aesthetics seems to be the entry drug of conservatism everywhere in the world

doesn’t matter what kind; any kind of primary concern with beauty seems to do the trick

if the first question you ask about anything centers aesthetics, you’ll get more conservative over time, but if any other concern typically tops it you’ll get more liberal over time

lifelong trends in either direction are more interesting than at any given time, or sharp horseshoe jumps, and concern with aesthetics tends to accurately flag that secular tendency early on

‘any other concern’ need not be consistent even for a single person

so long as something other than aesthetics is your primary concern 51% of the time you’ll tend to drift off the natural conservatism vector

it’s a kind of existential distractibility from beauty

this is how all non-conservative philosophies begin

it’s not that I’m uninterested in aesthetics, it’s just that I’m easily distracted from exploration of it, and am not particularly distressed by lack of it

I learned to get along with most conservatives when I figured this out

just recognize when they’re talking about aesthetics in disguised form, and nod along

check back in when they stop

weird conflicts start if you try to engage aesthetic concerns with non-aesthetic frames

This idea seems to be either insultingly obvious, obviously wrong, or some sort of redpill for people

I’d a;ways assumed it’s an idea everybody discovers as a so-honors and then it ages like either wine or vinegar in your head as you age. https://twitter.com/alexqgb/status/1350520998731292672

It’s not intended as bait though I can see why it would seem like it to a certain sensibility. https://twitter.com/sagar__dubey/status/1350539511416164358

I mean something fairly narrow. Just aesthetics as a first-class citizen of cognition (in pathological cases, where it leads to serial killer type behaviors, the *only* first class citizen).

Aesthetics as a *secondary* concern is basically a default human trait. Anyone who claims to be solving for ugliness is either trolling, perversely arguing for a strawman, or hasn’t figured out dissonance as an ordinary element/knob of aesthetics.

Interestingly artists themselves rarely seem to be primarily concerned with aesthetics, let alone the theory of it, at a conscious level. It’s something that falls out of pursuit of some other prime concern, like an idea, theme, emotion, mood etc.

This is a tendency connoisseurs, aesthetes, etc (of any kind, whether of apple pies or wine or paintings or comics) are more likely to exhibit than artists. Many turn into critics or ideologues. But you don’t need to cultivate a refined taste, merely prioritize it in life.

If you’re broaden the definition of “conservative” to anyone invested in traditions with long histories, the claim gets stronger. Eg. the “modern” labor movement is 150 years old. People invested deeply in it tend to be conservative in psychology even if we don’t call them that.

Maybe a less controversial way to say this is people who are primarily concerned with the quality of sensory experiences eventually get invested in some tradition or the other. Tradition becomes their true north in seeking out the quality of sensory experiences they seek.

With high probability, novelty will disrupt quality expectations of sensory experiences. The new tends to be “not even ugly” (by analogy to “not even wrong”).

Novelty is pre-aesthetic. If you’re excited by it, you discard notions of quality and approach it. If not you retreat.

An ongoing conservative project is to either accommodate novelty in a harmoniously expanded understanding of a tradition-linked aesthetic, OR code it as ugly. Both require understanding the tradition more than the novel thing threatening it.

Conservatives are ofyen more courageous than non-conservatives. But they tend to lack a specific narrow variety: The courage to understand the new in its own terms, and perhaps eventually uncovering a latent aesthetic within it that is at odds with their sense of quality

Non-conservatives don’t have this courage either. The difference is, they tend to have nothing to lose, and nothing to fear from understanding the new on its own terms. So they don’t need courage to do so.

Nothing inherently natural about tradition (that’s why there is such a variety) but there IS a link to validated modes of survival.

Mimesis is an easy mode of calibrating a sense of quality but it is by no means the only way or the best way. Tinkering is a better way IMO. https://twitter.com/okohonen/status/1350552856819077120

I used to have a conservative streak when younger, in this aesthetics-first sense, but I never did cultivate a detail-oriented sensitivity to any kind of sensory experience. And if you get lazier as you get older, you realize tighter aesthetic standards = more maintenance chores.

Like say at 20, you and I both like chocolate chip cookies but have only ever had cheap Chips Ahoy commodity cookies. Over 20 years we both sample all kinds, from the finest gourmet ones, to various Grandma recipes etc. How might our cookie sensibilities have diverged by 40?

You, the aesthetics-first person, will likely have developed a deep distaste for Chips Ahoy grade “bad” cookies. You have your fine recipes, and favorite gourmet brand.

Me, despite being exposed to better cookies and developed some discernment, am still fine eating Chips Ahoy.

There’s learning to tell things apart, and learning to *care* about the differences. The non-aesthetics-first person can learn to tell and even perhaps appreciate differences to a degree. But they stop short of learning to care. Cookies are not aesthetics-first for philistines.

If you cannot learn distinctions without *necessarily* going on to care about differences, you’ll tend conservative, and start to censor out novelty where caring might be painful. Be causing learning to care is developing a pain sensitivity in order to live more exquisitely.

I suspect our notional cookie aesthete will experience near-physical pain if forced to eat an ordinary cookie. The non-aesthete might prefer a good cookie, but will not find it painful to eat an ordinary one.

I’m literally this way about cookies while my wife is a cookie conservative. She’ll experiment and fuss and go through agonies about them not coming out right. I’ll happily eat pretty much all her experiment outputs, whether failures or successes. I’m a Cookie Monster.

Right now, I’m working my way through a batch of Ted Lasso cookies, which she attempted to replicate after we both thought they looked good on the show. I think they came out great. She’s not happy with them and is now making a more reliable one she knows she likes.

Cookies for me are not primarily about optimally embodying the essence of cookie aesthetics. They are primarily a functional sugar hit to go with coffee. Anything above a fairly low satisficing baseline will do. I can never be a cookie conservative.

The tldr of this thread so far is that I eat garbage cookies and do not live exquisitely. This is not where I expected this thread to land.

This is the future true liberals want

This is my garbage cookie manifesto.

The universe is like chips ahoy cookies. Kinda dry and with an industrial terroir, but available everywhere, reliably mediocre, and consistently past the bare-minimum viable cookie threshold. When we colonize exoplanets, we will make such cookies across the galaxy.