Well an interesting essay. You go from Camus, to Burke, to Thatcher, to Aristotle. All over the place. I was happy to see the reference to Burke, and his critique of the French Revolution. You neglect to point out, however, his support of the other revolution - the American Revolution.

In short he sees the embrace of reason over convention and tradition as dangerous, and that is why he sees the American Revolution, as at least justified. His is an early critique of the enlightenment, and with it an alternative explanation of the American experiment.

You go on to talk of Thatcher and individuals. She is typically described as a conservative, but she is actualy a libertarian, isn't she? She is not, however, with Camus, I don't think. Life is not absurd for her. She does not grasp the alienation of such a life. She is much more a stoic perhaps.

And then you introduce essence. It is an Aristotelian term. It is a term embraced by scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas. Was Burke embracing such? I do not know. I would suggest not. Tradition and convention, social norms are not essences. They are not immutable. Rather, they are habits.

Conservatism does not prevent change, it explains why change is hard. It is also a warning that reason, science, though often offering truth, must be considered. It must be examined, digested, broken down and incorporated into the system to be fully understood. If that is possible.