Roger Scruton’s death naturally has lead many to reflect again on the philosophical nature of “conservatism” and I am not an exception. So although I don’t find Twitter the ideal place for such reelection, here are a few thoughts.
To me conservatism, which basically means the
To me conservatism, which basically means the
preference for retaining what we find good enough in what exists over a promise of something allegedly much better (or ideal) in the future, is a natural conclusion that one draws from human experience, which is why, on the whole, people tend to become more conservative as they
grow older (this only applies to those who actually have experience of living in the ‘real world”, and not necessarily to intellectuals, like Marx, Engels or Chomsky). In fact, this emphasis on what actually exists now is what Raymond Aron called “realism” in the context of
foreign policy.
Another aspect of conservatism, is that it tends to view society as an “organism”, which grows,develops, but also decays and can suffer from “sickness” because that is actually our experience. This leads conservatives to be reject or be suspicious of the
Another aspect of conservatism, is that it tends to view society as an “organism”, which grows,develops, but also decays and can suffer from “sickness” because that is actually our experience. This leads conservatives to be reject or be suspicious of the
idea of “progress”, which actually is a purely intellectual construct not found anywhere in “nature”.
On the other hand, conservatism is often insufficient for making of decisions on concrete policy issues (Andrew Roberts’ great biography of Lord Salisbury, in my (and Scruton’s)
On the other hand, conservatism is often insufficient for making of decisions on concrete policy issues (Andrew Roberts’ great biography of Lord Salisbury, in my (and Scruton’s)
opinion the quintessential conservative, provides many instances in which Salisbury could be “libertarian” or “socialist” or “
a pillar of the establishment”). One reason, of course, is that what is good in the existing society and hence worth preserving will often seem different to different people, depending on their individual circumstances and mental make up. Thus, in a well working “liberal
society” defending “liberalism” can be a “conservative cause”. However, that is only true if one defines liberalism in terms of those features that actually exist and can be observed, and not in terms of some scheme according to which society and individuals should be remade.
For example, “tolerance”, in the traditional meaning of accepting certain behaviour and ideas which we do not like or approve of, for the sake of social harmony can be a “conservative value” while “tolerance” in the sense of making everyone approve of (or pretend to) of all
these things clearly not.
