liberal vs. conservative - analytical definitions versus

[Guest guest]

Giri-nayaka (das) BVS (Ljubljana - SLO) wrote:

 

>>Prabhu, could you provide some references for the definitions?

>>

>>

>

>yes, those were from http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/weebies/weebies1.html.

>

>They seemed simple enough for me to get a basic understanding of what it is

>all about. Although I must admit, tha I didn't understand much as well. All

>this terms like "non-government interventionist approach", "free market",

>"state-socialism" and "state-capitalism" ... its like chinese to me. My

>english is limited to Prabhupada's ISKCON english, meaning quite simple

>english. Besides I'm not academically educated in social sciences.

>

>Maybe somebody can put this definitions in simple to understand language?

>I'd really appreciate that.

>

>ys gnd

>

>

>

I should have been more specific as to what I meant. A definition can

describe something without telling us about how something works. For

example, I can define the president of the united states as a man 5'

10", has a strange hair cut, flies around on Air Force One, lives in the

White House, and makes important decisions that affect America and the

rest of the world. But that won't help me understand how the president

accomplishes these things. That would be a descriptive definition. An

analytical definition on the other hand would tell us about how he gets

elected, his privileges, restrictions, term of office, chain of command,

and so forth. Similarly with terms such as liberal and conservative, as

we might find them in the dictionary, they describe a liberal or

conservative sufficiently enough so that if we talk with one we can

figure out that we are talking with a liberal or a conservative. But

that kind of definition doesn't give us any insight as to why a liberal

or a conservative holds a liberal or conservative set of views. Put

more simply, if we ask, "what is justice?", or "what is peace?", or

"what is transcendence?", a dictionary definition is not going to help

us much.

 

ys KKdas (HDG)

[Guest guest]

> But that kind of definition doesn't give us any insight as to why a

> liberal or a conservative holds a liberal or conservative set of

> views.

 

Usually by association with conservatives one becomes conservative. But

if burned by a conservative(s) one moves to liberal set of views, or

vica versa.

 

In case of devotees most were liberal enough to join, but as a reaction

became conservative, unless retained positive association with liberal

devotees.

[Guest guest]

Caitanya-candrodaya wrote:

 

> > But that kind of definition doesn't give us any insight as to why a

> > liberal or a conservative holds a liberal or conservative set of

> > views.

>

>Usually by association with conservatives one becomes conservative. But

>if burned by a conservative(s) one moves to liberal set of views, or

>vica versa.

>

>In case of devotees most were liberal enough to join, but as a reaction

>became conservative, unless retained positive association with liberal

>devotees.

>

>

>

Or as it is said: A liberal is a conservative who has been wrongly

arrested, and a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.

[Guest guest]

> > But that kind of definition doesn't give us any insight as to why a

> > liberal or a conservative holds a liberal or conservative set of

> > views.

>

> Usually by association with conservatives one becomes conservative. But

> if burned by a conservative(s) one moves to liberal set of views, or

> vica versa.

>

> In case of devotees most were liberal enough to join, but as a reaction

> became conservative, unless retained positive association with liberal

> devotees.

 

So, is any of those more beneficial for suddha bhakti?

 

ys gnd