Post by Maolsheachlann on May 24, 2017 14:21:45 GMT
Something Classical Republican said in another thread makes me ask the question: are liberalism and conservatism complementary?
In some ways, I realize this question may not make much sense because conservatism and liberalism aren't really opposites; you can logically be both. (It's sometimes argued Edmund Burke was both.) Perhaps "progressivism and conservatism" may have been a better opposition. Nonetheless, you know what I mean.
I remember a local priest (a Nigerian, and pretty conservative) saying on the feast of Peter and Paul that Peter was a conservative, Paul was a liberal, and the Church needs both. One may question that, but the basic idea is interesting. (I'm applying it to society rather than the Catholic Church here.)
Is the clash of ideas and values in liberal democracy (or in any other system) a good thing? John Stuart Mill in On Liberty suggests that suppressing points of view is dangerous because ideas need to circulate freely, even if it's so they can be effectively refuted. I suppose this is what people mean when they say sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Social conservatives in Ireland often complain about "groupthink" in the media and elsewhere, and argue that it's dangerous for society to have only one set of opinions. But is it? Are all opinions valuable? Are most opinions valuable? Is there (something subtly different) value in letting everyone air their opinions? Is social debate a good in itself or is it a necessary evil? Is pluralism of ideas good in itself or is it a necessary evil? Should our model by Karl Popper's "open society" or Plato's Republic?
Answer in one sentence. That's a joke. No need to answer any of my specific questions-- I'm just trying to explore a topic and I'm interested in anybody else's ideas.
My own position; in some ways I'm very drawn to the sort of utterly free debate that characterizes liberal democracies, but I also have a nostalgia for post-independence Catholic Ireland, where it might legitimately argued that certain ideas were suppressed (for instance, through censorshp of literature).
In some ways, I realize this question may not make much sense because conservatism and liberalism aren't really opposites; you can logically be both. (It's sometimes argued Edmund Burke was both.) Perhaps "progressivism and conservatism" may have been a better opposition. Nonetheless, you know what I mean.
I remember a local priest (a Nigerian, and pretty conservative) saying on the feast of Peter and Paul that Peter was a conservative, Paul was a liberal, and the Church needs both. One may question that, but the basic idea is interesting. (I'm applying it to society rather than the Catholic Church here.)
Is the clash of ideas and values in liberal democracy (or in any other system) a good thing? John Stuart Mill in On Liberty suggests that suppressing points of view is dangerous because ideas need to circulate freely, even if it's so they can be effectively refuted. I suppose this is what people mean when they say sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Social conservatives in Ireland often complain about "groupthink" in the media and elsewhere, and argue that it's dangerous for society to have only one set of opinions. But is it? Are all opinions valuable? Are most opinions valuable? Is there (something subtly different) value in letting everyone air their opinions? Is social debate a good in itself or is it a necessary evil? Is pluralism of ideas good in itself or is it a necessary evil? Should our model by Karl Popper's "open society" or Plato's Republic?
Answer in one sentence. That's a joke. No need to answer any of my specific questions-- I'm just trying to explore a topic and I'm interested in anybody else's ideas.
My own position; in some ways I'm very drawn to the sort of utterly free debate that characterizes liberal democracies, but I also have a nostalgia for post-independence Catholic Ireland, where it might legitimately argued that certain ideas were suppressed (for instance, through censorshp of literature).