> On Nov 25, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > So, if Peirce wrote things about democracy, was opposed to female suffrage, > and thought that a community should be ruled by an authoritative government, > then I think that this is not relevant. He was out on a limb then, I > presumptuously guess.
One should note that the Burkean style of conservative was opposed to suffrage. It then quickly embraced it once it became clear (especially in the UK) that women actually shared their views on most matters. While again I’m not sure of Peirce’s views here, his critical common sensism clearly shows some influence from the broad contours of Burkeanism and its concern for tradition. A way of viewing this is that this style of conservatism requires a burden of proof to be met for significant change. (I’d say radical, but that’s perhaps too strong given the tendency to fear radical change and fight against it) In a certain way the level of democratic consensus necessary for these changes is a way of meeting that burden. Thus the small c conservatives would oppose change precisely in order in a community level for this burden to be met. Once met and it didn’t show significant practical problems then these types of Burkeans would consider it part of their tradition and become strong defenders. This method seems very alien and confusing but is a significant part of conservatism in both the American and British traditions. As I said I strongly suspect that’s where Peirce is.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
