This statement reminded me about Kurt Godel's work. Kurt Godel was a philosopher and a mathematician. And his seminal work was the mathematical proof that no logical system can be self-consistent. In other words, life is never black and white; there are always shades of gray, and this grayness ends up dominating everything. Mathematicians called it probability (and later refined some of the concepts to formulate theories on chaos and bifurcation); physicists termed it uncertainty. History today regards Einstein as the last of classical physicists who agreed with the Newtonian view of a deterministic universe that espoused the "is or is not" view. Post Einstein, the learned men of science and philosophy accepted grayness as an inevitable part of the universe we live in.
Conservatism preserves age old (moral) values and traditions. This is something important, and not to be taken lightly. It is required in this society. This does not however mean that ALL age old values are good.
Liberalism challenges age old values. In the eyes of a number of people, it shows a path to the progress. But, as many say, too much "liberalism" can destroy the social fabric. This does not mean that none of the age old values should be challenged. If that was the case, scientists would be unheard of and the priests would be ruling the world with the people accepting the "fact" that sun moves around the earth, which happens to be flat.
Evolution somehow seems to follow the laws of thermodynamics - the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This states that a natural process drives any system towards greater disorder, or higher entropy. This is what liberalism tends to do. It is inevitable. Not necessarily good, just inevitable. Conservative and liberal forces act counter to each other. Conservatives hold on to values, while liberals try to demolish them. In an ideal world, there would be a fruitful equilibrium, where the conservatives will protect the "good values" (honesty, fidelity, etc) while the liberals will destroy the "rotten" ones (eg: child marriage, violence against women, etc). Together, conservatism and liberalism are like the proverbial yin and yang. They exist together and lose their meaning in absence of the other.
There is a twist to the tale though. Each generation, by and large, have their own perceptions as to what is good and what is bad. And each generation think that they are right. As a consequence, the society evolves, seemingly leading towards greater chaos.
If a person were to be too judgmental, he would be in soup. For, to make a judgment, he would need a framework; a framework of rules that makes sense. Alas for the judgmental being, Godel shows that such logical systems can’t be self-consistent. Holes can be picked in his logic, and the more he tries to reason his judgment, the more he will end up tying himself in knots. It is a formidable challenge. How should this be overcome? In a world that is in a constant flux of change, what is "right" and what is "wrong"? How should we counter these challenges?
It is a tough question indeed, and one that seers and philosophers have struggled to answer (though many would claim to have found to the answer, only to be contradicted by another school of thought). There is an old saying that goes as "Aap bhala so jag bhala". "If you are good, all's well". At the heart of this statement is the idea that one should look inwards and control their action to the extent that they are at peace with themselves, rather than end up judging others. Paradoxical as it sounds, again draws the person outwards, because inevitably, their introspection leads them to ponder on their relation with others. This is tautological in nature. But it at least has the saving grace of not needing to be unduly being harsh on others. And self-introspection would have the benefit of helping one articulate their principles better to themselves. Not perfect their principles, Godel prohibits this, but refine and articulate them better.
Articulate them better, but to what end? As the generation changes, perceptions change again. Principles that are dear to me might now be redundant to the next generation. And they would have to find out their own solution to a degree of approximation (uncertainty) that is acceptable to them / best they could do.
Find out their own solution. May be that is the key after all. One can go through the philosophical body of work compiled by the great men over the ages, with each man contributing his thoughts and work in the context of his own time. But the context changes with generation. Therefore while one's thoughts could be influenced by those gone before him, they will ultimately need to be put in their own context; and this might just result in a slightly different school of thought, replete with its own context.
So what did this exercise show me? Nothing, save the fact that making judgment calls on others might be fool-hardy, because the fine line that depicts the ideal balance between conservatism and liberalism, between the yin and yang is a deeply personal definition, one that is apt to change from person to person. You never really make it, because you can never justify yourself logically. You never really deviate completely, because you will never be able to fault yourself completely. That is the nature of this universe. We plough through a quagmire which has hypothetical borders, but nor practical ones. At each instance, we make choices that are deeply personal rather than universal, depending on which region of the quagmire we are walking through. The more elegant and universality we try for, the greater the gamut of issues we struggle with and greater is the sense of helplessness that engulfs us. The fine-print, in some cases, may be easier to view than to get the big picture and handle it. To this person, one step at a time, introspection and refining of one's own principles and thoughts seem to be the way out. This at least allows for the fact that we exist in a flux that is constantly changing.
