Meanwhile, back on topic.
"None of the higher mental processes are required for conservatism. The advocate of change, on the contrary, must have a certain degree of imagination in order to be able to conceive of anything different from what exists."
But a little further, after a discussion of where opposition to the status quo comes from (in summary it can come from "sympathy with the unfortunate or from hatred of the fortunate.....")
"On the intellectual side, again, there is a tendency for advocates of change to organise themselves into groups, welded together by a narrow orthodoxy, hating heresy, and viewing it as moral treachery in favour of prosperous sinners. Orthodoxy is the grave of intelligence, no matter what orthodoxy it may be. And in this respect the orthodoxy of the radical is no better than that of the reactionary."
Bertrand Russell, "Education and the Social Order."
As usual, Bertie nails it.
Golly... It's a rare day when someone trots out the dusty rustlings of Bert...
And that it's being displayed as 'tall-thinkin'' just turns the usually pedestrian appeal to authority (ad Verecundiam) into a delicious rhetorical morsel...
Sadly, for our in-house Australian... Russell's point, as quoted, does not serve the ideological Left on the whole; the forces of "Change' presently afoot, or the point at issue. Worse is that the member failed to post the point which she was implying or taking from the referenced source...
Thus we're left to conclude that this is yet another pedestrian attempt to establish the "Center" as the intellectual high ground. Wherein we find it ironically declared that anyone who takes an emphatic position on any issue; be they left or right of that would-be center is either a Radical or a 'Reactionary'... respectively; thus an extremist; and towards noting the irony... its critical that one not spend too much time considering that the assertion itself is stated rather emphatically...
Sadly, Russel was expounding upon the reasoning left in the wake of the French Revolution; and as the secular Humanist of that period were prone to do; they were considering the poles relevant to European Left-think... Specifically the Advocacy of "Fairness is Equality" OKA: Radical liberalism... AKA: Marxism... and of course that which oppossed such; and this all towards searching for 'the middle way...'
Russell came along at a time after the French Crown had crumbled under the weight of the decadence it had sewn since the "Enlightenment..." thus Reason was realing from the "Terrors" which followed; compelling some to consider the results of this phenomenon... thus earning their bonafides as philosphers... Russell being no exception.
Anywho... the problem was that the new kid on the block;
the Radical, needed to be balanced against a foe... otherwise the Radical would appear... out of balance and as a result discredited; so those sympathetic to this insanity were tasked with rationalizing a means to set the Radical into intellectual balance and what they came up with, while such is patently absurd; was the best they could do, given what they had to work with.
Ya see, it wasn't sufficient that the reasoning that "Fairness =/= Equality" was silly... counter to common sense and intellectually untenable... because the idea 'felt good'; it opened the intellectual door for the acceptance of cognitive misfits... and the misfits engaged the opportunity with a zealous crush... so what they came up with was the idea that those who opposed the insipid notions of the Radical... were simply 'reacting' to the Radical... thus the term:
REACTIONARY! and PRESTO... the counter balance to the Radical was established... thus somehow legitimizing the lowly Radical.
Of course, one can't consider such reasoning too seriously, as it becomes fairly obvious, fairly soon; that in truth, the Radical was 'reacting' to the circumstances before them... thus making them 'Reactionaries"; but such is the nature of Secular Humanist reasoning... its prone to fatal circular flaws... but suffice it to say that the term is simply a finite point from which to begin such discussions; and one can't delve too deeply into any reasoning of the Humanist... in this case, being no exception; one simply must take it at face value that 'The Radical' exists at one ideological pole and is balanced against 'The Reactionary' at the other end; which naturally provides for one to conclude that neither 'extreme' is suitable for polite company... thus the way is clear... the reasoned path must be down the middle; and PRESTO! Fascism is born...
Any consideration beyond that and the entire notion devolves into unrecognizable minutia; wherein the point devolves back to the original sin; that Fairness simply does not equal equality and that such an unviable notion cannot be sustained... and
what fun would that be?
Funny stuff...
