's the only way we can enjoy life and truly grow and thrive. And it's not something that will give me power over others - if what I wanted was power, then I could've picked a better tool, rather than pick what is probably the worst out of the entire available arsenal. I used to be a progressive long ago in my very young days - but I gave it up, and I gave up all the popularity and admiration that came with it because those things are not worth having. It's not worth selling your soul to gain the world, because if your soul is missing, then nothing else even matters.

To a secularist atheist like myself, for example, all this talk about sex just reflects your desire that others should have less of it. — Baden

No I clearly desire for them to have a lot of it, that's why I think it's a good. I am saddened that they sacrifice love and intimacy for the equivalent of masturbation though. They are missing a lot.

In particular, why the pleasure he gets from his lifestyle is somehow bad for him — Baden

I listed quite a few reasons I believe :) . it's up to each to read them and consider the matter honestly for themselves, and in consultation with what others have thought before them, including their traditions.

Solution: Don't get married. — Baden

Solution: Don't have kids — Baden

Marriage and kids are objective goods that people ought not to be deprived of in order to satisfy the selfishness of some.

This is just obviously false, and probably every man reading this know that. If it weren't false, men would just masturbate. Why go to all the trouble of seducing women if equivalent pleasure can be achieved through DIY? — Baden

For the simple reason that the real source of their pleasure is not physical orgasm, but the dark spiritual pleasure they get from having power and dominating and using another human being. That's why they do it. They get pleasure out of feeling powerful - I don't think this is moral or noble. If you think that's morality, then I can't do anything about it. And why do they choose this over the spiritual pleasure of love? Because love is difficult, and you only have Faith to hang onto. At any moment it can be gone. So they prefer to renounce it - renounce the ardous journey - and instead run towards the only escape they have from uncertainty - POWER.

There is some validity in all this, but romantic love presents its own problems too. Think of all the heartache, pain and even violence, love and love unrequited cause. It's not clear that we wouldn't be better off without it. — Baden

I agree. That's why I insist first on sexual mastery and then on love. One cannot love in the true sense unless he first masters these emotions. I've experienced this from both sides. When you are still a slave to your sexual desire, you feel so shattered and broken when your beloved leaves you - your whole world is destroyed and even you give up on yourself. But when you have mastered sexual desire - then when your beloved leaves, you cling by that narrow thread of Faith, and an unmovable centre is created, which keeps you anchored and content. Not happy - but not hopeless either. Capable to live without the beloved as well.

The alternative, making one's sexuality a slave to ideological forces hardly seems more palatable or psychologically healthy. Just ask a Catholic priest. — Baden

It depends which priest - most priests are good people, there are some who have indeed molested children and the like. But I don't lump all of them in one category, afterall I doubt you'd be for lumping all Muslims into the category of terrorists, just because of the existence of ISIS. Priests face the same problems as the rest of us. They too struggle against their sexuality - some of them start priesthood too early and are not yet ready for the journey. Some of them were never meant to be priests. And so forth.

But it is possible for men to be free of their sexual lust, if that's what you're asking for.

Are you being serious? Comparing your sort of conservatism to more extreme sorts doesn't make your sort any less reactionary. — Sapientia

There are a series of tenets that all those who have been classified as reactionaries adhere to, that I don't. I'm just informing you that it is intellectually dishonest to label me a reactionary. Among those tenets that a reactionary would agree with that I don't is authoritarianism - whether this is authoritarianism of corporations, or of the Church, or of anyone. I am not concerned with the power structure of society. There is a reason why in intellectual history conservatives like me and Burke are not labelled "reactionary", while someone like de Maistre, even in his life was labelled "reactionary".

This isn't a command. This is a description of (possible) psychological and social consequences. Again, you're just being poetic.

When I say that "normativity only makes sense within the context of a set of commands issued by some authority" I mean it in the literal sense of requiring some person or group of people telling us to do or not do something. — Michael

Okay your government, a group of people, tell you, through your own understanding of the written law not to steal. You go ahead and steal. There are consequences for it.

Your nature, through your own understanding of your yourself and your place in the world tells you that if you kill, you will suffer natural consequences. You go ahead and kill. You suffer natural consequences.

What's the difference? A command is nothing else than a cause and effect relationship. Do X and suffer Y. Even a state doesn't just tell you don't steal. They tell you don't steal because otherwise Y will happen to you. Then you are free to steal if you want to. Only that Y will happen to you.

My sort of conservatism isn't reactionary - nowhere near close to people like Julius Evola, Nick Land, or even Benito Mussollini, all of whom have accepted the label of "reactionary". The difference between my conservatism and theirs is that mine is based on the rule of law and morality, and practical concerns for traditions and religion - theirs is based on authoritarianism - which means doing whatever the authority requests regardless of how it fits with tradition or morality. I don't believe in that.

I believe in principles, education and order. Not in despotism of those who have power. Contrary to the political movements of which you are most familiar with (New Left, Marxism, Neo-Conservatism, Reactionaries, Alt-Right) my concern is with order and goodness, and NOT with power. Those on the left are obsessed by power - how can women get more power, how can gays get more power, etc. I don't care about power. Those on the right are also obsessed about power - how can the aristocracy maintain its power, how can dominance be maintained over society, etc. I'm not concerned with any of that. I'm concerned with what is good for society, and what is good for man - because as Plato put it, society is just man writ large.

We are constantly turning our boredom into pleasure and entertainment goals and ensuring our survival (in whatever economic/cultural context that manifests — schopenhauer1

Only in modern society - very important.

Sorry, but this is just poetic nonsense. I'm using the term "command" in the literal sense, not in some metaphorical sense. — Michael

It is a command. Kill and you shall suffer says the command. How will you suffer? Well because by killing someone you will do violence towards your own self in so far as your nature provides you with a desire for community and compassion, and in-so-far as you could have profited and found joy in relationship with the person you have killed. You will be faced by remorse and guilt. This is just like any other human law out there. If you break the law of a state there are punishments. If you break the laws of nature, likewise there are punishments. You may fail to perceive them as punishments, because you fail to perceive how they are a consequence of your actions, but that doesn't change what they are. This is nothing but natural morality - which doesn't it is true, emerge from the empirical, but from the spiritual nature of man - from his inwardness. That's why Wittgenstein thought that ethics is the most important, but ethics is a matter of the transcendent, in for example TLP.

I didn't mention writing. — Michael

Or spoken for that matter. Nature speaks to you in a different way - through your conscience, through your desires, etc. If you rationally organise these into a coherent whole then you will arrive at the equivalent of commandments.

Commands are a type of linguistic expression. Nature doesn't talk to us and tell us what to do. — Michael

Are you sure? Not all languages are written languages Michael :)

Normativity only makes sense within the context of a set of commands issued by some authority, and so any normative ethics that doesn't defer to some command-issuing authority is nonsensical. — Michael

Why do you think so? What if the commands are present in nature - in your own nature, and in my own nature, and in everybody's nature? What if our nature is so conditioned that judgement X is always correct for us? Then the authority is our own nature. Some of us will have a better grasp of our nature than others. And some, despite their better knowledge, will refuse to do that which is good by choice of will.

Social order means respect for spirituality and religion (not one particular religion but any), promotion of community based life and care for others, respect for teachers (whether they are priests or philosophers), promotion of interest in and respect of natural morality, general family stability, respect and promotion of beauty, community and environment.

Sexual appetite in itself is not a problem. What is a problem is the moment when unrestrained sexual appetite harms other people (from a social point of view) or when it harms yourself. For example - unrestrained sexual appetite in a married couple will lead to jealousy, anger and hatred - a terrible set of emotions. These emotions lead inevitably to instability, in this case of the family unit, not to mention the harm done to the persons involved, including very likely the children. Why? Because people naturally want to feel special to their loved one, and this threatens that. If people are to be interested in beauty, then one of the most beautiful things they will be interested in is love - but if they live in a society which promotes unrestrained sexual appetite, their families will never be stable, nor will the partners be devoted to caring for and respecting each other. Today 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of marriages include infidelity, divorce rate is greater than 50% (and by the way, 50 years ago, these numbers were 5%, 10%, and 15%). These are very important problems we face, and no one is talking about them. A large share of our economic problems - for example, the poverty faced by black communities - is the result of the fact that among the blacks for example 70% of children are born out of wedlock. So we create the problems through our decadence, and then try to fix them through our economy. This is insane - we have to go to the root. How can we have families when people do not show loyalty, trust, care, and love one for the other?

Sex in non-comitted relationships, while not as big a problem as what is mentioned above, still remains an issue for the following reasons: (1) it is unlikely that the participants can experience a pleasure greater than that achievable by masturbation as there is no love involved, or intimacy from which such pleasure could originate, (2) it encourages a habit of using others as a means to obtain a selfish end, therefore it is contrary to morality and care, (3) it creates future problems in committed relationships as people again want to feel special, and having had many sexual partners before diminishes from this feeling, (4) having a habit of looking at others as a means to achieve your selfish ends will prevent you from entering into a loving relationship and looking at a person in a different way, (5) it encourages slavery towards external sources for controlling personal feelings, (6) it keeps one subject to one's own sexual desire, as opposed to its master.

Committed relationships also have their dangers. One should not become dependent on the beloved for example, not being able to live in equanimity without them (which is one of the things that Lucretius and Aristippus warned about). Nor should one depend on sex in order to make their relationship work. All this requires mastery over one's sexuality, and thus involves all other stages mentioned before.

whatever you mean by conservatism, I imagine it's historically tied to coercive hierarchy, ecclesiasticism, war, and taxation. I doubt those things are much good for anyone. What is better, I don't know – my best guess is, first family, and second, culture, not subculture or counterculture, which is about all we have right now, but real culture, which includes traditions inculcating beauty, splendor, taste, thought and pride. These are not things that warlords and kings and churches produce, or anything else I imagine Burke has on offer. — The Great Whatever

Conservatism is tied to social order, which does require hierarchy, but not an immutable hierarchy. It is tied to promotion of culture and tradition - natural morality - not a specific religion, but rather all religions (Burke approved for example of Islam, Hinduism, and other non-Christian religions, and was fine to see them present in society). It has nothing to do with war or taxation for that matter (I see nothing wrong with a left-wing conservative for example). I think Burke's vision would be much in line with what you describe overall, apart from pride, where Burke would want humility, which really means knowledge of the limitations of oneself and not narrative transformation of those into virtues, as they do today. We see many actors especially treat their sexual lust as a virtue - they tell stories about in in their biographies, and wear it on their foreheads with pride. Under a conservative society all religions would flourish, but there will be humility and respect of others, and mutual companionship around shared values - the natural morality of which I talked of.

You speak about Hellas Reborn - well if you want Hellas Reborn then you have to accept the culture which made Hellas possible in the first place. It was possible to have different schools of philosophy competing with each other in the market place only because there was respect for traditions, respect for morality, and respect for order. Now there is no respect for any of these, and your Hellas remains but a dream, never to materialise, without the conditions which made it possible.

But it is hard to have sympathy for monarchy and snake oil as if that were the only alternative. Disillusionment is preferable to panic here. — The Great Whatever

It's not. There's totalitarianism on one side (think ISIS or North Korea), secular progressivism (decadence) on the other, and conservatism in the middle. Your position, the mysterian hard polytheism - that's alright for an individual, but not for society. Society needs law and order in order to allow people the freedom to, for example, follow mysterian hard polytheism without disturbing public order, and harming the lives of others.

There is a large class element to Burke's complaint — Bitter Crank

Right. Burke opposed slavery, Burke opposed colonial barbarity and injustice, Burke opposed the imposition of Christianity over other peoples, and desired their culture and religions to be respected. He also opposed the indoctrination of the masses by "philosophes" in France, and sought to combat vice and immorality of any kind everywhere he could. Immorality originates from the ruling class and the intellectuals, not from the poor - the poor just follow.

More likely, the collapse of the old time religion and the supposedly upright and moral masses — Bitter Crank

This occurred in continental Europe prior to the world wars. The French Revolution already saw much of this.

Whether there are more corrupted and immoral people now than in the past seems doubtful to me. — Bitter Crank

The immorality from continental Europe has definitely spread to the Anglophone world.

What should immediately come to critical thinkers is the question, "does correlation imply causation"? — swstephe

Probably not. What it reflects rather is the cultural decadence of certain geographical regions. The US is much higher than Western Europe still - why? - because they were largely unaffected by the corrupt Academia until after WWII, when many many Marxist professors, and other radicals fled from Europe to the US, and took positions there. Whereas Western Europe is so low, because since the French Revolution intellectuals have continuously thrown stones at tradition and promoted disobedience. Not to mention the corrupting influence of communism. Also notice that if we look at just Europe, we see a very weak negative correlation between wealth and religiosity. Religiosity in fact seems to sit around the same value, regardless of wealth. Switch to other continents, and again the same feature appears. Cultural degradation is a phenomenon of people's mentality and consciousness, which is necessarily geographical and has little to do with wealth or intelligence for that matter.

There have been many debates over whether the apparent correlation between atheism and intelligence was due to "higher intelligence leads to atheism", or "atheism leads to higher intelligence", or "those environmental constraints that lead to atheism also lead to better education ... and respect for intellectual, scientific and academic pursuits". — swstephe

Rather it is because the culture is dominated by secular progressives (90% of social sciences are dominated by secular progressives), and don't forget that morality doesn't have to do so much with intelligence as it does with an innate moral sense. So people may very well be very intelligent while lacking a strong moral sense. This will be worsened by the fact that the surrounding society does not encourage them to develop it.

Students might not be saints, but they show up and study for tests. — Hoo

Sure but that's nothing compared to what they did in the past. Ludwig Wittgenstein built his own flying plane as a mechanical engineer in University. Let me see a student today do that... not in a million years. Because education isn't rigorous enough. If it was properly rigorous, there would just be no time for partying, getting drunk, etc. It would just be impossible. Taking tests is a joke. Tests are artificial. You can't do anything of value out there in the world by taking tests. What they should do is actually and properly train you for example to be a doctor. Someone who goes to medical school should stay there long enough that once they have that diploma, they can go from door to door treating people. What happens now is that he gets that diploma very fast, and then is a servant in a bureaucratic system for many many years, until he can finally go knocking on people's doors to treat them. It's not rigorous enough.

No. — andrewk

Answering a very old question to its asker, when the said asker has changed his position, is simply pointless.

Yes I agree because of the effect torturing someone has on the one doing the torturing AND also because evil should not be played with, nor its influence allowed existence so that it can spread and corrupt others, so I have changed my position. I would still support that the serial killer is publicly executed, so that other criminals are shown that justice is not to be messed with, especially in such severe cases of inhumanity and barbarity - if you think the justice system is barbarous, what about the serial killer? What about the actions he takes and the way these affect the families of the victims? And yes - there's all the reason to rejoice when justice is done. If the news reports tonight come on and say that ISIS was completely obliterated, what do you think I'll do? Cry for the terrorists? Of course not, I will rejoice that we have overcome an evil, and saved an entire region from its threat... — Agustino

On the contrary, I find the Greek concept just as open to the same criticisms. Being content with the way things are 'meant to be' and being the person we are 'meant to be' is every bit as much a life of denial as happy, clappy ignorance of all that assails us. — Barry Etheridge

This is not the Greek view at all. You have to take yourself out of the modern consciousness - the modern way of seeing and feeling the world. You have to abandon the glasses you are seeing everything through, and take a new pair - learn to see the world as the Greeks did. Then you will understand what they meant, and then you may not want to change the glasses back ;)

It seems a tad convenient that God apparently doesn't mind in the slightest ceding the decision on what is evil (if indeed such a thing even exists) and who should live and die as a consequence to a bunch of hubristic judges and then picking up the pieces after they're done. — Barry Etheridge

It's not a cessation of the decision at all. Extreme violence, barbarity, murdering, raping, pillaging, etc. are evil. And God doesn't decide what is evil whimsically. You still seem to think of God as some man in the sky ordering you around. Rather we humans get to know God as we understand better what is good and evil, and freely choose to associate with and defend that which is good. In fact knowing God and loving goodness are one and the same. What did Jesus say...
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
There is no difference between being virtuous and doing the will of God. The two are identical. And delivering justice to those who are weak, and protecting them, that is virtuous

intends us to be happy — Barry Etheridge

That's because of the definition of happiness you have adopted. If you look at Aristotle's for example - eudaimonia in Greek - and study Ancient Greek culture you'll see for yourself a completely different way to think and perceive what happiness is.

Is it to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior? I hope not, because I totally failed to do that. — Mongrel

What does it mean to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour? :)

As the saying 'might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb' attests, criminals were prone to upping the ante committing more serious crimes on the basis that they were risking everything anyway so they might as well make it worth their while. — Barry Etheridge

Public execution is reserved for the worst of crimes as I have illustrated, NOT for all criminals or small crimes, and public means it is shown to the public not that it occurs in the middle of the public square. When dictators were executed during the fall of communism, videos of their deaths were released to the public, and people celebrated the end of oppression and the fact that justice had been delivered.

In any case, I have never understood the logic of death as the ultimate punishment, especially in an increasingly atheistic society where there is no question of hurrying someone on to face divine judgement (always a dubious theological justification in an event). Far from facing the perpetrator with their own guilt and remorse death simply releases them from any responsibility for reparation. It is those who are left behind who are being punished in reality and on the flimsiest of excuses, guilt by association. That is not justice, at least not by any sane, rational definition. — Barry Etheridge

It depends on the crime. For the most serious crimes, where the doer of the crime is a clear evil - like ISIS terrorists in today's world - there is no playing around. They have to be dealt with adequately and swiftly, and their evil prevented from being spread. The rest is up to God.

The last two reasons you cite are,in short,deterrence and increment of public faith in the justice system.To deal with the first,observe that an exactly equal amount,if not greater,amount of deterrence would be the result if the criminal was locked away for life in prison.Remember that prison is by no means a nice place,and many criminals would much rather choose a short interval of sharp torture than an eternity of long,drawn out torture and molestation by the not quite so friendly inmates of modern prisons.

As for the second reason,I don't see how people would end up having faith in a brutal criminal justice system which relishes torturing people.What,in reality, would happen is quite the opposite.The public would see this uncivil justice system itself as the enemy,and thus would no longer feel comfortable handing over their squabbles over to receive what they would,not unreasonably,see as warped judgment.Instead then,they would start "settling'' their disputes on their own,which would lead to mafias,clan wars and later,the disintegration of the entire fabric of society. — hunterkf5732

Yes I agree because of the effect torturing someone has on the one doing the torturing AND also because evil should not be played with, nor its influence allowed existence so that it can spread and corrupt others, so I have changed my position. I would still support that the serial killer is publicly executed, so that other criminals are shown that justice is not to be messed with, especially in such severe cases of inhumanity and barbarity - if you think the justice system is barbarous, what about the serial killer? What about the actions he takes and the way these affect the families of the victims? And yes - there's all the reason to rejoice when justice is done. If the news reports tonight come on and say that ISIS was completely obliterated, what do you think I'll do? Cry for the terrorists? Of course not, I will rejoice that we have overcome an evil, and saved an entire region from its threat...

Why do you think developing virtue and character is something worth striving for? — hunterkf5732

Virtue is the only thing which is under your control. If we are to judge the excellence of a human being, then it must be judged on a scale where all responsibility falls on the person, and where external circumstances cannot intervene to favour some and not others.

Virtue is eternal. It will be with you today, and tomorrow and your whole life. Everything can be taken away from you... your children, your success, what people think of you... tomorrow you could end up in prison, and in chains. But the only thing that no dictator, no oppressor, and no circumstance can ever steal from you is your virtue. The fact that you can always refuse to engage in immorality, and persevere through strength of character to teach your fellow human beings and to care for them through your own example, just like Socrates, that is man's ultimate good. A tyrant may kill you, torture you and break your body - but he cannot take away your will unless you give it to him.

Virtue is Goodness itself for man, as man is defined by his freedom of choice, and the only real choice that man has, that is not conditioned by external circumstances, is virtue. Think about what makes people moral - taking care of others, loving others, having a good character. This is all virtue. And think about what makes people bad... bringing misery to others, using others for your own selfish reasons, and a multitude of other phenomena which characterise situations ranging from people having promiscuous sex, to people abusing others for financial gain.

And the last point if you're still not convinced... Do you have an alternative? Everything else is corruptible and perishable. What will you replace virtue with? Pleasure? And what will you do if by some change of circumstances that pleasure is taken away from you? Despair and be miserable? What if your circumstances condemn you to never experience an orgasm again... will you despair? Virtue is inner strength - nothing can take it away. If I tell you invest your money in X but in 10 years you'll lose it, what will you do? Invest it? Of course not. So if virtue isn't the answer, then certainly nothing else is even worth trying to strive for, because everything else is most certainly a losing investment. With virtue at least there's a chance, at minimum!