Probably even less.
What’s with the random italicization?
Because time is inexorable and experienced as singular directional, conservatism will always be reactive, but never universal. It can’t be universal, because nothing human is; but there will always be people who think what went before is better than what is now, and that is, broadly, what is conservative.
Julian, Emperor of Rome, wanted to stop the Christian and elite/imperial degradation of traditional Roman religion. He was always doomed to failure, because his world had become Christian, with all the attendant Christian faith in a progressive history, in time as soteriological eschatology.
Modern ‘Christian’ traditionalists (who, believing in politics and power, prove themselves atheists with Christian semiotics) want to put an end to the secularization of the fundamental progressive faith in a historical culmination towards perfection, but they are doomed to failure, because their world is a secular one, in which all the assumptions of Christianity, by way of the Enlightenment, have become the ordinary way of experiencing time, self and history.
This is the fate of every conservative moment.
1 Like
If you mean the actual concept; is that bad?
If you mean the group, not interested.
I don’t know what this means.
Is it? Was it not in many cases?
Actual concept. I believe in the social contract. I don’t think it’s bad but only to a degree. You should be able to reject society, as long as you understand that when you act within or against that society its rules will apply.
There are different kinds of power
(Emphasis mine)
Can you clarify to what this ‘it’ refers?
I completely disagree with this statement. In fact it’s pseudo-intellectual drivel.
1 Like
The actual concept is not a rejection of society. It is a weighting and a question of self-determination.
No, it just doesn’t read the way you’d write. But, it does in fact convey a precise and specific meaning.
Then may be when you say something along the lines of “i don’t like your society” here over and over again i misunderstand what you mean
It’s drivel.
I get that you reject it, but it says precisely what was intended.
Of course. “What went before…”
There is always that dichotomy - more relevant than the “left/right” dynamic - between those who seek to push the wheel backwards towards an idealized past, and those who seek to push the wheel forwards towards an idealized future.
How it used to be vs. how it could be.
4 Likes
I disagree if I understand your meaning correctly.
No. Better and worse don’t describe time, or times. The cosmos is amoral.
I am referencing personal power.
The society you © have created is, in my opinion, garbage. That is not the only possible society, nor is mine.
1 Like
