SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:11:12 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1382 bytes) , text/html (2065 bytes)
One need not be an intellectual to hold to a philosophy based on social  
ontology.  Nor does one need even to know what that is!
 
Do you really believe that, to the Progressive, "individual suffering  
matters"?  Does forced sterilization ameliorate human suffering?   Did Carrie 
Buck suffer less because she was denied the ability to have  children?  As 
such a thing was advocated by some of those Progressive  voices, your depiction 
is grossly inadequate, unless by "human suffering" you  mean the suffering 
of those who must live with people of such presumed mental or  physical 
deficiencies.
 
Your definition of conservatism is confused, perhaps deliberately so,  as 
the conservative most certainly does not think in terms of the "end  of the 
betterment of society," as society has no existence above its  members.  
There can therefore be no "end."  It is the Progressive (who  later co-opted the 
badge of "liberal") who maintains that teleology, that  society, which they 
assert exists independently of its members, has an  end which we must 
strive to advance.  Your definition, therefore,  is patently false.  As to 
cultural elites, they are typically  self-appointed and tend to advocate social 
control to maintain their positions  -- i.e., they tend to Progressivism!
 
What the older Popenoe did is irrelevant, given the period with which  this 
discussion has been concerned.
 
 
CM

ATOM RSS1 RSS2