What Does It Mean To Be Conservative? (Erickson)

[Absalom]

A reflection from history.
The Fertile Crescent was the Cradle of Civilization whose early cultures/societies
included the Akkadians, Babylonians, Persians and Sumerians.
Thousands of years before the religions of Judaism and Roman Catholicism
were formed; these cultures structured a moral/social order derived from
the intuitive precepts of the Natural Law.
It is these precepts which are the bedrock of principled conservatism,
which Burke, Hume and Locke, among many, continually made reference to.
Conservatism is completely independent of ideology, of politics and of religion;
and anyone insisting otherwise doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about.
We have badly lost our way because we no longer either adhere to or even
recognize, much less understand, first principles.
Expecting our political assholery to ride to our rescue says volumes about how
decayed our culture/society has become!!! 
 

[roamer_1]

the intuitive precepts of the Natural Law.
It is these precepts which are the bedrock of principled conservatism,
which Burke, Hume and Locke, among many, continually made reference to.
Conservatism is completely independent of ideology, of politics and of religion;
and anyone insisting otherwise doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about.

Well, yes, but no...
Natural Law by way of the English Common Law, comes from Celtic Common Law.
You can argue all you want, but I can sufficiently argue Nature's God, as defined by English Common Law, IS Yahovah. Pointedly so by the time of Locke and Burke.

[Absalom]

Well, yes, but no...
Natural Law by way of the English Common Law, comes from Celtic Common Law.
You can argue all you want, but I can sufficiently argue Nature's God, as defined by English Common Law, IS Yahovah. Pointedly so by the time of Locke and Burke.

-----------------------------------
" Well yes, but no"; What on earth are you talking about?????

Some years ago Russell Kirk, a colleague of Wm. Buckley penned
"The Conservative Mind" for the Heritage Foundation.
His work derived from Burke and his wise predecessors, reaching back to Plato.
In summary, Kirk asserted that the Natural Law was a body of enduring precepts
that formed the basis for a moral order necessary to direct human conduct and
allow the survival as well as permit the sustainability of Mankind.
These precepts, born in the Fertile Crescent commencing around 8,000 B.C. were
uncovered through timeless reflection, by applying the rules of logic and reason.
An example is a Rule: Man cannot kill and its Contrary: Man can kill.
Since life promotes the survival of the species, it's obvious which, Rule or Contrary,
promotes a moral order sustaining Mankind.
Conservatism evolved through the Natural Law, promoted by the wise Greeks
of Antiquity, among them Aristotle.
It is a body of timeless principles governing human conduct involving attitudes,
behaviors, impulses and sentiments concerning Mankind and has no need of 
economics, ideology, politics and/or religion for its intuitive appeal and support.
Kirk enumerated the following principles:
* the family unit is the eternal bedrock of all civilization.
* custom and convention are hallmarks of stability in culture/society.
* prescription accepts the precedent of usage as superior to current whim.
* prudence mandates that current decisions be measures against future consequences.
* as Man is created unequal because of the Soul, variety must be fostered to spur creativity.
* since Man is not a perfectible creature, tolerance needs to be encouraged.
* private property and personal freedom are catalysts for individual responsibility.
* collectivism is destructive of voluntarism.
* permanence and change must be reconciled for the good of the nation/state.
* the impulse of government to control must be curtailed for the good of its people.
As for Common Law, be it Celtic, English, Scottish or Navaho for that matter;
it emerged almost 10,000 years after the Fertile Crescent and had absolutely
nothing to do w/the evolution of the Natural Law and by extension, Conservatism.
Webster's Dictionary will define for you, the difference between a fact and an opinion.





 

[Bigun]

-----------------------------------
" Well yes, but no"; What on earth are you talking about?????

Some years ago Russell Kirk, a colleague of Wm. Buckley penned
"The Conservative Mind" for the Heritage Foundation.
His work derived from Burke and his wise predecessors, reaching back to Plato.
In summary, Kirk asserted that the Natural Law was a body of enduring precepts
that formed the basis for a moral order necessary to direct human conduct and
allow the survival as well as permit the sustainability of Mankind.
These precepts, born in the Fertile Crescent commencing around 8,000 B.C. were
uncovered through timeless reflection, by applying the rules of logic and reason.
An example is a Rule: Man cannot kill and its Contrary: Man can kill.
Since life promotes the survival of the species, it's obvious which, Rule or Contrary,
promotes a moral order sustaining Mankind.
Conservatism evolved through the Natural Law, promoted by the wise Greeks
of Antiquity, among them Aristotle.
It is a body of timeless principles governing human conduct involving attitudes,
behaviors, impulses and sentiments concerning Mankind and has no need of 
economics, ideology, politics and/or religion for its intuitive appeal and support.
Kirk enumerated the following principles:
* the family unit is the eternal bedrock of all civilization.
* custom and convention are hallmarks of stability in culture/society.
* prescription accepts the precedent of usage as superior to current whim.
* prudence mandates that current decisions be measures against future consequences.
* as Man is created unequal because of the Soul, variety must be fostered to spur creativity.
* since Man is not a perfectible creature, tolerance needs to be encouraged.
* private property and personal freedom are catalysts for individual responsibility.
* collectivism is destructive of voluntarism.
* permanence and change must be reconciled for the good of the nation/state.
* the impulse of government to control must be curtailed for the good of its people.
As for Common Law, be it Celtic, English, Scottish or Navaho for that matter;
it emerged almost 10,000 years after the Fertile Crescent and had absolutely
nothing to do w/the evolution of the Natural Law and by extension, Conservatism.
Webster's Dictionary will define for you, the difference between a fact and an opinion.

@Absalom

I have an original copy on my bookshelf.

[roamer_1]

-----------------------------------
" Well yes, but no"; What on earth are you talking about?????

@Absalom
Yes because the origination of Natural Law is very likely derived from the Middle East.

No, because our perception of Natural Law, as defined comes by way of English Common Law. Read Blackstone to obtain definitions for Natural Law, and Nature's God, as instances, terms which are legal devices as well as substantive terms.

Now, anyone who is aware of Blackstone's intent knows that his work is a compilation of an earlier compendium of laws, Common Law, which had never been written down. It_just_was. That *IS* Natural Law. While it is not precisely defined, and can be said to be myriad in form, it derives from Celtic Common Law, which came, with the Celts, across the Caucus Mountains, and out of the Fertile Crescent.

Some years ago Russell Kirk, a colleague of Wm. Buckley penned
"The Conservative Mind" for the Heritage Foundation.
His work derived from Burke and his wise predecessors, reaching back to Plato.
In summary, Kirk asserted that the Natural Law was a body of enduring precepts [...]

I am well aware of Kirk.

These precepts, born in the Fertile Crescent commencing around 8,000 B.C.

That is a rather absurd claim.

were uncovered through timeless reflection, by applying the rules of logic and reason.

Uncovered by 'logic and reason' may be fine. But that is not to say they were established by logic and reason.

To omit the metaphysical is to err greatly, as evidenced in the French Rights of Man

Conservatism evolved through the Natural Law, promoted by the wise Greeks of Antiquity, among them Aristotle.

You may not like to hear it, but your wise Greeks admittedly talked to demons, Among them Aristotle. Plato too. Pythagoras too.

As for Common Law, be it Celtic, English, Scottish or Navaho for that matter; it emerged almost 10,000 years after the Fertile Crescent and had absolutely nothing to do w/the evolution of the Natural Law and by extension, Conservatism.

That would be false.  And I do not care if my argument is with the Greeks, Kirk, or you. In the first place, 10,000 years is a very broad statement, that cannot be sustained with fact. Early cuneiform was around about 3000BC, contemporary with early Sumer, Uruk being the earliest record in the Fertile Crescent, so your number is a vast exaggeration. More like 5000 years. And even that claim would be absurd. There isn't much beyond 2000BC in the record, from which to derive the claim... And damn little of that.

And reasonable understanding of Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian culture and history  (let's throw Egypt in there too) leaves very little to be admired.

No, such statements are romantic and not sustained by history.
Thus, as is always the case, your wise men were looking at things through the prism of their own culture. And that culture was informed by English Common Law, Natural law, by way of the Celts, whether by way of the Caucuses, or by way of Galatia (if you happened to be on the continent)... And by the Judeo-Christian ethic.

[Absalom]

@Absalom
Yes because the origination of Natural Law is very likely derived from the Middle East.

No, because our perception of Natural Law, as defined comes by way of English Common Law. Read Blackstone to obtain definitions for Natural Law, and Nature's God, as instances, terms which are legal devices as well as substantive terms.

Now, anyone who is aware of Blackstone's intent knows that his work is a compilation of an earlier compendium of laws, Common Law, which had never been written down. It_just_was. That *IS* Natural Law. While it is not precisely defined, and can be said to be myriad in form, it derives from Celtic Common Law, which came, with the Celts, across the Caucus Mountains, and out of the Fertile Crescent.
I am well aware of Kirk.

That is a rather absurd claim.

Uncovered by 'logic and reason' may be fine. But that is not to say they were established by logic and reason.

To omit the metaphysical is to err greatly, as evidenced in the French Rights of Man

You may not like to hear it, but your wise Greeks admittedly talked to demons, Among them Aristotle. Plato too. Pythagoras too.

That would be false.  And I do not care if my argument is with the Greeks, Kirk, or you. In the first place, 10,000 years is a very broad statement, that cannot be sustained with fact. Early cuneiform was around about 3000BC, contemporary with early Sumer, Uruk being the earliest record in the Fertile Crescent, so your number is a vast exaggeration. More like 5000 years. And even that claim would be absurd. There isn't much beyond 2000BC in the record, from which to derive the claim... And damn little of that.

And reasonable understanding of Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian culture and history  (let's throw Egypt in there too) leaves very little to be admired.

No, such statements are romantic and not sustained by history.
Thus, as is always the case, your wise men were looking at things through the prism of their own culture. And that culture was informed by English Common Law, Natural law, by way of the Celts, whether by way of the Caucuses, or by way of Galatia (if you happened to be on the continent)... And by the Judeo-Christian ethic.

------------------
Ok things end here as I don't do pious platitudes and/or sanctimonious malarkey,
nor do I have any interest in urinary contests w/slanderers.
Were you as informed as your absurd pretensions radiate, long ago you would have
internalized the words of Bernard of Chartres, a 12th century neo-Platonist that
"We are mere dwarfs who see only as far as we do because see can stand
on the massive shoulders of the Giants of Antiquity who preceded us."
Instead, you choose to embrace your English common law neurosis, as
some sort of gift from a much later time to much earlier times, which
somehow transformed the Ancients; a notion so beyond preposterous
as to belong in the ether of Planet Narnia.
Greece, Rome and several who proceeded them created the Legacy of
Western Civilization but a brief listing of their achievements would run
pages. Yet just imagine how they were able to cope and function despite
jabbering w/demons and none having college degrees.
Oh the embarrassment, horror and shame for these poor unfortunates. 
Their records are the library; that's the stone building w/the books inside.
As for the dates/timelines involving culture/society, they were sourced from
Cassell's Chronology of World History; the authoritative source for this data.
But of course he was just a buffoon and you know much better. Why of course!
 

[roamer_1]

------------------
Ok things end here as I don't do pious platitudes and/or sanctimonious malarkey, [...]

Yes, it seems, you do.

Go chase your giants. Be amazed at their lofty heights. Remember though... What they brought us was cruel empire, not conservatism.
There but for the grace of God...

/end

[EasyAce]

-----------------------------------
" Well yes, but no"; What on earth are you talking about?????

Some years ago Russell Kirk, a colleague of Wm. Buckley penned
"The Conservative Mind" for the Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation (where Kirk in due course lectured often; I worked there in 1990-91 and had the pleasure of hearing at least two Kirk lectures) wasn't even a passing thought in the minds of its three co-founders Joseph Coors, Edwin Feulner, and Paul Weyrich, when Russell Kirk first wrote The Conservative Mind as his doctoral thesis (he's the first American to have earned a doctorate in letters from Scotland's University of St. Andrew); nor was Kirk a colleague of William F. Buckley, Jr. at the time but a professor of literature at Michigan State.

In 1953, Buckley had yet to even co-write McCarthy and His Enemies, never mind found National Review; Coors was just another western U.S. brewer barely known beyond the Rockies (his beer didn't begin covering the entire country until well into the 1970s); Feulner was a Chicago schoolboy; and, Weyrich was a schoolboy in Racine, Wisconsin.

[EasyAce]

Yes, it seems, you do.

Go chase your giants. Be amazed at their lofty heights. Remember though... What they brought us was cruel empire, not conservatism.
There but for the grace of God...

/end

Be reminded sadly enough that today's so-called conservative stands on the shoulders of giants in order to pee down their collars.

[Absalom]

The Heritage Foundation (where Kirk in due course lectured often; I worked there in 1990-91 and had the pleasure of hearing at least two Kirk lectures) wasn't even a passing thought in the minds of its three co-founders Joseph Coors, Edwin Feulner, and Paul Weyrich, when Russell Kirk first wrote The Conservative Mind as his doctoral thesis (he's the first American to have earned a doctorate in letters from Scotland's University of St. Andrew); nor was Kirk a colleague of William F. Buckley, Jr. at the time but a professor of literature at Michigan State.

In 1953, Buckley had yet to even co-write McCarthy and His Enemies, never mind found National Review; Coors was just another western U.S. brewer barely known beyond the





























 Rockies (his beer didn't begin covering the entire country until well into the 1970s); Feulner was a Chicago schoolboy; and, Weyrich was a schoolboy in Racine, Wisconsin.

------------------------------------------------
Some 30ish years ago Wm.Buckley introduced Russell Kirk
at a Forum held at Queens College; as his friend and colleague.
Afterward I had the pleasure of shaking hands w/both.
And your point is what??? 

[EasyAce]

------------------------------------------------
Some 30ish years ago Wm.Buckley introduced Russell Kirk
at a Forum held at Queens College; as his friend and colleague.
Afterward I had the pleasure of shaking hands w/both.
And your point is what???

That you didn't get your facts straight or at least write with more clarity in the post to which I replied. You wrote the post in such a way as to suggest Buckley and Kirk were colleagues at the time The Conservative Mind was written, and to suggest Kirk wrote it for the Heritage Foundation---neither of which was true. Clarity and research are our friends.

[truth_seeker]

So am I to conclude from this, the definition and even the origin of "conservatism," is uncertain, up for argument?

Just a suggestion:

Work from the near in time, with what is known, backwards to earlier contributions. You don't need to jump from the Declaration, to the fertile crescent.

The American Founding documents WERE derived from Common Law. Magna Carta AD 1215, etc.

Law of Innocents, by Adamnain, Abott of Iona AD 797)

Plus examine the earlier Celtic cultures of
Briton.
 

1066 brought French/Latin law to Britain. Doomsday book. Property laws.

The earlier Germanic & Nordic Cultures had earlier the "Althing" which was a town meeting.

There were people in Britain that predated Romans, Celts, Germans, Nordics. Stonehenge and before.   

[Absalom]

That you didn't get your facts straight or at least write with more clarity in the post to which I replied. You wrote the post in such a way as to suggest Buckley and Kirk were colleagues at the time The Conservative Mind was written, and to suggest Kirk wrote it for the Heritage Foundation---neither of which was true. Clarity and research are our friends.

----------------------------------------
Up front, if my timeline was in error, I do apologize, as it was some 30 years ago
and events were likely colored by my recollection of their intense camaraderie.
As for suggestions, let me suggest you avoid getting your knickers in a twist
over trivialities; as nothing nefarious was intended here.
As for facts; having written extensively for publication over time, they're well.
By the way are you related to the site pest who spends his day correcting the
grammar and syntax of posters?????
 
 

[EasyAce]

----------------------------------------
Up front, if my timeline was in error, I do apologize, as it was some 30 years ago
and events were likely colored by my recollection of their intense camaraderie.
As for suggestions, let me suggest you avoid getting your knickers in a twist
over trivialities; as nothing nefarious was intended here.

I don't wear knickers, they never get into a twist, and I don't think fact checking is trivial.

As for facts; having written extensively for publication over time, they're well.

Absalom, Absalom! My son, my son, you're not the only one around here who's written for publication.

By the way are you related to the site pest who spends his day correcting the
grammar and syntax of posters?????

Not in the slightest, so far as I know. And I've paid my syntax ever since I came of age. And, all things considered, particularly the consideration that the Internet threatens to become the death of the King's English (not to mention the Queens', the Bronx's, the Manhattan's, and the Staten Island's), I'll just let whomever the site pest is among us continue to do his or her (or its?) work, if only because sound expression seems now to be a) at a premium; and, b) politically incorrect. The former is only half as much fun opposing as the latter.