Zone1 Russel Kirk Conservative Principle #1 - An enduring moral order

[HikerGuy83]

Russell Amos Kirk (October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994) was an American political philosopher, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, author, and novelist who influenced 20th century American conservatism.

Russell Kirk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He authored 10 Conservative Principles which I have been looking at more recently. I am interested in peoples thoughts.

First and foremost, these go well beyond politics. Even if they were about politics, his description would be a far cry from today's so-called "conservative movement". Maybe I see that wrong.

You can see all ten here (and I will be posting on all of them):

Ten Conservative Principles | The Russell Kirk Center

kirkcenter.org

His first principle states:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

** End of Citation*

I am interested in thoughts on this single principle in this thread.

Rules:

1. If you offer an opinion, you must include at least two sentences after the stated opinion in support. If you don't, the post will likely be reported and removed. I love that I get to make the rules....
2. You can disagree with something (and include your statements) but there is to be no blatant bashing of a philosophy, of Kirk, or his work.
3. Disagreement between posters must follow rules 1 & 2.

 

[White 6]

Russell Amos Kirk (October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994) was an American political philosopher, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, author, and novelist who influenced 20th century American conservatism.

Russell Kirk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He authored 10 Conservative Principles which I have been looking at more recently. I am interested in peoples thoughts.

First and foremost, these go well beyond politics. Even if they were about politics, his description would be a far cry from today's so-called "conservative movement". Maybe I see that wrong.

You can see all ten here (and I will be posting on all of them):

Ten Conservative Principles | The Russell Kirk Center

kirkcenter.org

His first principle states:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

** End of Citation*

I am interested in thoughts on this single principle in this thread.

Rules:

1. If you offer an opinion, you must include at least two sentences after the stated opinion in support. If you don't, the post will likely be reported and removed. I love that I get to make the rules....
2. You can disagree with something (and include your statements) but there is to be no blatant bashing of a philosophy, of Kirk, or his work.
3. Disagreement between posters must follow rules 1 & 2.

I was unfamiliar with the writings of Russel Kirk. His properly stated tenets of conservationism are accurate truths. They are the base rock of conservatism, without which any claim of party and support of the movement, is hollow and without value.
Thanks for the link to the 10 principles.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Russell Amos Kirk (October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994) was an American political philosopher, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, author, and novelist who influenced 20th century American conservatism.

Russell Kirk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He authored 10 Conservative Principles which I have been looking at more recently. I am interested in peoples thoughts.

First and foremost, these go well beyond politics. Even if they were about politics, his description would be a far cry from today's so-called "conservative movement". Maybe I see that wrong.

You can see all ten here (and I will be posting on all of them):

Ten Conservative Principles | The Russell Kirk Center

kirkcenter.org

His first principle states:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

** End of Citation*

I am interested in thoughts on this single principle in this thread.

Rules:

1. If you offer an opinion, you must include at least two sentences after the stated opinion in support. If you don't, the post will likely be reported and removed. I love that I get to make the rules....
2. You can disagree with something (and include your statements) but there is to be no blatant bashing of a philosophy, of Kirk, or his work.
3. Disagreement between posters must follow rules 1 & 2.

Principles Can Be Pricked by a Pin

You need specific examples where these vague principles are applied and judged for what they really mean and lead to. For example, "Be Self-Reliant" is hypocrisy unless it requires the sons of the rich to be cut off at age 18 from all their Daddy's Money.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Principles Can Be Pricked by a Pin

You need specific examples where these vague principles are applied and judged for what they really mean and lead to. For example, "Be Self-Reliant" is hypocrisy unless it requires the sons of the rich to be cut off at age 18 from all their Daddy's Money.

While a discussion could include examples for clarity, I am not sure your example of an example is very good. You do nothing to relate it to what you just stated.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth.

I suspect the inner order of the soul much more encompassing than the outer order. That would make sense on the surface to me.

Having inner harmony (not sure exactly what that means....but I liken it to inner peace) is what many strive for. This can be achieved regardless of what's going on around us.

And when many are in that zone, it seems like the community works together and advances so much more readily.

Compared to the outer order (which again would require some explanation, but if we assume certain things it might just be where we are economically and legally), inner peace and strength are much more important.

I enjoyed this article which I found thought-provoking.

3 Lies We Tell Ourselves—And What Happens When We Stop

Do you say “I’m fine” when you’re anything but? You’re not alone. In a messy world, telling the truth—to ourselves and others—might just be the boldest move we can make.

www.psychologytoday.com

From the article:

Not long ago, someone asked me how I was doing.

Without missing a beat, I answered, “I’m fine.”

I wasn’t.

I was juggling too much, worrying about people I love, feeling like the world was unraveling at the seams—and I was not, in fact, “fine.” But saying that felt easier. Cleaner. More socially acceptable.

We do this all the time, don’t we? We tell ourselves and each other little lies to make things feel less heavy. Sometimes, we whisper them like mantras. Sometimes, we cling to them like life rafts:

*******************

And it goes on to describe them and why we do them. We lie to ourselves to not face the truth.

Continuing:

According to psychologist Daniel Gilbert, our brains are wired to favor short-term comfort over long-term clarity. In his research on affective forecasting, Gilbert notes how we often predict that negative emotions will last longer or feel worse than they actually do, so we avoid the discomfort altogether.

Translation? We’d rather say “I’m fine” than sit in the murky waters of “I’m not.”

*******************

That does not represent the inner harmony Kirk was talking about.

Without pulling in a myriad of articles and citations, I'll just say that I think most people agree we continue to build a society where finding that peace is becoming harder.

I wish conservatives would address this in a way that made sense.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I suspect the inner order of the soul much more encompassing than the outer order. That would make sense on the surface to me.

Having inner harmony (not sure exactly what that means....but I liken it to inner peace) is what many strive for. This can be achieved regardless of what's going on around us.

And when many are in that zone, it seems like the community works together and advances so much more readily.

Compared to the outer order (which again would require some explanation, but if we assume certain things it might just be where we are economically and legally), inner peace and strength are much more important.

I enjoyed this article which I found thought-provoking.

3 Lies We Tell Ourselves—And What Happens When We Stop

Do you say “I’m fine” when you’re anything but? You’re not alone. In a messy world, telling the truth—to ourselves and others—might just be the boldest move we can make.

www.psychologytoday.com

From the article:

Not long ago, someone asked me how I was doing.

Without missing a beat, I answered, “I’m fine.”

I wasn’t.

I was juggling too much, worrying about people I love, feeling like the world was unraveling at the seams—and I was not, in fact, “fine.” But saying that felt easier. Cleaner. More socially acceptable.

We do this all the time, don’t we? We tell ourselves and each other little lies to make things feel less heavy. Sometimes, we whisper them like mantras. Sometimes, we cling to them like life rafts:

*******************

And it goes on to describe them and why we do them. We lie to ourselves to not face the truth.

Continuing:

According to psychologist Daniel Gilbert, our brains are wired to favor short-term comfort over long-term clarity. In his research on affective forecasting, Gilbert notes how we often predict that negative emotions will last longer or feel worse than they actually do, so we avoid the discomfort altogether.

Translation? We’d rather say “I’m fine” than sit in the murky waters of “I’m not.”

*******************

That does not represent the inner harmony Kirk was talking about.

Without pulling in a myriad of articles and citations, I'll just say that I think most people agree we continue to build a society where finding that peace is becoming harder.

I wish conservatives would address this in a way that made sense.

Whatever shrink wrote that psychobabble feels fine about his professional success, getting published in the bubbly Bible of babble

 

[HikerGuy83]

Whatever shrink wrote that psychobabble feels fine about his professional success, getting published in the bubbly Bible of babble

Feel free to exit the thread anytime.

In fact, I would encourage you to do so.

If you want to debate the article that is fine.

Go ahead.

However, this thread is about what is stated in the OP.

I put that up as part of a comment on Kirk's inner harmony. Something that is necessary for people to have if society is to be progressing (truly).

 

[candycorn]

I was unfamiliar with the writings of Russel Kirk. His properly stated tenets of conservationism are accurate truths. They are the base rock of conservatism, without which any claim of party and support of the movement, is hollow and without value.
Thanks for the link to the 10 principles.

He wrote that his one regret was that he didn't live long enough to monetize the hate, fear, and division he sowed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Feel free to exit the thread anytime.



I put that up as part of a comment on Kirk's inner harmony.

Did he get his harmony from tooting on a harmonica, like New Age Sewage Bobby Dylan?

 

[Foxfyre]

Russell Amos Kirk (October 19, 1918 – April 29, 1994) was an American political philosopher, moralist, historian, social critic, literary critic, author, and novelist who influenced 20th century American conservatism.

Russell Kirk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He authored 10 Conservative Principles which I have been looking at more recently. I am interested in peoples thoughts.

First and foremost, these go well beyond politics. Even if they were about politics, his description would be a far cry from today's so-called "conservative movement". Maybe I see that wrong.

You can see all ten here (and I will be posting on all of them):

Ten Conservative Principles | The Russell Kirk Center

kirkcenter.org

His first principle states:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

** End of Citation*

I am interested in thoughts on this single principle in this thread.

Rules:

1. If you offer an opinion, you must include at least two sentences after the stated opinion in support. If you don't, the post will likely be reported and removed. I love that I get to make the rules....
2. You can disagree with something (and include your statements) but there is to be no blatant bashing of a philosophy, of Kirk, or his work.
3. Disagreement between posters must follow rules 1 & 2.

I had to smile when I saw this thread as I have been a long time admirer of Russell Kirk and just plucked a phrase from his 4th Principle to use to illustrate my argument in another thread.

I would be fascinated to see how he might have worded those principles differently in today's political climate.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I had to smile when I saw this thread as I have been a long time admirer of Russell Kirk and just plucked a phrase from his 4th Principle to use to illustrate my argument in another thread.

I would be fascinated to see how he might have worded those principles differently in today's political climate.

Would he have worded anything differently?

The world may change, but principles don't.

At the end of principle #1, he states.... human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

His "enduring moral order" has to have some ties to a theology. Kirk himself, as I understand it, was a devout Catholic.

 

[HikerGuy83]

as I have been a long time admirer of Russell Kirk

You are a small minority. Most conservatives don't know who he is.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order.

I would suggest that is why we have the issues we have today.

I have long contended that you can't build something strong enough to manage people who are lawless. It won't work. Today, at any intersection, I watch at least one person run a red light. On my way over to a friend's house, a pick up was at least 100 ft from an intersection when the light turned red. He just kept on going. That might seem trivial, but when people think that laws are suggestions or that they can break them with impunity.....you get bigger problems.

John Adams is reported to have said that "The Constitution was made for a moral or religious people". Which makes sense.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Foxfyre

Do you think that Republicans are any more "righteous" or moral than democrats?

Interested in your thoughts.

I will share my thoughts in a little bit.

 

[shockedcanadian]

So the premise is that being "conservative" is not fluid?

I suppose that would be the thinking of his time. I do believe there should be a continuum as he doesn't take into consideration the social fabric of a nation. In the West, a global influence as well. I may be a supporter of Reagan but I thought his war on drugs was a waste, he wasn't static.

Give him credit also in that he didn't keep the old conservative mantra to simply call out the axis of evil, but to also extend an olive branch at times. He was adaptable.

Thus, what is enduring and "moral" isn't the same as it was 100 years ago. What endures can vary I would suggest.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So the premise is that being "conservative" is not fluid?

Incorrect. Farther down the list, you'll see him explicitly say that conservatives have to change with the times.

However, that is tactical.

The enduring moral order is based on principles. Some might call them eternal principles.

I do believe there should be a continuum as he doesn't take into consideration the social fabric of a nation.

There is and Kirk will be the first to say that not all conservatives fit every item on the list he generated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre

Do you think that Republicans are any more "righteous" or moral than democrats?

Interested in your thoughts.

I will share my thoughts in a little bit.

Some Republicans are more righteous or moral than others. Some Democrats are more righteous or moral than others.
And there will be agreement and disagreement on what is and is not moral and/or righteous.

Russell Kirk's conservative principles had nothing to do with individual righteousness or morality but rather concepts of values/principles that produces a society that, in addition to being more effective, productive, positive for all, is more righteous or moral for all.

I do strongly believe that the MAGA principles, supported by far more Republicans than not, adhere more closely to those conservative principles than they don't

I do strongly believe that far more leftitsts/progressives/Democrats than not have mostly abandoned and rejected those conservative principles.

 

[otto105]

While a discussion could include examples for clarity, I am not sure your example of an example is very good. You do nothing to relate it to what you just stated.

In a true capitalist system no inheritance or legacy hiring can be permitted. Each person starts with nothing and relies on the abilities to survive.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Thus, what is enduring and "moral" isn't the same as it was 100 years ago.

This is the kind of statement that warrants a rather deep discussion.

I would contend that Kirk's enduring moral order for the inner soul has been constant through the ages.

It is based on principles that have been in place since Adam walked the earth.

 

[otto105]

This is the kind of statement that warrants a rather deep discussion.

I would contend that Kirk's enduring moral order for the inner soul has been constant through the ages.

It is based on principles that have been in place since Adam walked the earth.

kirk has already been resigned to the ashbin of history while his limited followers fight for control of the organization.