It is time—past time, really— for a another entry in the Ethics Alarms Rationalization List.
One of the most seductive and simple-minded of rationalizations, The Hippie’s License flourished in the 1960’s and still haunts us today. The theory is that that up-tight and sanctimonious moralizers drive mankind into misery, stress and insanity by denying basic human urges and instincts, and worse, declaring conduct based upon them wrong. This leads to guilt and the reduction of self-esteem. The Hippie’s License was employed in the Swinging Sixties to justify everything from promiscuity and adultery to petty theft and lawlessness, incivility, vandalism, public defecation and poor hygiene. It was also, as it is today, wildly hypocritical: the hippies derided violence, and little is more human or natural than that.
The sad truth is that ethics are unnatural, civilization is unnatural, and the state of being human demands a greater acceptance of responsibility to others than nature has programmed into us. Ethics evolve faster than we do; while our DNA is telling men to mate with every healthy and attractive female, to fight those who challenge their status in their group and to take what we want and need whenever we want and need it, civilization, traditions, laws, societal standards, experience, knowledge, education and ethical systems instruct us otherwise for our own good Indeed, much of the task of being ethical involves recognizing natural instincts that make us do bad things, and resisting them.
Nothing, for example, is more natural than bias. Bias is a reflex emotion created by experience. We are hard-wired to be biased, because thinking takes too long in the wilderness, and by the time Natural Man or Natural Woman has examined all relevant factors in a situation rationally, they are dead. Bias is what makes us reluctant to eat strange looking foods that smell funny. In the jungle it keeps us from being poisoned; in civilization, it robs us of the joys of Brussels Sprouts. Bias aids survival, but it impedes the construction of a fair and just society where everyone can thrive and enjoy their lives. Let us stipulate that it is natural for those with power to use it, and thus to abuse it; it is natural to hate, envy, to be jealous, and selfish, and to act according to all of those natural impulses and more. That doesn’t make conduct springing from any of these natural impulses right, even if it feels good, and it often will.
Rationalization #51 has as many defenders as The Golden Rationalization, #1, “Everybody Does It.” Whole philosophies have been based on it, like Hedonism, which holds that personal pleasure is the highest human value. Ethics, however, is a practical discipline: an ethical theory that leads to societal disaster isn’t ethical. Hedonistic societies don’t work; that’s why you don’t see a lot of hippies any more, or if you do, you think of them as “inmates,” “convicts,” “incapacitated” or “the homeless.” Defending conduct as ethical because it’s natural makes as little logical sense as the converse, arguing that what isn’t natural must be wrong, otherwise known as “If God had meant us to fly, He would have given us wings.”
Sadly, it is natural to be unethical, which is why learning, thinking about and practicing ethics are necessary and important. It is also why coming naturally can’t possibly mean that a particular form of human conduct must be ethical. To argue that would mean that being unethical…is ethical.
I believe that we all can agree that it isn’t.
Ethics Alarms 
Apropos of nothing, but there is absolutely no joy of, in, or about Brussels Sprouts. Those little demons should be banished from all diets. Yes, they should. They are pure evil.
jvb
Aside from the immutable truth of my first post, which is, again, apropos of nothing, I agree with your analysis. The “if it feels good, do it” ethos (yes, I did use that word!) of the ’60s is and was morally empty. A friend of mine extolled its virtues recently. My response was, “Oh, really? That’s interesting. Do it in front of your wife and children.” That set him back a bit.
jvb
Deft rejoinder!
Nice post, Jack. My Shakespeare teacher in college framed it as Dionysian vs. Apollonian, and that was in the very early ’70s. As I see young kids smoking cigarettes, I want to pull them aside and say, “You know, your cardiologist is going to ask you how many years you smoked and how many you smoked a day.” Sure, they’ll be in their sixties but they’ll still want to live a little, or a lot, longer. But then I say, “Nah, they’ll just think I’m nuts.”
But great post.
Great addition. Especially now that that the idea of “repression” (of anger, sexuality, etc.) is debunked (though still widely accepted.) “Releasing aggression” just makes it easier and more desirable to release more aggression. Indulging sexuality just makes one crave more and more diverse sexual experiences. Practicing self-control makes it easier to practice more self-control.
Exactly!
I like this quote from CS Lewis.
“No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness — they have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means — the only complete realist.”
And it means that those of us who genuinely haven’t been tempted by some of the temptations others are subject to haven’t been put to the test, and may not be as strong as those who sporadically give in.
Not that we don’t have quite enough temptations we are subject to to deal with. Not always successfully, either.
Jack: I am grateful for the addition to the list. It is actually much more relatable, and in terms that should be recognizable to aging hippie-era people, than Woody’s Excuse: “The heart wants what the heart wants.” How would you distinguish between those two rationalizations?
“Woody’s Excuse” will be moved to a sub-category under this one, once I have the energy to fix the numbering.
I’m still working on a taxonomic arrangement of them all.
A Grand Unified Theory if you will.
Oh, thank you! A GUT at last!
I’ve been working on one of those since I got out of the Army.
I was on a TV game show once (I will never say which one), where at one point in the on-air banter, I said exactly – grinning and shrugging, in some lame, half-sarcastic attempt to defend my actions or intended actions lightheartedly: “You know: ‘If it feels good, do it!’ ” I have regretted saying that ever since then. I was a most non-exemplary, conflicted hippie.
Reading Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline added worthwhile fuel to an already burning fire of rejection of Radical Liberalism.
But another and major strain of Sixties Radicalism, at least in its religious sense (orgiastic, Dionysian), links back the the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings, the Cane Ridge Revival, to the Christian radicalism of the Burnt Over District: a mirror in numerous ways of California hippydom and beat-dom.
Howard Bloom in ‘The American Religion’ spends a good deal of time looking into America’s 5 major religious sects. Among them Pentacostalism – a cultivated madness, a sought possession – has clear links to the radical hedonism of rhythm and blues and rock.
It is a wide, strange, but interesting topic to analyze and to isolate and name the corrosion that eats away at so many thing built up through centuries of hard and disciplined work. Poof! In 2 generations it dissolves. The harder aspect is to see how deeply this corruption has infected our own selves.
Di you really just use “orgiastic” to describe something linked to the Great Awakenings where fire and brimstone sermons like “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” were preached?
You may want to reconsider that…
There has to be antecedents to the events of Woodstock. Woodstock, I would argue, is a logical consequence of its prototype, Cane Ridge; of surrender to mass-hysteria in a peculiar, and unprecedented, American context. The reference to ‘orgy’ is a bit provocative, I admit, but an orgy in the original sense (ὄργια) is simply an ecstatic religious rite.
Nearly all of this is quite new to me as I grew up in formidable isolation, but I suggest that in a song such as Woodstock by Joni Mitchell there is a clear expression of everything meant by ὄργια: It is a deeply felt and sentimental invitation to participate in an ecstatic experience of reality. I have been made aware, mostly by Bloom I will admit, of just how steeped we are as Americans in a religious, and an ecstatic, religiousness.
A significant aspect of a critique of ‘Fire & Brimstone’ religion, and of Enthusiasm generally, is that it is psycho-physical, akin to possession, seductive of the mob, irrational, and emotional at the core. It has seemed to me that if we want to understand America, and thus ourselves, we need to look at and also critique acutely our formation.
In my case I did not become aware of much of this until just a few years ago having grown up in formidable isolation.
An interesting take on The American Religion by Robert Bellah (who Bloom refers to often).
(The above is an attempt to create a link out of those words, I hope it works).
These are fascinating topics, really. To get to the bottom of the lunacy of our present requires a Herculean effort in tracing ideas.
There doesn’t *have* to be antecedents to Woodstock…recall, there was an entirely new demographic of American born out of the post-war economic boom: the unemployed and generally idle older teen and younger 20-something crowd from middle and lower upper class families.
That is a demographic biologically ready to fall for mass movements requiring little-to-no brainpower but tons of energy and excitement.
Regarding “orgiastic” and your subsequent exegesis on the original practices of Greek orgies in the abstract:
Careful you don’t fall into the Etymological Fallacy
Your comment that there needn’t necessarily be antecedents is interesting, and I will admit that according to my present understanding it seems false. One could trace every single influence that showed itself culturally in the Sixties back to a source. For example the philosophical personalism of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker. Or the Ban the Bomb movement which developed into the anti-war platform. Or the general civil religiousness of any American in Bellah’s view.
There is no such thing as an ‘entirely new demographic’, in the sense you seem to mean. It denies causation. The only way to get that would be to import other people from some other place.
I base much of my understanding of the Sixties on The Spirit of the Sixties: The Making of Postwar Radicalism. And also my readings of Bloom and numerous others. In my view the connections to the past and to previous ideas is incontestable. I think you would have to indicate that the new demographic had no or little connection with cultural antecedents. A tough task! And little useful.
As to a semantic fallacy, that is an interesting page and website, thank you. It could be argued that by tossing out the term ‘orgiastic’ (which popularly does mean what you took it to mean and does not mean a participatory religious rite) that I used a confusing term. But in fact I really do mean the term in the sense of a shared, orgiastic, ritual experience. So, I don’t think it is a fallacious usage. Additionally, I am not speaking abstractly, I am speaking practically. Our culture has been suffused with ‘orgiastic impulses’ which in my view derive in many ways from a participatory longing.
Should have written: An etymological fallacy. Sorry.
I’ll respond later, but for now: You’d like this, though I don’t fully agree with it.
What an interesting website. I bookmarked it. The essay you linked to was rather long and I glossed it rather quickly. I find classification systems like that useful but only to a point. Thank you for the interesting responses. I look forward to reading your further comments. It is important to understand when reading my thoughts that I exist in uncertainty. Everything I think and say is speculative – experimental even.
“Your comment that there needn’t necessarily be antecedents is interesting, and I will admit that according to my present understanding it seems false. One could trace every single influence that showed itself culturally in the Sixties back to a source.”
Ok, in terms of the law of causality, of course every phenomenon can be explained in regards to a previous cause or an interaction of a plethora of causes. So of course Woodstock can be explained in light of the environment it was born in and the causes leading to it’s occurance. My objection is that, though certain phenomenon seem related and actually share similar causes, they don’t share ALL causes NOR do they share all characteristics…and paralleling the Great Awakenings to the 60s revolution isn’t exactly parallel as you assert.
“There is no such thing as an ‘entirely new demographic’, in the sense you seem to mean. It denies causation. The only way to get that would be to import other people from some other place.”
Nonsense, it doesn’t deny causation, it merely states that a variety of causes combining in a way they have NOT combined before led to a new demographic. And they did. The same conditions that lead to beatniks, rebels without causes, increased juvenile delinquency, and hippies almost all derive from Post-War economic boom allowing middle class and lower-upper class youths to avoid employment until their mid-20s by living on their parent’s largesse. It’s not really a point that can be argued against.
Whereas the Great Awakenings affected America (specifically the Northeast) across all generations…not just a specific age demographic.
“I think you would have to indicate that the new demographic had no or little connection with cultural antecedents. A tough task! And little useful.”
But I don’t have to. I don’t deny that things occur because of previous conditions and catalysts.
“As to a semantic fallacy, that is an interesting page and website, thank you.”
It’s a great resource.
“It could be argued that by tossing out the term ‘orgiastic’ (which popularly does mean what you took it to mean and does not mean a participatory religious rite) that I used a confusing term. But in fact I really do mean the term in the sense of a shared, orgiastic, ritual experience. So, I don’t think it is a fallacious usage. Additionally, I am not speaking abstractly, I am speaking practically. Our culture has been suffused with ‘orgiastic impulses’ which in my view derive in many ways from a participatory longing.”
No doubt my objection was based on the common (and I would submit OVERWHELMING) understanding of the word “orgy”.
I am not qualified to finally arbitrate the matter, so all I offer is opinion gleaned from my reading. Today, I am not convinced that ‘Woodstock’ and the hippy revolution appeared on the scene of culture ‘out of nothing’ as it were. Nearly every aspect of it derives from and is built on antecedents – in idea, in activity, in sentiment, and also in a harder to locate and explain cultural psychology.
Yet is is clear that the post-Sixties generation was also informed by very many different currents flowing in from a larger and surrounding world.
I would also agree that the Sixties Movement was largely a phenomenon of youth, except that the intellectual forerunners were definitely representatives of an older generation.
Though I agree with you that most people hearing the word ‘orgy’ would link it with sexuality, a description of culture as susceptible to seductive psychological influence offers more ground for analysis and understanding. I would place emphasis here and suggest that, somehow, this is what needs to be resisted. One has to devise and alternative.
Woodstock has an antecedent: human debauchery, practiced continually since the dawn of man.
Just look at the mountains of garbage those hippies left behind for the poor townspeople to clean up. It’s clear they didn’t gather there for the world’s largest Eagle Scout project.
Yet I think it also has to be said that the doctrine of ‘If it feels good, do it’ is linked to greater honestly toward oneself about what one really thinks and feels. For all that Ginsberg dealt in, and played in, what could be called corruption on many levels, the ethos of the poem Sunflower Sutra has a very elevated – a spiritual – message and a longing. To wake up in an ugly, pointless world, torn up by desire and mechanical impulses, and to understand how deeply that wounds, and how deadly it is to the spirit, and then to say ‘I am going to live in accord with purer and better sentiments’, is the very good aspect of the various Awakenings.
“Yet I think it also has to be said that the doctrine of ‘If it feels good, do it’ is linked to greater honestly toward oneself about what one really thinks and feels.”
No one denies that…
People who believe in civilization (generally excluding Leftists) try their hardest to construct systems that convince people that “what one really thinks and feels” ought to be, at best, self-disciplined and, at worst, institutionally-disciplined out of people.
What you are saying is that civilization is constructed on the basis of discipline and sacrifice? That on one side the desire to serve in those processes must be a result of free decision? But that there is a negative aspect where the institutions enforce disciplined obedience?
If that is what you are saying I think I agree with you. What fascinates me is that the darker and harder side of social conservatism is indeed various forms of (what many would label negatively) fascism. Spiritual discipline, be it Zen or Hindu or Catholic, is a form of self-fascism.
The other side of this is spiritual traditions – praxis – that are largely permissive and that resent and oppose structure, rules, and control.
What do you think of The Authoritarian Personality?
I just read The Culture Industry and I must say that it has much to commend it. It is a critique that could well be used by a more conservative faction.
It is very hard indeed to arrive at a cogent critical position, I find.
What makes fascism fascism isn’t some comical caricature of the harsh disciplinarian Sgt Schultz marching around with a baton “vee haf vays of making you vork!!!”.
Fascism is merely a state structure in which most (if not all) private industries are commanded by the State, though structured with somewhat “Private” control (though not really as the “Private” controllers are mostly just State appointees).
I don’t think it is valuable to use fascism in the ways you use them…sounds more like a miserly old Leftwing professor who is sad that the Hippy revolution wasn’t successful so he’s still taking jabs at traditional institutions from the sidelines with various, inaccurate, labels in order to Poison the Well.
As for your first paragraph, yes, we loosely agree. Though I’m sure we may differ in scope and scale of needed discipline or what various conduct must call for discipline…
Except that when I use the term ‘fascism’ I mean it pretty much as I have used it. But on blogs and forums like this one only gains a sense of a person’s meaning over time, when they have filled it out.
Fascism is to the right of strict Conservatism, and fascism lurks, if you will, behind all rightwing philosophical formulations, is my view. The ideas and philosophies that flow into a fascistic or neo-fascistic formulation are varied, this I admit. While I understand your more limited definition and the link to the state, and would see no reason to reject it in itself, I think that fascism and fascist movements, and certainly ‘neo-fascism’, are vastly more complex. It resolves into and arises out of Ideas.
I also have to say that I don’t criticize the ‘fascism’ that I define, I emulate it. Or rather I think that all things have to be considered without the ideological a priories.
“Except that when I use the term ‘fascism’ I mean it pretty much as I have used it. But on blogs and forums like this one only gains a sense of a person’s meaning over time, when they have filled it out.”
But you don’t get to do that. Fascism isn’t a “disciplinary philosphy”. As a State construct, it’s methods of discipline, though harsh, hardly differ from a communist system, and in it’s mildest forms, don’t differentiate from the harsher versions of a Republican system that adheres to Rule of Law. Fascism is, as I stated, a community organized around a specific State construct, especially in regards to State-Industrial relations.
I think the term you need to use is “severe disciplinarian” or “strict disciplinarian”. Fascism in regards to discipline, is just, as I assessed, a tired old Leftist philosopher’s attempt to denigrate traditional methods of training up new generations into societal norms.
“Fascism is to the right of strict Conservatism,”
Nonsense. If politics were strictly lined up on a 1 dimensional continuum, in America, Fascism, a heavily State-oriented philosophy would fall solidly on the left of that continuum – as traditional American politics has always favored Liberty to the Right. On a strictly 1 dimensional continuum, perhaps Old-World politics will have Fascism “on the Right”, but Old World politics are crazy to behold in the eyes of an American and not at all analogous. Not at all.
But, politics aren’t that simple. Sometime in the 60s or 70s, Left-wing professors in America got really really tired of all the totalitarian regimes being associated with extremist versions of their politics (regardless of how accurate those characterizations were), so they developed a “2 dimensional” political field. In this description, on the Left you have your typical soft-core socialist Democrat, on the Right you have a typical Republican, on the bottom you find your Libertarians and on the top you find your Authoritarians. This allowed the Leftist professors to distance themselves from Communists and Fascists by pushing them to the top of the “diamond” and simultaneously move them closer to the Right wing. So they could semi-mimic the European model of politics and associate Nazis with Right-wing extremism (an accurate caricature in Europe, but not so much in America) and associate Communism with Left-wing extremism, while simultaneously keeping Nazis and Communists in the same area of politics (which in practice, they are).
“While I understand your more limited definition and the link to the state, and would see no reason to reject it in itself, I think that fascism and fascist movements, and certainly ‘neo-fascism’, are vastly more complex. It resolves into and arises out of Ideas.”
It is related to the State and how the State – Community relationship is defined… That isn’t a limited definition. What I described IS the definition.
“I also have to say that I don’t criticize the ‘fascism’ that I define, I emulate it.”
Sure, but if I decided that when I use the word “Ragnarok” I really mean “nice guy” and walk around telling everyone I try to be a Ragnarok, most people will laugh politely while all Norse mythology professors will tell me to get a grip because I’m misusing a term. Words have meanings for a reason.
There is a huge amount of variation – that is among scholars and ‘experts’ – as to the precise definition of ‘fascism’, and there is substantial disagreement. But isn’t that so true in many different fields? I do not think that any aspect of my definition does not coincide with rather common and existent definitions though. In any case I will try to take advantage of the opportunity to look more into the matter and come back later or tomorrow to make some comments.
As to Jeremiah, I only meant to suggest that there are some who assert that the heart of man, at an ontological level, and perhaps also the ‘ontological level’ itself, is inherently untrustworthy and that some other capacity, or some other metaphysical agent, is required to make the best decisions. But what should that be? And who will agree on the terms? It is a question that fascinates me but I admit that I have no part of it worked out.
In a Medieval perspective, the physical structure in which we find ourselves, because it is transitory and because it is so close to the demoniac, induces inevitable errors of choice. In that way of seeing things – which is our most immediate and underlying perspective and one we are still immersed in quite significantly – we require a salvific agent, and grace, to avoid the traps and pitfalls inherent in the realm of existence itself.
In a Medieval perspective, the physical structure in which we find ourselves Doctrine of Original Sin, because it is transitory and because it is so close to the demoniac, induces inevitable errors of choice For all Have Fallen Short of the Glory of God. In that way of seeing things – which is our most immediate and underlying perspective and one we are still immersed in quite significantly – we require a salvific agent, and grace, to avoid the traps and pitfalls inherent in the realm of existence itself Doctrine of Atonement.
Is this a Medieval perspective or did the Christian philosophy (predating the middle ages) merely lay the groundwork for certain medieval perspectives?
Correction:
As it is, the ‘liberal’ answer, is summed up here: here. THAT is why we battled and destroyed European fascism! I make an effort to be a little funny, but has it ever occurred to you that ‘our present’ is absurdly shallow? The bottom has fallen out and it will not be recovered.
Oddly, but interestingly, there is really quite a vibrant intellectual current – mostly in Europe – that investigates the ‘harder’ political and idea-forms that are called neo-fascist. There is NO mention of it in any ‘mainstream’ US source and people seem afraid even to mention it of think about it. But at least some people are thinking of palliatives to the mindless, absurd, and pathetic present.
“I make an effort to be a little funny, but has it ever occurred to you that ‘our present’ is absurdly shallow? The bottom has fallen out and it will not be recovered.”
That’s cynical and despondent. Perhaps an argument could be made the atheistic materialism has led to a more shallow outlook on life and more shallow pursuit of fullness… but I wouldn’t say much more on average.
I don’t trust European Intellectuals… their post-1800 era philosophies have an incredible tendency to leave, in their wake, piles of bodies miles deep.
Again, you can’t compare European notions of Right & Left with American notions of Right & Left…the European traditions on average derive from a State-Individual relationship that is already heavily State oriented and much less Individual oriented, therefore when you say “Right wing” in Europe, you really mean “political philosophies that rely heavily on the state but we call right wing because they have just enough difference than what we call Left wing, that also relies heavily on the State”
The American tradition started off with less reliance on the national level of government and greater reliance (though not at European levels) on the separate State governments. The American right wing generally seeks to maintain as close to an originalist arrangement of American liberty (though it has had occasional and egregious hiccups in this regard) and the American left wing generally seeks to increase the power of the central authorities (though it has, on occasion, accidentally gotten things right, though probably for the wrong reasons).
Cynical and despondent … is one interpretation. And too it is a label that you have projected. I suggest that that is a bad habit. It is better to allow people to reveal themselves, not for some other to reveal them to themselves. That is a game that always ends badly.
‘Atheistic materialism’ – a philosophical problem which interests me tremendously, and which must be countered with sound philosophy and sound reason at a metaphysical level – is a symptom of definitional failures and bogus-pious attitudes within all religion now. It is especially strong in Christian forms which also have the most advanced philosophical and metaphysical definitions attached to them. To be able to speak about why it is that systems of believe no longer ‘function’ one has to be willing to trace idea-systems and symbol-systems back to their roots. At one level, strange though it seems, and deeply ironical, the will to uncover truth, to will to pursue truth-seeking – and truth-telling – to their logical limits, has itself undermined the system of belief upon which Christianity rests. I would suggest that to believe in the miracle-aspect that is foundational to Christianity (and most religious symbol-systems), has become untenable and in fact nearly impossible. One cannot fake such things. For a belief system to function it has to be understood as functioning in all areas. We are left, therefor, with ‘atheistic materialism’ and, ultimately, we have to resolve it. I also suggest that the only way that will happen is by fully moving through the problem. Generally, no religious structure that you can name has a solution to this problem, simply because they cannot really see the problem. They cannot ‘name’ it.
I further suggest that it might be you – yes you – who is ‘cynical and despondent’, and that means to be in the grip of nihilism.
It seems to me that if one – a person – does not have access to a unified system of understanding of this Cosmos, nor a way to commune with the creator, nor a logical metaphysic whose connecting points to the physical world of phenomena cannot be named and described, that such a person lives in an abstract and separate bubble. In a sense they are not ‘in’ the world, but are in a false-world, a world constructed in mental systems with not enough relationship to what surrounds them.
I am not sure what to do with your statement that European intellectualism produces dead bodies miles thick. To engage with the assertion is to step into a mire.
I can certainly respect what I imagine to be your thoughts of admiration for the original American institutions. As to your last paragraph I will only share my impression: Both ‘parties’ seem irretrievably enmeshed and unable to define a clear program. I mean it in a similar sense as in alluding to the fundamental metaphysical confusion: Lost people, drowning in partial ideas, clinging to figments and fragments of a vanished history, totally unable to realistically confront ‘the Present’, and shuddering in a psycho-physical angst. That serious …
Or is that too cynical and despondent? 😉 I don’t see it that way. I think you have to be able to name something and then really feel what that is and what it means. Then … a path may open from there.
Excuse me. A small correction. I rather am of the opinion that both Judaism and Christianity have quite obvious, and rather devastating, metaphysical flaws. And by that I mean that there is no connection, except whimsically, between this God-form and nature. This God is therefor arbitrary, a disembodied presence. The Eastern religions – the Hindu forms, also Taoism and Buddhism – arise out of a far sounder metaphysic.
Christianity has vast amounts of sound philosophy attached to it, and the entire structure of Occidental culture has been informed by its ideas. But it is very weak at that physico-metaphysical level, and this is one reason, in my view, it is being toppled.
This is a tragedy in many ways. When people who are not really interested in or qualified to salvage definitions (as must be done in this totally confusing era), and they lose the very foundation to an existential-metaphysical bedrock, and can no longer pray, commune and believe, and also apply values to life, they rapidly get lost. (Some differ and say they are then on their first legs to ‘finding themselves’ but I don’t see it that way: Man requires a sound metaphysical structure in a holy universe).
I’ll take my answer off the air … 😉
It seems to me that if one – a person – does not have access to a unified system of understanding of this Cosmos, nor a way to commune with the creator, nor a logical metaphysic whose connecting points to the physical world of phenomena cannot be named and described, that such a person lives in an abstract and separate bubble. In a sense they are not ‘in’ the world, but are in a false-world, a world constructed in mental systems with not enough relationship to what surrounds them.
The ‘cannot’ on the forth line should read ‘that can’.
A quick follow-up only because it is likely this thread … is dead.
The aspect of fascism that interests me, or the reason for the interest I suppose is a good place to start, is that it attempted to describe a philosophical position in opposition to Marxist forms, to Internationalism, as well as to ‘destructive’ capitalistic forms, and of course the dread ‘radical liberalism’ which is washing over the land.
It seems to me that a platform of philosophical – or spiritual, or religious – opposition to ‘radical liberalism’, a severe disease in my view is the disease that is attacking the dying body of this strange entity called ‘America’, must be and perhaps can only be defined through strict and hard idea-forms. So, it is inherently ‘reactionary’ as should be obvious, and very dangerous insofar as desperation produces rashness.
The ‘fascism’ (or neo-fascism) that interests me is not that aspect of it which is described through describing the melding of corporations and the State, but rather the idea-structures and the justifications, established in nationalism and cultural chauvinism, in bright palliatives that attract the imagination, and I would also point to the inherent violence that seems part and parcel of it. Yet I recognize that just as ideas are seductive and dangerous, so is praxis. What interests me is not a mass movement, though such a thing has to be considered, but rather how fascistic ideas function and empower an individual. I admit to having no real sense about politics and little experience with it. To take advantage of the symbolism(s) that have come up in this exchange I would say that there would have to arise a militancy, similar in emotional content, similar in idea-content, to that which produced ‘Woodstock’, but founded in an ideological structure that could lead to strength and empowerment, not to weakness and dissolution.
Fascism, despite your insistence, began in reaction to liberal and Marxist forms, and to a sort of horror in the face of undesired change, and it began with ideas – viscerally understood perhaps – but thoroughly reactive. I am interested in those positions that can stake out and define radical opposition to the liberal-capitalistic model through which an absurd – literally disgusting and thoroughly un-virile – sick and weak liberalism expresses itself. It is hard for me to contain my contempt when I consider how debasing this influence is, and yet it is not without positive features.
I have experimented with a religious structure of opposition: for example through the discourse that produces a jeremiad like The Marketing of Evil. I can imagine this level of opposition functioning in numerous religiously-defined ethical contexts not only the Christian (where it arises in this case). But it seems to me that it is required to transcend the Judeo-Christian form by also incorporating pre-Christian forms and by (literally) redefining a terrestrial metaphysical platform. Essentially I feel we are experiencing a metaphysical crisis. That is really what it comes down to: You have to be able to describe a metaphysic, and by that I mean you have to be able to say, definitively, What is this place where we find ourselves?; What are we?; And what are we called to do here? The Question has to go right to the metaphysical root. As it is, the ‘liberal’ answer, is summed up here: here. THAT is why we battled and destroyed European fascism! I make an effort to be a little funny, but has it ever occurred to you that ‘our present’ is absurdly shallow? The bottom has fallen out and it will not be recovered.
Oddly, but interestingly, there is really quite a vibrant intellectual current – mostly in Europe – that investigates the ‘harder’ political and idea-forms that are called neo-fascist. There is NO mention of it in any ‘mainstream’ US source and people seem afraid even to mention it of think about it. But at least some people are thinking of palliatives to the mindless, absurd, and pathetic present.
Correction:
As it is, the ‘liberal’ answer, is summed up here: here. THAT is why we battled and destroyed European fascism! I make an effort to be a little funny, but has it ever occurred to you that ‘our present’ is absurdly shallow? The bottom has fallen out and it will not be recovered.
Oddly, but interestingly, there is really quite a vibrant intellectual current – mostly in Europe – that investigates the ‘harder’ political and idea-forms that are called neo-fascist. There is NO mention of it in any ‘mainstream’ US source and people seem afraid even to mention it of think about it. But at least some people are thinking of palliatives to the mindless, absurd, and pathetic present.
(I apologize for my formatting issues).
It’s not dead. I’ve used up most of my down time today stamping out a wildfire of irrationality elsewhere. I’ll respond tonight.
If I have learned anything on this blog, it’s that the substantive threads seldom die.
“The aspect of fascism that interests me, or the reason for the interest I suppose is a good place to start, is that it attempted to describe a philosophical position in opposition to Marxist forms, to Internationalism, as well as to ‘destructive’ capitalistic forms, and of course the dread ‘radical liberalism’ which is washing over the land.”
And it’s solution to those problems was still a heavily Government-centric option…leading, in practice, to governmental forms that mirrored very closely the nightmares that the Marxist philosophies created…
That matters. Why a State oriented solution? Why?
“It seems to me that a platform of philosophical – or spiritual, or religious – opposition to ‘radical liberalism’, a severe disease in my view is the disease that is attacking the dying body of this strange entity called ‘America’, must be and perhaps can only be defined through strict and hard idea-forms. So, it is inherently ‘reactionary’ as should be obvious, and very dangerous insofar as desperation produces rashness.”
So to save America from a nightmarish gigantic government with Left-wing flavors we needs a gigantic government with European-Style-Right-Wing government and hope it won’t be nightmarish?
I will concede that as individual discipline (which we discussed before; and is typically in the realm of Right-wing hopes for people) decreases, inevitably collective coercion will step in. Which is unfortunate, because as individual discipline degrades, the Left can march forward.
“As it is, the ‘liberal’ answer, is summed up here: here. THAT is why we battled and destroyed European fascism!”
So we battled against evil governments so people can enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit happiness?
Ok! Sounds like a great reason to destroy big overbearing governments. I don’t think your satire works.
I make efforts to write clearly within my own limitations and foibles. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear enough. I said that fascist ideas interest me, I did not say that I am a fascist, or that I emulate fascist forms.
You are welcome to stick to your definition of fascism solely as a state enterprise, and I think I agree that top-down solutions, or strict authoritarian solutions, are troubling. But as I have said I am interested in the ideas that inform fascist ideology. How they arose, what effect they had in people, and why they aligned themselves with fascist/nationalist movements. On a small scale a similar thing is happening now, again. There is a neo-fascistic, culturally conservative, and socially chauvinistic trend that is developing, mostly in Europe and mostly on the fringes.
Try to read what I write, please, and not to inject into it what I did not say and do not mean.
In order to understand what a person means and where they come from, I think one to be willing to put aside one’s own projections. If you are interested in further explanations, if you are interested in understanding what I think and why, I will happily engage with you. With the above, though, you have made me say something I did not say and I do not wish to say.
I am suggesting – I thought it would be obvious – that hidden within our triumphalism there was and there is a strong current of valuelessness, or the trite, of the totally superficial, which indicates (if you will) a soul possessed by nihilism. I am suggesting that the extreme superficial forms bespeak a sick soul. I do not mean to say this as an absolute statement, or as a gloss, but to speak to a specific problem, and a real problem.
I kindly ask you to rely on me to clarify points that I may not have made clear. That is if you really are interested in exchange of ideas. I have little patience for inane ‘conversation’.
Some people indeed deny it, and at the most fundamental level. And since the ‘heart’ is part-and-parcel of ourself at the ontological level, we are in difficult straights. According to that view …
The above-comment was in response to:
Alizia wrote: “Yet I think it also has to be said that the doctrine of ‘If it feels good, do it’ is linked to greater honestly toward oneself about what one really thinks and feels.”
Texagg04 responded: “No one denies that…”
“Some people indeed deny it…”Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceeding weak–who can know it?””
No doubt some deny it, though I’d consider them the worst possible rationalizers of base anti-civic behavior.
I think your Jeremiah quote is taken very much out of context.
Though my preferred translation says: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”, I believe the specific Hebrew word you translate as “exceedingly weak” and I translate as “desperately sick” can also be translated as “desperately wicked”
The book of Jeremiah, in general is a lament over the straying of Israel from God’s law. The specific passage is written to a reader “who’s heart has turned away from the Lord” (v5). That is to say, someone who has learned all the rules necessary to participate in an ethical community, but is chasing after the anti-civic, animalistic cravings of lust and violence. In which case, the accurate understanding of verse 9 is that a deceitful heart that cannot be known is always rationalizing and justifying evil and corrupt behavior and convincing the brain that “it’s ok, just do it”.
As a sidebar – from Prof Paul McHugh in his article “Psychiatric Misadventures”
McHugh wrote that in 1992, and has not changed his views in the 20 years since, just as he hadn’t changed them in the 20 years previously.
Medical research has shown that the facts don’t support his views, but that’s another story.
Zoe, aren’t poems supposed to rhyme and scan and everything?
But there are lots of hippies around today, Jack. They are the parents of a whole generation of “up-tight and sanctimonious moralizers.”
I disagree. I think they’ve bred a generation of tattooed, pierced, unhappy, defiant, game-playing, comic-reading, self-harming, lost, angry children of divorce.
It feels good to have poor hygiene and defecate in the streets? I would have been a horrible hippie.
I think on the human continuum of effort-addiction-laziness: the deeper one sinks, the harder it becomes to pull out of the sink and improve one’s condition. So, for someone sunk so low, it actually IS easier and feels “better” to give into such conduct than it is to behave in a civilized manner.
“Barbarism is the natural state of mankind.”- Robert E. Howard.
Indeed.
The difficulty civilizations face is two-fold:
1) They must constantly maintain a strong defense that keeps barbarians from invading and destroying them or they must constantly seek to convert those external barbarians.
2) There is another barbarian invasion the civilization must fight, and that is the upward invasion of follow-on generations. In 1-2 short short decades, the civilized must convince the following generations that selfishness, laziness, violence, lust, excess, and other natural tendencies do not a civilization make.
On point 2 the culture-eaters have done a great job tricking us into thinking that follow-on generations are not naturally inclined to barbarism but will all “accidentally” become civilized on their own or that their particular barbarism isn’t actually barbarism.
Good read on the topic
and here
Mr. Franks and I are on the same page in many things, Tex, despite his self-depiction as a libertarian. He understands that human society exists in three possible states; barbarism, civilization and decadency. The West is definitely in a decadent period right now. Whether it’s become terminal or not, only time will tell. But, as always when a great civilization begins to decay from within, the barbarians sense it and plot its overthrow.
Civilization is like Reagan’s shining city on the hill. The barbarians camp without the walls, the decadents pleasure themselves at the expense of the city’s resources within to contribute to its downfall, uncaring for tomorrow. The soldiers- the guardians of civilization- stand watch on the walls. As long as they’re enough of them, as long as they stay vigilant and are supported by the city fathers and the bulk of the citizens, civilization stands.
Today, though, decadency is in power, the barbarians are courted and appeased (to their delight as they sharpen their knives) and the tenets and guardians of civilization are held in disrepute. Resultingly, the barbarians are scaling the walls and infiltrating the city. We’re in serious trouble. Civilized people and the savages both know it. The epicurean crowd, living in their self-induced fantasies, couldn’t care less..
“For all the works of civilized man must someday fade and fall. I am the dark barbarian who towers over all.”