A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments

Then it sounds like those people who identify as conservatives are liberal in the sense that Russell means, and those people who identify as liberal are not very liberal (which reinforces what Blacksword is saying)). The root of Liberal is the same as Liberty, it means free, and it implies free-thinking (of course the term liberal can mean different things, and in the US it tends to have a different connotation with people than here).

Sorry repeating this as I already said this, but:

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment" (Bertrand Russell)

The decalogue is part of longer article, but he is contrasting that "Liberal outlook" to fanaticism, dogmatism and orthodoxy. If you want a term other than Liberalism to describe his outlook, that's fine. Incidentally, many classic liberals also identify politically as Conservatives and NeoLiberalism is commonly considered Conservative.

I also know people who call themselves liberal whose outlook is controlling, authoritarian, rigid and closed-minded, but they are not liberals in Russell's sense, nor do I consider them to be truly liberal in how I use the term.

Conservatism by definition favours orthodoxy, and maintaining traditional values, and is less open to change and new ideas. That said, one can consider oneself to be politically Conservative while still being open-minded, tolerant, flexible, and open to change, and so be Liberal in that sense while still identifying as Conservative.

I think it often rather silly how people label themselves and others into too tidy little boxes as we are complex individuals (some see the world in more black and white ways than others), and sometimes what people label themselves and others shows some ignorance.

Bertrand Russell (1872 to 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and writer, so, yeah, better not to view it through a narrow, modern American political lens.

I'm from Canada, and in Philosophy courses as well as in my Political Science courses here we used it differently than many Americans seem to (and I'm not talking about our Liberal Party), and in an especially different light from how I would hear American Conservatives paint it. In the early days of my forum use, I posted on political forums, and it could be really hard to have a constructive discussion partially because of terminological differences. When I'd use Liberal, or someone else would (often people who identified as Conservatives and often used as a slur), we would talk past each other (not that you can generally have good discussions with people who rely on slurs). Anyway, it would get really confusing, and even after trying to research the history of Liberalism in the US, I still had trouble understanding the vitriol. Bit like how I have argued with people over the semantics of socialism

Anyway, a tangential note, I've read American studies/ surveys which correlate our personal psychology to our politics. Not surprisingly, those who are open to new ideas and open to change, and are more agreeable, tend to favour Liberal politics. Those who are averse to change and less open to new ideas favour Conservative politics. Liberals score higher in the neurotic category and Conservatives score higher in conscientiousness and work ethic which may be a factor in why some Liberals are more favourable to a Welfare state.

And Micky, I read your earlier post, and I feel for you. Try to take it easy. Love that Rachmaninoff myself (a favourite composer of mine), but classical music sometimes releases my emotions too much.

Edited by Logan - July 19 2018 at 17:33

I'm getting more ADHD as I get older, and actually I'm having some vision issues, so reading long posts can put a strain on my eyes. With people who use really long posts that aren't broken up into spaced paragraphs or have really long paragraphs, it becomes a jumble of words for me.

No need to respond to that post. I delved into differences in the terms "burden of proof" (a term used in logic and law that means that the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate/ make a good argument for the assertion) and "evidence" (there is no "proof" in science; open to new evidence...), and some stuff about the nature of reality, and the reality of nature? But if you do make it through it and wish to respond, I would be interested in your thoughts and to get to understand your perspective better.

EDIT: Removed my problems with an aggressive neighbour, perhaps I'll do a "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Neighbour" or "Boys and Girls in the Neighbourhood" topic at some time.

"Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours
With a little understanding, you can find the perfect blend
Neighbours, should be there for one another
That's when good neighbours become good friends" (from an Australian TV show called Neighbours).

"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge" (Bertrand Russell).


Edited by Logan - July 21 2018 at 09:00

^ Agree.

And...

Zealotry can be found operating under various ideological/ political guises.

The illiberal "Liberal" and the illiberal "Conservative" may have different agenda, but they often operate much the same way. They may have totally different backgrounds, but I think that their brains are wired in similar ways. Both are intolerant and dogmatic, are unopen to reason and differing perspectives, and often try to force their agenda. They lack nuance. I'm wary of fanatics of any stripe.

We need to root out the illiberal wherever, whatever, and whomever they may be, and utterly obliterate them. ;)

"Reality is a dirty word for me, I know it isn't for most people, but I am not interested. There's too much of it about" (Ken Russell).

"The secret to happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible" (Bertrand Russell).

Sorry triple-posting:

"If liberal is a dirty word to you, why? How do you define the term (it has various connotations, both regional and historical, as well as depending on the discipline), and what associations do you draw from it?"

This is a question I have asked many times of people, including people who use the term libtard, but I almost never got a coherent reply or any response (I can think of one person who had used it in a pejorative sense whom I had a truly enjoyable, thoughtful and enlightening online discussion with where I felt we both got to understand and appreciate each others perspectives, and that changed mine). Those who "liberally" resort to denigration aren't generally interested in engaging in a conversation at all, let alone an open and honest one which may expose one's own vulnerabilities (often trollish behavior). Speaking of vulnerabilities, too often people pounce on those in the hopes of scoring points, which again is not conducive to having a thoughtful discussion and shifting your "opponents" perceptions.   The intent more often is to appeal to one's tribe (or for purely selfish reasons of vanity) rather than helping that person to gain new insight, or just in sharing a different perspective.   It's hard talking to agenda-driven people who are intractable, and one will not reach what is for me the sweet spot of much dialectic communication (the synthesis of ideas).

And on another note: What is it that appeals most to people in terms of conservative values/ thinking, or in orthodoxy generally? I think such an outlook of orthodoxy is comforting; its rather playing things safe according to what you think you know, or what you might say you know you know even if you can't objectively know that thing. Change, and even new ideas, can be scary and disconcerting, pondering ideas can lead to cognitive dissonance and alienation, and of course change is not always desirable in many ways.

I do consider myself quite conservative in various ways, though I don't politically identify as conservative -- if our conservative government had favoured the conservation of the environment, and didn't go against most scientists on issues such as climate change, then I would have been tempted to vote for them before as there are issues that I would align with many conservatives, or classic liberals, on than with so-called progressives. I think many progressives are hurting the cause for true liberalism, but then I don't see such people as truly liberal.

Most of the conservatives I know tend to be very religious (mostly born again Christians), and being non-religious, that has also been an alienating factor for me. I get why they feel that the Conservatives will better defend and perpetuate their so-called Christian values (my wife who was in the Pentecostal Church once heard a preacher claim that Jesus was a conservative, whereas I had thought of him as a reformer). And I get why some people want to preserve the status quo (especially those in power as they want to maintain power). I understand and feel fear of change, and change, while ultimately inevitable, can be for the worse. If it's life worth living, would I want to risk losing my way of life and go well outside my comfort zone even if said change is good for many others? I want to conserve my neighborhood which has been changing fast due to development, monster houses, condos, and many new people moving in (often with very big, multi-generational households). I moved here some years ago because I liked it the way it was, but my house value has gone up considerably because of it. If my parents had managed to wait a few years, the house they sold for something over 600,000 dollars went up to three million -- the price had held steady for very many years (I paid more for my house some years later than they sold their for in a much inferior neighborhood far from the sea and mountains that I love so much, wish I had bought theirs). I wish I could afford to live in the neighborhood that I grew up in. I only stay where I now live because of my kids' schools. I don't even really like the idea of private property and resisted buying for many years, but I also don't like renting.   Well, I was hoping not to stay in Canada. I have a British, Australian and Canadian passport and I most enjoyed living in Japan. The kids, as well as my marriage, made going other places more challenging. Still hope to move to New Zealand one day, but it probably won't happen now (and housing prices have gone up so much there). Yeah, changes, some good, some bad....

I don't like the change -- I lost the privacy that my plot afforded as a monster house was erected behind it (which has effected the salability of my house). So we do have many people in the neighborhood who are calling to preserve our neighborhood, and some of those have become very anti-immigration as it has brought about cultural changes (the place looks and feels different, sounds different, and can even smell different). The signs of religiosity are much more common, especially in a neighborhood near mine which has seen a dramatic shift in terms of population. I like living in a multi-cultural neighborhood, but when one culture is seen to take over, that can lead to resentment, culturalism and even racism. My wife is of a different ethnicity to me, and I did want an ethnically diverse neighborhood (good for cuisine choice and I thought it might be better for my kids). I am just trying to illustrate the point that types of conservatism are understandable to me and a progressive agenda (as I hear it here from some) does not always align with what I want (that can be very selfish, but I think more and more people are feeling marginalised and its such fears that can in part lead to the rise of people like Trump). Xenophobia (fear of the other) seems to have evolutionary reasons, and tribalism seems to be getting more prevalent (it was always there, it just wasn't always talked about so much). Many people feel like their way of life is threatened, but that's often exaggerated for political ends, and their lives often weren't as good as they should or could have been to begin with.

There are many people who identify as Conservative that I admire (Some also call themselves classic liberals), and quite a few of those are atheists (hard or soft atheism). It really depends upon what issue I'm interested in, and I generally am more interested in individual ideas than over-all affiliations (though the affiliations and ideological slants are important to gain a better understanding of that person and their views). To understand a person's ideology and their general perspective on things and political motivations, their hopes, their fears, its good to gain more personal insight into that persons background, their psychological state, where they are, and where they want to go. Which is, of course, all too obvious. Too often I see vilification and denigration of "the other" and black and white thinking on all manner of issues when there is usually a grey area open to discussion and shifts in attitudes. The personal is political....

Lots of edits later: perhaps this will become my [not so] Deep Thinking blog for my general ramblings. It doesn't matter if I don't have an audience other than myself even if I prefer conversation with people other than myself (heck, other people prefer conversation with people other than myself too, so I'm in good company). ;)

Edited by Logan - February 09 2019 at 13:30

While I enjoy the process of such writing, when I actually put such ramblings out for the public I do feel somewhat apprehensive. I worry that I will receive this or or or or from someone. But that has all been balanced out by your generous use of clappies over the years. (it's a manly hug, I assure you, just imagine that it's coming from Sean Connery in a red loincloth and thigh-high boots).



I do enjoy reading the thoughts, and especially the experiences, of many others, including yourself. There are various truly deep people who post with substance in the politics threads (that's where most of the best discussion and debate happens these days at the forum).

Ooooooh, I just discovered this, will have some reading to do this afternoon. Love this kind of stuff. 

Logan wrote: micky wrote: ...A great book btw. Highly recommended though the chapter about the Satanist Redheaded sexfreak with mad skills tossing pots... As long as she's not madly tossing out Russell's teapots, I'd be game. Sorry, I couldn't resist as this teapot analogy may be what most people know Russell for. Bertrand Russell wrote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

Snicolette wrote: Can't help but wonder if that stirred up a tempest about a teapot.

Very nice.

While he wrote that as an article for Illustrated Magazine in 1952, it wasn't published, and so it didn't get the immediate audience (Russell elaborated more on it later). They almost say a watched teapot never boils, and this wasn't watched at first, draw from that what you will, in space, assuming that the teapot had liquid if it popped into existence there (or however it got there), the lack of pressure would mean instant boiling. Richard Dawkins (the evolutionary biologist) popularised it with many, but there is a Canterbury Prog connection. Daevid Allen of Gong referenced it more than once, and Gong's Flying Teapot is a reference to Russell's teapot.

Edited by Logan - February 10 2019 at 15:29