NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe traditionalism can be rational? Take for example the idea of competition of traditions. If there is the proper environment, then there can be further competition and thus more choice.

Do you believe traditionalism can be rational? Take for example the idea of competition of traditions. If there is the proper environment, then there can be further competition and thus more choice.

Tradition for the sake of tradition is a complete ignorance of rationality.

The fact that there is logical fallacy specifically for tradition speaks volumes.

Tradition for the sake of tradition is a complete ignorance of rationality.

The fact that there is logical fallacy specifically for tradition speaks volumes.
Not necessarily tradition for the sake of tradition, but for a competition of tradition that acknowledges that there is something useful in it in the eyes of society and to that extent it must be respected. (Not made the law, but not to restrict voluntary social orders)

Do you believe traditionalism can be rational? Take for example the idea of competition of traditions. If there is the proper environment, then there can be further competition and thus more choice.
While I'm not sure I fully understand the question, I'm pretty sure my answer is going to be No. Tradition for tradition's sake is not a rational argument, nor a good reason.

On the other hand, people usually have a lot invested in tradition, and often tradition is destroyed so fast that their identies cannot keep up. This happens because the people who are being asked to abandon their traditions are not the ones who decided that the tradition must be abandoned. You have the responsibility to keep an open mind and not fall back on tradition as an argument; on the other hand, you have the right to agree before your traditions are disposed of.

Unless you're living in the past, clinging to an unrealistic picture of how things once were that was never ever true and certainly hasn't been realistic for some time. Then you're just a dinosaur.

While I'm not sure I fully understand the question, I'm pretty sure my answer is going to be No. Tradition for tradition's sake is not a rational argument, nor a good reason.

On the other hand, people usually have a lot invested in tradition, and often tradition is destroyed so fast that their identies cannot keep up. This happens because the people who are being asked to abandon their traditions are not the ones who decided that the tradition must be abandoned. You have the responsibility to keep an open mind and not fall back on tradition as an argument; on the other hand, you have the right to agree before your traditions are disposed of.

Unless you're living in the past, clinging to an unrealistic picture of how things once were that was never ever true and certainly hasn't been realistic for some time. Then you're just a dinosaur.
Sorry, should have given my version of traditionalism.

I subscribe to me own brand. It's not tradition for the sake of tradition, but rather a respect for tradition in that each tradition holds a certain amount of knowledge that may be essential to society or to an individual. When arguing for policy, tradition must be a factor. Tradition is a way to transfer knowledge to the next generation. I must admit that Burke and Hayek have influenced me heavily.

I am asking if that is rational. You could say that I have a disdain for traditional traditionalism.

Not necessarily tradition for the sake of tradition, but for a competition of tradition that acknowledges that there is something useful in it in the eyes of society and to that extent it must be respected. (Not made the law, but not to restrict voluntary social orders)
If power were more dispersed in this world, then traditionalism would not have to be an argument for diversity. Because power is so hegemonic, lifestyles with much to recommend them are forced to seek protection as heritage landmarks or whatever. Similarly, the right to traditional lifeways is enshrined in the constitutions of several South American nations. This is necessary because the livelihoods of indigenous peoples has been all but destroyed by colonialism and capitalism. It is not tradition which must be preserved, but diversity.

Not necessarily tradition for the sake of tradition, but for a competition of tradition that acknowledges that there is something useful in it in the eyes of society and to that extent it must be respected. (Not made the law, but not to restrict voluntary social orders)

The only way you can accurately and rationally judge the merits of tradition is to ignore that it is a tradition.

I am a fan of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" idea, but you can't tell if something is broke based on whether it is traditional.

Sorry, should have given my version of traditionalism.

I subscribe to me own brand. It's not tradition for the sake of tradition, but rather a respect for tradition in that each tradition holds a certain amount of knowledge that may be essential to society or to an individual. When arguing for policy, tradition must be a factor. Tradition is a way to transfer knowledge to the next generation. I must admit that Burke and Hayek have influenced me heavily.

I am asking if that is rational. You could say that I have a disdain for traditional traditionalism.
I see. That's a good question. I'd say that a cultural language which is developed over a long period of time tends to be far richer than a newspeak which is introduced to expidite the consolidation of power by an emerging class. Destruction of tradition in a hegemonic way, either by a Stalin or a Trump, tends to introduce a new language that is far more impoverished than the old, and one has every reason to despise this new language and cherish nostalgia for traditions without harboring an unrealistic hope of reviving them. I have been influenced by Herbert Marcuse; I suggest you pick up One-Dimensional Man.

Well ideas move so fast and our capabilities to destroy are so vast that you could see an argument

There have been wonderful buildings or bits of nature destroyed and replaced with something awful, with full support of the reformers, trendy and new and generally better.

Ten years on they think, feck me, what have we done? And you've lost it forever.

There's a lot of cultural, social and communal investment in tradition though and that's often understated.

Let's take an example:

The old routemaster buses (hop on, hop off) in London have been withdrawn and replaced with newer buses

Pros: new buses are enviromentally sound, cost-efficient and allow for disabled customers.

Cons: tradition

How come there has been such a big outcry then? Well, the buses are part of London's heritage and identity.
Clearly, the benefits of reform are important too, so in this case, tradition should have been given a greater standing and a comprimise of running a certain number of routemasters with more of the newer buses being used.

Tradition doesn't automatically mean something is right, but disregard it at your peril, if something is traditional you should ask yourself why.

Let's take an example:

The old routemaster buses (hop on, hop off) in London have been withdrawn and replaced with newer buses

Pros: new buses are enviromentally sound, cost-efficient and allow for disabled customers.

Cons: tradition

How come there has been such a big outcry then? Well, the buses are part of London's heritage and identity.
Clearly, the benefits of reform are important too, so in this case, tradition should have been given a greater standing and a comprimise of running a certain number of routemasters with more of the newer buses being used.

Tradition doesn't automatically mean something is right, but disregard it at your peril, if something is traditional you should ask yourself why.

Tradition is not a benefit, but there are benefits of tradition, such as familiarity, culture, etc... In a rational measurement of pros and cons, the benefits of tradition are measured seperately from tradition.