Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Puffin liberals and conservatives by ACEnBEAKY Puffin liberals and conservatives by ACEnBEAKY
Add a Comment:
 
Hidden by Owner
:iconacenbeaky:
ACEnBEAKY Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2017
How can there be no "left or right" if everyone was conservative to the bone? Even if the only arm I have is a right arm, that doesn't mean the concept of a left arm doesn't exist. 
Also, you have to consider, left and right according to the times. The definitions can change over time. I'm sure some of what people would consider liberals in the 30s would sound like conservatives today. 
And it doesn't mean literally like "Oh look, ancient Greece or Israel. These guys are republicans. These guys are democrats." It's not necessarily about groups as it is personalities and lines of thought/attitude/philosophies that go with them. 
Reply
:iconacenbeaky:
ACEnBEAKY Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2017
I wouldn't call all the greek philosophers for their time conservative to the bone. By our standards everything in the past is conservative to bone. But for their time? I would argue that some of the greek philosophers were thinking outside the box. Now whether it's left or right and what it looks like today's standards? We'd have to get real specific. I was talking in general. 
To me the left seems to have the personality that is young and female and the right seems the opposite. It's not an insult, I'm just noticing patterns in 2 ways of thinking that often manifest alongside certain sociopolitical orientations. 
Like in my philosophy class, they were talking about the philosophers speaking to each other in the Symposium (I'm sure the gayness that the greeks were into weren't conservative by today's standards, at least), and my professor made a claim that, compared to the other philosophers, the one who was basically filling in the role of the conservative of the group was basically sending the warning "Now remember, don't piss off the gods, they will fuck you up. They split us into male and female from our primeval forms. IF we mess up again they'll split us in half, hopping around on one leg with one eye and arm." I'm paraphrasing, naturally. 
Reply
Hidden by Owner
:iconacenbeaky:
ACEnBEAKY Featured By Owner Edited Mar 11, 2017
All right. You're beginning to get on my nerves and dancing around my points just to be condescending. You're really sounding like those "bad teachers" you're talking about, to be quite honest. 
I've got just as much reason to be doubtful towards people like you, and I came up with these connections on my own. I didn't say they were final. I just threw out a possible connection. 
I don't mind your original statement but that last paragraph just reeked of some kind of high and mighty thinking that, ironically, you might be telling me to avoid while you do it.
Blind faith? Whatever, dog. The way you talk makes you sound real conceited and full of it. Fuck off. 
(cuz the greeks wanting to be gay all the time was super conservative. Whatever, you yourself admit that I wasn't even wrong. I think you're just one of those fucks who looks for some flaw in a THEORY, again I repeat a THEORY just so you can waltz around and feel so smart. My teachers didn't sit me down and talk this way to me. Hell, some argued against me.)

Hey, people reading the comments: This guy is a mother fucking fascist. Either he's serious or he's a damn troll. My college isn't super liberal, it's moderate by most standards, but this guy seems to be somebody with a mind that might be working fast, but is poisoned. I don't even know why I allowed this shit to piss me off when the nigga has swastikas on his fucking DA page. Sheez. I maybe anti Zionist but I"m not a Nazi. Holy fuck, trying to talk to me about being brainwashed, that was too easy. Blocked with no shame on my part. 
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2017
Do elaborate how the OT, NT and greek philosophers "warned" us of political movements that would not exist for thousands of years yet.
Reply
:iconacenbeaky:
ACEnBEAKY Featured By Owner Edited Mar 10, 2017
You're being too literal. 
Also it's been a while.
It's about the personalities that tend to manifest themselves throughout history. This current incarnation can vaguely be called left vs. right. Although they didn't have or know about democrats and republicans, they did have people whose mentality seemed to be the ancient equivalent for, vaguely, conservative and liberal lines of thought (different for their time, but there's some parallels to be made). 

They warned us of mentalities that we see exemplified in political orientations, especially with a lot of the recent identity politics. You'll notice a lot of similarities between ancient groups, as exemplified by various philosophers. For example, when you listen to one philosopher, he almost sounds like the "conservative" of the group in outlook on life, and yet another would sound like the liberal of the group. 

As far as New Testament goes, different churches. There was a divide between some churches as one kind of church focused on forgiveness, acceptance, and progress and cut themselves way to much slack. The other was strict and traditional but to the point of being bigoted. I'll post an OT verse that helped inspire this meme in answer to someone else's comment (see below). 
It's been a while since I had a few of these philosophy classes. I made this when some of the lessons were fresher on my mind. It would be kind of hard to try and go back and remember every little detail now. Once I wrote it I got it off of my mind and have slowly forgotten the details over time, because I went on with life. Sorry. 
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2017
It's a pretty direct statement. Taking it literally seems pretty fair. 

"Left" and "right" are specific ideologies. It'd be more accurate to say "progressive" and "conservative", as those two are a lot more relative.

How exactly were we warned? I'm genuinely curious here. At what point did greek philosophers/biblical figures warn us about this? What you describe is regular human tribalism, ever-present in every human society across all of human history.

But the differing churches aren't in the bible, they exist past and outside of it. 
Reply
:iconacenbeaky:
ACEnBEAKY Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2017
Ok. That's a better way of putting it. Progressive vs conservative, thank you. That is a more accurate way to say it, as I guess I looked at those terms interchangeably. 
I already gave you loose examples of how some churches were too lenient and some were too steeped in the past or too strict. That's the first step towards what I mean't. You can see these examples in the differing criticisms in the letters by Paul and Peter. Those are the differing churches I'm talking about. 
I'm drawing from some stuff I haven't read in a long time. Some of it was from a college level bible I read in Highschool (a while back), and some of it was from some philosophy lessons I've had in the past few years. 
Those differing opinions on how much to hold on to progress or tradition can be seen in the differing churches who had letters written to them in the NT, and in a different way, the Greek philosophers also had their progs and cons, but of course different culture and all that. Still lots of parallels. 
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2017
They overlap massively of course, but there are more progressively minded rightists (libertarians, for example, are chiefly right wing economically but not socially), and conservatively minded lefties as well.

I'm not really sure how that is a "warning", though. At most it's a typical example of a religious schism, or the potential for one at least.

What I take issue with, I suppose, is how the phrasing seems to imply that both are disadvantageous. This is simply not the case- any one society that becomes more liberally minded, more progressive, has always opened up more opportunities and freedoms for its people, whereas conservatism has always restricted and limited it. If you argue from the point of view that increased freedom, innovation and knowledge is a good thing, then progressivism is objectively the superior movement.
Reply
:iconacenbeaky:
ACEnBEAKY Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2017
Mmmmmm....Fair enough. :)
I actually like most of this comment. 
Just to explain the part where I talked about "both being disadvantageous", it's more about people's nature with said progressive vs conservative. Both have points and both have a way of screwing it up. So you can't completely take one side even if said side you're on should by all means be the right side, because of human nature. On paper you can be on the side of progress as you described near the end of your comment, but know that humans will screw things up so even if you have personal beliefs, the human aspect will always mean that you can't just up and declare 100% intellectual loyalty to one side. 
So even if I was similar to you politically on paper, I would still be wary of how humanity would screw it up in the long run. 
Although the religious schism is a valid point you made, to me personally there's more to it. It's basically identity politics, but not just in actual politics. Social situations in general. 
Basically when it comes to personality and how that might reflect in society and politics, how basically the masculine/senoirity based side of society and feminine/youth based side of society can screw things up in their own way. And my generalization is that what is right and wrong with the left is what is stereotypically right and wrong with unbalanced feminine thinking and what is wrong with the right (and again, this can also be social and personality based even if it's not political) is what's wrong with unbalanced masculine thinking. No I haven't fully developed the ins and outs of that theory, this is just me thinking out loud and trying to put things together. 
I like your comments in comparison to some others, even if a couple of things I disagreed with or made made me realize I made a mistake. 
But even though you make an excellent last comment, my philosophy is still going to be to "stray neither to the left, nor the right." That doesn't mean you can't lean one way, or another, or both as the situation calls for it. But STRAYING, well I guess we all have to personally decide what for ourselves is merely leaning and what is actually straying. 
Thanks for your commentary. I hope you have a good one.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2017
Even so, I think "stray neither left nor right" is illogical in itself; still a false equivalence. There's certainly merit in not straying far left or far right (the most successful forms of governments tend to be moderate in their beliefs) but even so, there are two problems with this line of thinking:
a) Purely centrist political philosophy has no goal, no aim, no reason for being. The most such a regime could be expected to do is endlessly maintain the status quo. You need a political philosophy to fuel your movement, whether it be conservative, progressive, left or right, libertarian or authoritarian, or it might as well not exist at all.
b) It's very, very obvious that societies that favour progressive policy- education, health care, acceptance and tolerance, religious freedom, liberty- are more prosperous, more free and generally better to live in compared to countries that are conservative. Find me any social movement that has improved life for the people- like worker's rights, women's rights, civil rights, LGBT rights- and you will find conservatives have resisted it kicking and screaming. 
In short, your point is understandable but flawed in its premise. You can't stay away from leaning one way or another politically as a society, because then there are no values that inform how you act as a governing body. To me, leaning centre progressive makes for a prosperous and workable society.

Can either side screw up, can either side make things worse? Does either side have flaws? Yes! But to imply they are both equally as wrong is simply inaccurate.

Now, as you freely admit that the "unbalanced" thinking, feminine and masculine, are stereotypes... what worth do they have in a serious discussion? 
Reply
:iconkasaibou:
kasaibou Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2017
Any verses?
Reply
:iconacenbeaky:
ACEnBEAKY Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2017
To start with, this is one verse that gave me the idea. I particularly like the Douay-Rheims Bible take on it for the purpose of this. 

Decline not to the right hand, nor to the left: turn away thy foot from evil. For the Lord knoweth the ways that are on the right hand: but those are perverse which are on the left hand. But he will make thy courses straight, he will bring forward thy ways in peace. 

Someone made the comment that "the right hand" was a way that "God knew" (a way based on what was righteous) but could lead to being overly rigid and superstitious, if not fanatical. The left way can be a perversion of what is right, even if it means well. 
As just a casual observation by someone who's not nearly as religious as he used to be, I noticed a reflection in several NT books criticizing churches for going "too right" and "too left." Those on the right over did it on obedience to the letter and those on the left over did it on the positive aspects, not remembering to avoid certain things. 
This emphasis on choosing the "middle path" in Buddhism also reminded me of this. As did the many Greek Philosophers having discussions and eventually coming to an inconclusive theory about what balanced path would make "the good life." 
There's also a verse in the OT somewhere about not being over righteous or over wicked, but I don't know if I would lean heavily on that for this example. 


biblehub.com/proverbs/4-27.htm
Reply
:iconhamish-mitty:
Hamish-Mitty Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2016  Hobbyist Writer
As a totally politically neutral person with a great distaste for both the right and left wings, I agree. :P
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
October 30, 2016
Image Size
388 KB
Resolution
620×465
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
475 (3 today)
Favourites
15 (who?)
Comments
16
×