空

Japanese and Koreans invaded Asia. We apologize.

隠蔽しておけば信頼される、ってのはおかしい、と。

2019年05月08日 17時52分33秒 | Weblog





岡口 基一
昨日 17:08
·
[裁判官だって性欲もあれば様々な性的嗜好・志向もあるし、生理現象もある。そういう現実を目の当たりにすると砕け散る「司法への信頼」て、本当に信頼してるの？]


そのとおりだな、これは。

「今でも韓国にとって最も恐ろしい存在は日本！」

2019年05月08日 01時49分18秒 | Weblog



天皇制の存在は理不尽　by 反天連 & 男系主義連

2019年05月08日 01時32分20秒 | Weblog







池田 信夫 commented on an article.
8時間前 ·


反論するほどの内容でもないのでここでコメントしておくが、この筆者は私の元記事を理解していない。「DNA」と書いたのは宦官のことだが、彼は宦官の意味を知らないのではないか。天照大神が女系家族の存在を示すことは、山折哲雄氏の著書（これも元記事にリンクを張った）に書かれている。どこの王家にも「合理性」はある。王家が存続するための目的合理性だ。その根拠が神話であってもかまわない。天皇の「男系男子」には、そういう目的合理性さえ欠けているのだ。



伝統に合理的根拠を求める愚かしさ：池田信夫氏の論考を読んで--- 岩井 秀一郎
2019年05月07日 0


池田氏は「合理」という言葉を使う。根本的に、この考え方が間違っているのだ。「合理性」というならば、そもそも世界の皇室（王室）の存在自体、合理的根拠はない。「合理性」を推し進めれば、それは皇室否定にいきつく。「伝統」というものそれ自体に合理的根拠のない場合は多数ある。

しかし、人間を人間たらしめるのは、まさしくその「不合理」に他ならない。「文化」とは不合理なものであり、しかし人間にとって必要なものなのだ。


　保守としては、ちょっと議論が混乱しているんじゃないかな？　

　天皇制の存在は合理的根拠はない、と言ってしまうと、反天連や共産党の人たちと同じ主張で、だから、存在すべきではない、というのがスジ。

　不合理な存在でその存在しているものはどこの社会にもあるだろうが、不合理なものをあえて維持する理由はない。

　保守主義＊というのは、人間が不完全で、不合理・理不尽な側面をもっており、過ちを犯しうることを素直に認めるものだ。
　だからこそ、可能性より現実を、実績のない新しい企画より、歴史の試練に耐え抜いた伝統を、予測しがたい帰結がありえる実験より安定した慣習を重視する傾向をもつ。
　したがって、「壊れていないなら、いじるな」というプラグマティック格言を支持するし、改革するにしても慎重に、ゆっくりと、というわけである。

　人間に理不尽な面があることは、しかし、理不尽な慣習を絶対変えていはいけない、ということではない。

　天皇制は、このままでは、消滅の危機にあり、部分的に更新する必要があるのだ。消滅させずに、維持させる合理的な方法があるのに消滅必定の方式を選択する、というのは理不尽過ぎる。

　それでもいいんだ、人間は理不尽だ、文化も理不尽だ、ソレデイイノダ！というのでは子供がダダをこねているようにしか聞こえないのである。



＊


Ten Conservative Principles
by Russell Kirk


Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.



Edmund Burke (1729−1797)

Burke belongs in the counter-enlightenment school of thought. Burke rejected the Enlightenment view that humans are rational entities. Instead, Burke claimed we are both imperfect and imperfectible. Any attempt to create a system based upon the perfectibility of man is thereby contrary to our innate character.

Burke’s critique of the French revolution centres primarily upon its flawed attempt to create a utopian society based upon the slogans of ‘liberty, fraternity and equality.’ This is to ignore the social bonds that keep us together, and marks an attempt to replace the accumulated wisdom of previous generations with abstractions.


Unlike other social contract theorists such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes; Burke believed that “society is but a contract between the dead, the living and those yet to be born.” We must therefore construct civilisation by giving weight to our ancestors, ourselves and those still to be born. Burke’s notion of an eternal society beautifully encapsulates the Tory view that the present should not be arrogant enough to believe they know what is best. For a true conservative; society needs to reflect the past, consider the present and meet the needs of future generations.





Conservatism



Burke argued that “a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation”. But change must be cautious, because knowledge is imperfect and consequences can be unintended. According to conservatives, institutions and morals evolve, their weaknesses become apparent and obvious political abuses are corrected; but ancient institutions embody a tacit wisdom that deserves respect. Conservatives are sceptical of large-scale constitutional, economic or cultural planning, because behaviour and institutions have evolved through the wisdom of generations, which cannot easily be articulated.




Conservatism has been equated with pragmatism or political realism; Gamble (2012) argues that conservative political “thought” is all practice—self-interested practice. But conservatism is generally regarded as a philosophy, if not a systematic one. Two contrasting interpretations of conservatism distinguish it from mere pragmatism. Both reject a priori reasoning, revolution and social experiments; both trust experience, look for gradual improvement of tried and tested arrangements, and sympathise with the pragmatist’s motto “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”; both are sceptical of reason, and are particularist:




In opposing rationalist planning, Oakeshott argues that the conservative disposition is not “connected with any particular beliefs…about the world in general or about the human condition”, nor “with moral right and wrong, it is not designed to make men good or even better…” (Ashford 1990: 43). He follows the logic of conservative pessimism, preferring “familiarity over perfection, the tried over the untried, and the actual over the possible”; “stability is more profitable than improvement…agreed error is superior to controversial truth” (Oakeshott 1991: 169–170).



Conservatives do not believe any general purpose for government can be given, beyond “keeping the enterprise afloat”—not the substantive purpose of an enterprise association. Rather, “keeping afloat” is the thin commonality of purpose that characterises a civil association.



批判

In the case of public institutions, Mr. Burke had…worked himself into an artificial admiration of the bare fact of existence; especially ancient existence. Everything was to be protected, not because it was good, but, because it existed. Evil, to render itself an object of reverence in his eye, required only to be realised. (James Mill 1858: Vol. V, 200–1)




As O’Hear (1998) comments, those who see society riddled with defects are impatient with conservative resistance to change; for them, the conservative emphasis on human ignorance and traditional wisdom is an evasion at best.



Marxists reject Burke’s inference that since all social processes and institutions are interconnected, change must be cautious; they conclude instead that to change anything we must change everything.


Conservatism seems unduly pessimistic about the possibility of individual, explicit knowledge of society, therefore. There are some things about society that we can come to know—and government economic policy, for instance, seems justifiably dedicated to finding them out. Conservatives must concede that radical change is sometimes acceptable; some major changes, for instance votes for women, are good. These must be prepared for—as they were in Britain in 1918, compared with, say, 1832—and preparing for change makes it less radical. What conservatives will insist is it that revolutionary change is unacceptable.







韓国の論理力

2019年05月08日 00時59分18秒 | Weblog












こういう韓国を馬鹿にした発言は韓国ヘイトにカウントされないの？