Hamvas’ focus on metaphysical questions in the field of philosophy did not simply stem from his belief in God or his religious predisposition, but rather from this critical attitude towards modern natural science, from a ‘scepticism against scepticism.’

It takes courage to see which situations and expectations the conservative should reject. And it takes courage to say ‘no’. The dilemma of when courage is appropriate and when moderation is needed is not logically insolvable. In the words of Winston Churchill: ‘It is better to be both right and consistent. But if you have to choose—you must choose to be right.’

Oakshott’s individualism differed from the individualism of liberalism, which rejects traditions. Oakeshott assumed that individuality can only be created in some context, and that freedom can only be enjoyed in order. It is not the acceptance of authority, but the absolutization of reason that destroys individuality, as he explained in his preface to Hobbes’s Leviathan.

‘If a society is exhausted in immanence, if people are not aware of the finitude of their own life, knowledge, and power, and if every goal of the person, the state, and politics is directed towards material interests, then the state will be exactly that Civitas Terrena, which is also Civitas Diaboli. Everything is justified by the stronger interest (Hobbes), pragmatism and secular science serve the immanent power goals of the great Leviathan, while real wisdom, taste, and arts, that make life pleasant (or just bearable) start to decline, wither, dissolve into a gigantically increased bureaucracy called the state.’

Hyper-democracy is already here, it will grow stronger, and we are only starting to understand its profound effects. Some of them will be detrimental, others will open up new opportunities. This might appear overwhelming and unprecedented to some, but in truth, that was the case with all great technological or political upheavals…

The lack of humility, modesty, the lack of deference to one’s superiors, the lack of discipline and respect are the main causes of most of the political and sociological problems of modernity. After all, according to the blind believers of progress, sailing never ends. However, according to conservatives, there is no such thing as an island of Utopia. Their problem in politics is not the search for an island that doesn’t exist, but: ‘[h]ow to get the disgruntled crew to help keep the ship of the state afloat, to keep it from capsizing and being shipwrecked?’

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the work is that its author is brave enough to challenge completely the established thinking and vision that takes historical progress and the associated rise of liberalism for granted.

The first part of this article concerned itself with Burke’s general notions related to democracy. This part explores how he addressed the topic in his pamphlet on the French Revolution.

Edmund Burke is widely revered in conservative circles. However, due to the taboos of modern politics, his views on democracy are seldom debated.

‘With in vitro fertilisation, conception takes place outside the mother’s body, rendering the natural conjugal act between husband and wife in itself as alien to the institution of the family. Man and woman no longer come together as one, but are rather utilised in the creation of human embryos…This not only harms that unitive act of marriage between husband and wife, but it reduces the child to a mere group of cells.’

In contemporary Catholic social teaching, like Slachta’s reasoning, women are essentially other than men, and this otherness is articulated in the papal encyclicals in relation to women’s role in the family. In contrast, the Catholic nun’s view of the female otherness goes beyond this approach. Although she also emphasises the dignity of the female gender, for her, feminine otherness is the underlying motif of her thinking.

‘The disappearance of the aesthetical representation of power from politics parallels the egalitarian rhetoric of the rationalists. The representatives of power often emphasise today the ‘non-existence of differences’ with their own clothing and behaviour, although anyone who is not completely naïve knows in their heart—or at least from Aristotle—that the real differences can never be eradicated between the governor and the governed.’

Standing on the ground of inexorable social progress, Prohászka views social transformation positively, and even despite his harsh criticism of socialism, he acknowledges its necessity. After all, social democracy serves to achieve social progress that ‘excludes the phraseology of delusive emotions and disturbing social passions,’[vi] which is otherwise so problematic in revolutionary change.

As Kecskés frequently highlights, the source and the end for human beings is God. This is the basis on which every Christian social theory should rest.

According to the most fundamental concept of the Holy Crown doctrine, everyone who has political rights in the territory of the country is a member of the crown, a part of its ‘body’.

Given the resurgence of the concept of central planning, it is vital to recall that even 20th century scholars recognised the profound flaws inherent in such a techno-optimistic approach. One of the intellectuals opposing this mindset was Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian British polymath, whose ingenuity brought about important discoveries in physical chemistry, philosophy and economics.

Although we clearly cannot consider László Németh a conservative thinker in the ‘classical’ sense, we can still regard him as an interesting writer. He is worthy of our attention especially with regard to his critique of technocracy. In fact, he expressed valuable insights regarding the dominance of technical rationality, but also in many areas of culture, therefore his works can serve as valuable food for thought for conservatives who are willing to expand their horizons in new directions.

Human inventions such as contraception that ‘simplified the process’ of accessing sexual pleasures, had the ultimate side effect of devaluing romantic love, as what used to make it precious was the difficulty of overcoming the cultural and societal barriers of attaining the subject of one’s admiration, Stanislaw Lem argued.

There is a myth, to be dispelled, that the Romans were always cruel conquerors. In truth, those who lived under the rule of the Caesars had plenty autonomy, be it in the public or private sector of society. It was that rationality and pragmatism of Roman law, which regulated regulated the lives of the conquered peoples, that structured Western culture as  is evident from a host of historical, cultural, political, and societal elements.

Innovation is both a fundamental human activity, and a fundamentally human activity. It is fundamental, insofar as we are compelled by the need to innovate—a need that expresses itself in various ways.

The more cognition advances, the more challenging it is to create a unified approach to our knowledge. This is the trap of transparency, our crystal palace is therefore a dangerous structure. Information society and the endlessly expanding scientific discourse tendentially become a barrier to knowledge—just as the traffic itself in our cities obstructs the traffic.

A new populism is appearing, based on real participatory federalism oriented towards tradition and community, with the Nomos being grounded in the ethnic divisions of states and regions.

Hungarian policymakers not only consciously reject the idea that history did and can end, but also do not pretend that the final chapter of Ukraine’s or Europe’s war-torn history can be ‘closed’ once and for all.

This article will present the reader with a basic understanding of the tragic but triumphant life of Whittaker Chambers, the man whose dramatic, twelve-word encounter with God and subsequent heroic exploits became the inspiration for a new generation of conservatives, like Ronald Reagan.

As long as people are conditioned to become consumers by advertising applied on an industrial scale, and as long as material comfort and interest are above all else, the environmental crisis will not be solved satisfactorily and especially not with more technology.

‘Bangha considered “social redistribution and governmental intervention to be appropriate tools”. These tools, according to Bangha, create the possibility to eliminate the imbalances that—as he puts it—are caused by mega-wealth concentrated in a few hands. In turn, these measures are embedded in a larger social reform, meaning the reformation of public life based on the Christian spirit and the re-elevation of Christianity to the status of the state’s main principle.’

As philosophical materialism and the resulting transhumanism are atheistic systems of thought, it is extremely important for Harari—as it is for Dawkins—to deny the idea of God. Just as Richard Dawkins replaces a transcendent creator with the theory of evolution, so does Harari use evolution as a justification for the theory of transhumanism.

The seeds of Hungarian humanism were sown by Matthias Corvinus, which helped the Jagiellonian kings pave the way to embedding humanism into Hungarian culture.

The distinguished speakers all stressed how important they believe it is to have the global centre of political philosophy moved from the US to Europe, where it originates from.

Physiocracy played only an episodic role in modern economic political thinking and, therefore, so did the perspective that linked the economy’s performance and ability to produce value to nature.