Quid sit neoconservatism?

“Neoconservatism” is a contentious term, but it’s useful as a description of a movement that attempts to moderate and so stabilize liberal modernity. In particular, neoconservatism accepts both the modern aspiration to reform all things and bring them in line with clear universal principles, and the liberal choice of freedom, equality and efficiency as the … More ...

Pragmatism, PC and tyranny

Philosophical pragmatism is mostly the habit of changing the subject if a line of thought makes one uncomfortable. It’s the collapse of the coherence theory of truth into a comfort theory of truth. Such a view can have the appearance of great reasonableness, of not wanting to take things too far. A consequence of the … More ...

Social change and radicalism

Current departures such as “gay marriage” are often defended as examples of the natural development of institutions with the times. To oppose them is said to be an arbitrary attempt to freeze social development at a particular point. Such claims don’t hold up. While it’s true that changing conceptions, interests, and ideals have repeatedly led … More ...

Traditionalism — what and why?

Here’s an initial sketch of a discussion of traditionalist conservatism that attempts to develop it out of a general analysis of social organization. I would be very grateful for any comments.

Understanding Conservatism and Tradition [8th state]

To understand conservatism we must understand how conservatives differ from leftists and libertarians.

Basic oppositions in politics usually

More ...

More on “racism” etcetera

Some thoughts suggested by current discussions of racism and antisemitism:

The natural outlook is that there are a variety of peoples—East Asians, Fukienese peasants, Westerners, Jews, Irishmen—that are distinct enough to possess qualities that might be good or bad. Since qualities differ, it is natural to feel more or less attracted or tied to one … More ...

More on pluralism

Other ways to make the point I made in my most recent entry:

  • The problem with “pluralism” is that it only applies to other beliefs. Pluralism itself must be accepted universally. It is therefore monist and not pluralist.
  • It is inevitable that there is a plurality of fundamental beliefs. Today, as always, that situation must
More ...

The fraud of pluralism

It should be obvious that in the modern world there’s no such thing as a pluralistic society. After all, life today is marked by pervasiveness, complexity and comprehensiveness of social cooperation, and those things require common habits, understandings and beliefs. Further, modern modes of production, exchange and regulation depend on standardization. The present day is … More ...