Left and right has, at least in my mind, to do only with economic positions. That's how I tend to use it, as it simplifies things and makes them easier to understand. So you're on the left if you are a socialist when it comes to economy. And you're on the right if you're a capitalist when it comes to economy. Other non-economic issues - such as fox hunting, gay marriage, church involvement - these are SOCIAL issues. Hence on the social scale one is either a liberal or a conservative. So we have right-left for economics, and liberal-conservative for social issues. That's why I said Scruton is a left-leaning conservative - as are the other folks I've mentioned.You're right, we were talking specifically about social conservatism. But I'm not sure Scruton is a left-leaning social conservative. He opposes gay marriage, is pro fox hunting (which is a non-issue everywhere else, but since something like 90% oppose it in the UK, you are so far to the right on the scale if you support it) and believes the church should be the central institution for social cohesion and derived meaning in life. By today's standards these are not at all left leaning. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes we aren't. However you said that Scruton isn't left-leaning because of his positions on gay marriage, fox hunting, and church involvement - and that he is right-leaning. I drew attention to the fact that I wasn't using left-leaning or left-wing in this sense. I clarified that I am using left to refer to economic positions. So Scruton's economic positions are more to the left - more for market intervention, controls over big business, protecting the environment, and so forth. Then I addressed the fact that he takes those positions that he does on fox hunting, gay marriage and church involvement makes him a social conservative, as these are social issues that have nothing to do with economics (and thus have nothing to do with left vs right).What? I thought we weren't talking about economics? — WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes I agree, which is why I think the way we're using the terms should be clarified. So I hope now that I have managed to clarify the way I have used these terms.Thing is with the labelling, as TheWillowOfDarkness has said, is they are so nebulous and undefined that they really are meaningless concepts if you want to have a meaningful discussion about such things. — WhiskeyWhiskers
However you said that Scruton isn't left-leaning because of — Agustino
No, not specifically social. That simply means that you haven't understood the way I used left. He is left leaning = he has a left-wing position on economy - can mean anything from free healthcare, free education, anti big business, pro-environmental protection when it comes to businesses, etc. You now look at Scruton and see what left-leaning elements from that list he has. Next he is also a social conservative. Go to the social conservative list, and see what positions he has from there regarding issues such as immigration, church, marriage, abortion, etc. This follows because both categories - attitudes on social issues and attitudes on economic issues are required to state what kind of thinker someone is.I said he is not a left-leaning social conservative. Specifically social. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Elements, perhaps, but I question whether it's possible to categorize the ancients as either conservative or liberal, those being modern conceptions. If we judge the words by their etymology, of course, they aren't necessarily inconsistent or even opposed. "Liberal" of course is derived from the Latin liber (roughly,"free") as is "liberty", and "libertarian." "Conservative" from the Latin conservare(roughly, "to preserve").Yes these folks certainly did have social conservative elements in their philosophies, as did, I might add, MOST of the Ancients. — Agustino
Sure, but Cicero was a firm defender of Rome's traditions, including of its form of government. He was also firmly grounded (even though many think of him as a Skeptic) in Stoicism for all practical purposes, and always remained guided by Stoic principles, where virtue remained of prime importance. Cicero may have been pragmatic in his politics, but he was guided by perennial principles. This fact makes him similar to what is understood by a conservative. He sought to conserve what ought to have been conserved - however he did fail in the end. He didn't manage to salvage the Republic - which he may have been able to do had he been more unprincipled. Obviously Cicero wasn't a conservative in the sense of thinking that everything about Rome was perfect and had to be kept the same for eternity - or that all the Roman traditions were good. In fact, probably no one was such a "conservative". But clearly Cicero wasn't a revolutionary - he didn't want to overthrow the Republic, and replace currently existing values by an entirely different standard. He wanted to maintain and improve what already existed. He valued, by and large, traditions. There have been some accusations of him having sex with his daughter I was reading - but it seems this is all coming from his political enemies, so not very believable. The Stoics were quite principled with regards to sexual morality - Musonius Rufus is especially close to being a social conservative in such terms.In the past, you wrote you thought Cicero to be a conservative, if I recall correctly. But Cicero is what Romans considered a "new man"; literally an outsider, born outside of Rome in Arpinum. He wasn't of the Roman elite. He came to be consul largely through his wits and was at times in conflict with "traditional Romans." Caesar was of the elite, however, being of the ancient noble family of the Julii, but was seeing hard times (Sulla was also of an ancient Roman family but impoverished as well when he set out on his career). Cicero, politically, was above all a pragmatist. He feared Caesar's desire to rule Rome as Dictator for life or some equivalent, and backed the optimates in their opposition, which led to civil war. He was a champion of the Republic. But he tried to avoid civil war through compromise, and probably would have preserved the Republic--for a time at least--if only such as Cato the Younger, Cato the Elder's grandson, had not blocked efforts to do so in the Senate. — Ciceronianus the White
Sure, but Cicero was a firm defender of Rome's traditions, including of its form of government. He was also firmly grounded (even though many think of him as a Skeptic) in Stoicism for all practical purposes, and always remained guided by Stoic principles, where virtue remained of prime importance. Cicero may have been pragmatic in his politics, but he was guided by perennial principles. This fact makes him similar to what is understood by a conservative. He sought to conserve what ought to have been conserved - however he did fail in the end. He didn't manage to salvage the Republic - which he may have been able to do had he been more unprincipled. Obviously Cicero wasn't a conservative in the sense of thinking that everything about Rome was perfect and had to be kept the same for eternity - or that all the Roman traditions were good. In fact, probably no one was such a "conservative". But clearly Cicero wasn't a revolutionary - he didn't want to overthrow the Republic, and replace currently existing values by an entirely different standard. He wanted to maintain and improve what already existed. He valued, by and large, traditions. There have been some accusations of him having sex with his daughter I was reading - but it seems this is all coming from his political enemies, so not very believable. The Stoics were quite principled with regards to sexual morality - Musonius Rufus is especially close to being a social conservative in such terms. — Agustino
I don't think he was as skilled a politician as Caesar. Caesar was definitely another level when it came to getting things done in politics (even when comparing him with Pompey or especially the rich Crassus). Quite certainly one of the most brilliant of men at that. He obviously had the advantage of having no principles though. Because of his principles Cicero was ultimately outmaneuvered, by those who were more ruthless.a master politician — Ciceronianus the White
Probably you're right.Cato the Younger professed to be a Stoic, but I doubt someone so angry and condemning of others and so ostentatious in his conduct and pretensions to virtue could properly be called a Stoic. — Ciceronianus the White
is pro fox hunting — WhiskeyWhiskers
Seeing as modern liberalism hasn't all that much in common with classical liberalism, I suppose you could say that I'm, in this day and age, a conservative liberal... — Heister Eggcart
Excuse me? This is about Cicero - he is long dead. What do you mean would I still have supported him? You can't really support dead people. And what does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? :sBut even if he was, you'd still have supported him, so long as it meant social conservatism won the day. Right? — Sapientia
Excuse me? This is about Cicero - he is long dead. What do you mean would I still have supported him? You can't really support dead people. And what does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? :s — Agustino
Your rhetoric on virtue ethics and the importance of sexual morality is undermined by your consequentialism. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.