Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Conservative and Liberal Views on religion.

irateplatypus · 02-17-2006, 09:52 AM

in contemporary discussion, the difference between conservatives and liberals lies in their conceptions of truth.

conservatives generally consider truth to be an external constant... existing apart from a specific time/event/circumstance. given this assumption, it is reasonable to look to the past - the truth our ancestors wrestled to uncover must surely be the same that we deal with today.

liberals tend to view truth a more relative to the time and place of their circumstance. the ways of the past have less value because, in the liberal view, it has little relevance to the issues of the day. truth is embodied in the individual's perception rather than a universal constant.

i think nezmot, in the above post, has missed the mark. the examples given (jesus, lincoln, and newton) are certainly instances in which someone has smashed orthodoxy... but has done so from a markedly conservative approach.

- jesus himself said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-18). his explicit message was one of restoral, not change. his restoral/fulfillment of mosaic law did shake-up the status quo, but it was done in recognition of the law's supremacy over the corrupted sensibilities of the current authority.
- lincoln's words are heavily salted with appeals to a certain innate dignity of all mankind. his arguments against slavery were rooted in its affront to a morality not subject to a specific time and place. it wasn't change made because slavery had become wrong, it was that slavery was always wrong in all history.
- newton's discoveries were of a scientific rather than a philosophical nature... but again, his ideas were of constants that existed outside of individual conception.

02-17-2006, 09:52 AM	#18 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	in contemporary discussion, the difference between conservatives and liberals lies in their conceptions of truth. conservatives generally consider truth to be an external constant... existing apart from a specific time/event/circumstance. given this assumption, it is reasonable to look to the past - the truth our ancestors wrestled to uncover must surely be the same that we deal with today. liberals tend to view truth a more relative to the time and place of their circumstance. the ways of the past have less value because, in the liberal view, it has little relevance to the issues of the day. truth is embodied in the individual's perception rather than a universal constant. i think nezmot, in the above post, has missed the mark. the examples given (jesus, lincoln, and newton) are certainly instances in which someone has smashed orthodoxy... but has done so from a markedly conservative approach. - jesus himself said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-18). his explicit message was one of restoral, not change. his restoral/fulfillment of mosaic law did shake-up the status quo, but it was done in recognition of the law's supremacy over the corrupted sensibilities of the current authority. - lincoln's words are heavily salted with appeals to a certain innate dignity of all mankind. his arguments against slavery were rooted in its affront to a morality not subject to a specific time and place. it wasn't change made because slavery had become wrong, it was that slavery was always wrong in all history. - newton's discoveries were of a scientific rather than a philosophical nature... but again, his ideas were of constants that existed outside of individual conception. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill