PDA

View Full Version : Eleven Harsh Truths about the World



Swift
7 Apr 2005, 07:24 PM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3933

#1: The truth will not necessarily make us happy.

Stated flatly, one is inclined to reply, "that's obvious." But our society is largely predicated on the opposite assumption. For example: most of us defend free inquiry, and those who don't, like people who demonize and would ban research into racial differences, at least pretend. We not only assume that free inquiry will lead to the truth, but that this truth will be socially beneficial. But what if it turns out, when and if the empirical dust finally settles, that blacks really do have inferior IQ’s? Oops. We might be better off not knowing that.

There is no necessary reason I know of to believe that truth will make either individuals or whole societies happier than salutary illusions, what Plato called noble lies. How many societies have been kept at peace by fear of retribution from non-existent gods? How many of mankind's greatest cultural achievements have been inspired by religions that are false?

The skepticism that the search for truth produces has a nasty way of producing relativism and nihilism, the key philosophical maladies of our time. And anyway, don't we really believe that human happiness, not truth, is the good? When was the last time a major public policy decision was defended on grounds of truth, rather than of maximizing our happiness? So we want to have truth and happiness, which presumes that the two are coordinate. But what argument is there that this is so?

#2: Most People Never Think

They have, of course, the right to try. But even when they do, most don't really think at all: they just recycle a few received truths and popular prejudices, applying not the slightest test of empiricism or logic.

People primarily choose their ideas on the basis of the social validation these ideas receive. A few hundred years ago, everyone believed in witches, and within living memory, almost everyone thought segregation was common sense. This is despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence supporting either idea. This is why accumulated liberalism is so difficult to dislodge, and we at Front Page have to find shocking facts to jolt people's minds free of it.

As for original thought -- which is overrated anyway, given that most true thoughts have probably been thought by someone else first -- some people go their entire lives without having one.

Most people's minds are narrowly occupied in dealing with the circumstances of their daily lives, their families, their professions. Outside this small circle, within which thinking actually benefits them, they expend almost no mental effort. And yet democracy presupposes meaningful choices being made by ordinary people, who can't possibly be making them if they won't even think about the issues. Sometimes I'm amazed that it seems to work anyway.

I sometimes think this is part of why it works, because it makes people shut up and not make trouble.

#3: Life is basically material.

America comes closer than most cultures to admitting this fact, which accounts in part for our national success. But I still find people get antsy when I ask them to face it, and it's not just people who have genuinely dedicated their lives to some non-material spiritual ideal. The Declaration of Independence originally read "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property," but obvious discomfort with stating it so baldly turned this into the pursuit of happiness in the final draft.

Ideals, without which a community cannot be voluntarily organized to a common purpose, have an innate tendency, being ideas, to veer away from the material. More fundamentally, we sense that man is in essence a sentient, not a physical, being; that, as Camille Paglia puts it, "it is outrageous" that human beings are incorporated in flesh. Flesh is so unfair, in many ways. But here we are.

Those who deny that life is basically material, I still observe organizing most of their lives around the satisfaction of material needs and desires. Tocqueville said it was hard in some American churches to tell whether the objective was salvation in the next world or success in this one. And how many of you would really say no if I offered you $100,000 in exchange for never voting again?

People tell me that "justice" is more important than material things, but every example of injustice they give is somebody's deprivation of material things. I never hear the world is unjust because people are being deprived of spiritual enlightenment. Or almost never, because I did hear this just once, and as an agnostic, I am willing to concede that it may be true.

5% of the time.

#4: Some People Are Worth More Than Others.

If Christian theology is true, this is not so in the eyes of God. But we on earth are not God and shouldn’t play God. Even if we try, we can’t. It is probably no accident that the most extreme egalitarian ideology, which seeks to usurp His perspective on man, jealously rejects any place for Him.

If one admits that human achievements – broadly defined – have value, one must confront the fact that some people bring about more of these achievements than others. Therefore these people have more value. It is also an uncomfortable fact, considered impolite to mention today even on the Right, that this principle extends itself, as a matter of pure logic, to groups of people. Terribly sorry, but this clearly has to include racial, sexual, and ethnic groups.

That people are unequal in value does not imply, as leftist caricature would have it, that those of lesser value are worthless and deserve to be exterminated. This is the bogey-man that is always trundled out whenever one wants to admit that people differ in value. Inequality does not even imply that the inferior have lesser rights in the civic sense. That the rights of all citizens are equal, does not mean that all citizens have the same worth. It speaks only to their being qua citizen, not to their existence as such.

#5: Most People Are Proles.

When one talks or thinks about mankind in general, as in “All men are endowed with inalienable rights,” one naturally thinks of people similar to oneself. But for most readers of these words, this is inappropriate.

The hard fact is that in this world of 6,500,000,000 people, a very small percentage are educated middle-class white Americans. The vast majority of human beings, even today, are illiterate or barely literate farmers or menial workers. There are more Untouchables in India than there are people in the United States. China has more peasants than Western Europe has people.

And this is today, after 500 years of modern economic growth. For most of history and pre-history, 99% of the human race was, shall we say, unsalonfahig. You would not enjoy having them over for dinner.

And let’s face it: they wish they were here, in a rich country where life amounts to more than menial labor for a few bowls of rice a day. And it is in our objective interests to keep this country for ourselves, not give it away to the rest of the world. Sentimentalists, ignore this at your peril

#6: Nothing Can Be Done About History.

History is unfair, but it is unfair in two ways, one hurtful to us and one beneficial. It is hurtful in that the past historical sufferings of human beings cannot now be undone, even if the pain persists into the present through the collective memory of the world’s ethnic groups.

But it is also unfair, in the sense of treating us as we do not deserve, in that anyone alive today in the developed or half-developed world is the beneficiary of a revolution in science and industry that came late in world history and has given us a standard of material life beyond the imagination of most of the human beings who have ever lived. You and I did nothing to deserve to be born in the 20th century, after the discovery of pennicillin and before the oil runs out. The benefits this confers on us far outweigh anything we lose from the suffering of our ancestors.

So we should all stop whining. And pace Patton[1], give thanks to the 20th Century.

#7: It’s After 1914. We Are Living in a Broken Civilization.

Before 1914, Western Civilization was under assault by a variety of foolish ideas but was holding its own against them. After 1914, with a brief respite in the 1920’s, things began to unravel. We live in the first civilization known to history in which a systematic assault on the core values of that civilization is institutionalized in the leading sectors of society. Quite apart from our enemies, we are at war with ourselves. This is true in everything that counts: religion, culture, economics, politics, demographics, law.

Members of foreign civilizations, or resentful members of our own, rejoice at the decline of the West at your peril. For Western Civilization has gone global. With greater or lesser success and greater or lesser completeness, all the nations of the world have submitted to it. Science, capitalism, democracy, materialism, and individualism are irresistable. There is no viable alternative, and we have to live within it even if it is broken.

There are viable alternative cultures, of course, and wise nations that make their peace with Western Civilization, like Japan or India, can go on maintaining their national distinctiveness indefinitely.

#8: America is not a high culture.

I realize this will not bother many of my readers. Why, in a time when we worry about thermonuclear religious fanatics and barbarian hordes on our southern border, not to mention the eternal problems of a cyclical economy and a dishonorable opposition, should we care whether America produces refined works of art?

Because, in the long run, high culture is needed to organize a nation’s consciousness of its identity around something of real quality.

America is a Roman, demotic, Alexandrian society. It is our natural mission, given to us by our historical circumstances, to transmit the high culture of others.

It is a tragedy of unspeakable dimensions that the centers of European culture were essentially destroyed by two world wars and that the mantle of world cultural leadership was thrust upon the United States, which is not by nature equipped for the task, being of shallow history and unaristocratic social structure.

Our national genius is for politics and economics, not culture.

#9: We Will Never be Popular for Doing What’s Right.

Well, maybe not never. But it is a fundamental fact that the Left is basically the party of the superficially good, and is therefore destined not only to be popular, but the make the people who espouse its ideas popular.

Everything they say makes sense – at first. It sure sounds good to be nice to everybody, give away the store, to flatter everyone, to believe our enemies are nice people and everyone’s values are OK.

Conservative policies for this country are largely a matter of tough love. They do work, but tough love is seldom requited at the time.

#10: God Will Not Buy You a Mercedes Benz.

I remain astonished at the number of people who cruise through life with the blithe assumption that nice things are just going to happen to them, that someone the world is designed to give them a warm feeling inside and that something has gone wrong when they get screwed.

Grow up. The universe doesn’t even know you’re there.

What’s worse, all the well-grounded theology I have ever read makes quite clear that while God may choose to answer your prayers and does in some sense wish the well-being of his creation Man, He makes no guarantees of happiness on this earth. I don’t mean to pry into people’s religious life, but an awful lot of American Christianity seems to be predicated on the opposite.

#11: You will only really find out the ultimate truth after you die.

Now if you’re a Christian or a Jew (or something else) and think you already know, good for you. Maybe you do. But you don’t find out for sure until you die. Which means the rest of us, who have to govern ourselves on earth, don’t get to know.

This is philosophically important. It means that everything we do on this earth, and all the values we choose, must be done under uncertainty. It suggests to me that there isn’t really knowledge in the hard sense of what we should do with society, which implies that prudence is the best we can hope for.

And that is a profoundly conservative idea.

Claverhouse
7 Apr 2005, 07:54 PM
This is good: really, really good. I'll check out the article and the author.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

Nighthawk
7 Apr 2005, 07:59 PM
You're outdoing yourself today, Swift. Excellent material. I've thoroughly enjoyed your posts from the vdare.com site as well.

Swift
7 Apr 2005, 08:13 PM
You're outdoing yourself today, Swift. Excellent material. I've thoroughly enjoyed your posts from the vdare.com site as well.Thanks. ;) I'm very happy that other people appreciate the kind of reading material I point them to.

Swift

EDIT: Aren't threads rated anymore? *pretends nose is bleeding* ;)

Robespierre
7 Apr 2005, 08:18 PM
I liked it too. Frontpage mag is a fairly libertarian group of conservatives, and I can often find much to agree with them about. Sometimes, Horowitz et al do get carried away though.

tragula
7 Apr 2005, 08:28 PM
Re: #11 how exactly do we find out the truth when we die???

Not sure about a few other things like the whole "pursuit of property" thing. Is that well documented? I doubt it.

Robespierre
7 Apr 2005, 08:30 PM
Not sure about a few other things like the whole "pursuit of property" thing. Is that well documented? I doubt it.

It's a self-evident truth. Not something that can really be documented. Like A = A. That can't really be confirmed, but is a result of our understanding of language and the properties of the universe.

INTerloPer
7 Apr 2005, 08:35 PM
While I've never considered myself to be conservative (I have in fact been proud of my liberal attitudes), I have to admit this is a convincing paper. Beautifully expressed concepts.

songbird36
7 Apr 2005, 09:06 PM
It seems to me that INTPs (and perhaps INTs to a lesser extent) are fundamentally Idealists rather than Pragmatists.

Perhaps an ISTJ or ISTP wouldn't have the insight to distill the world into "universal truths" but when presented with them, would perhaps be more likely to accept them and not seek to change the world.

Do we accept "universal truths" or do we continue to push for society to change to meet our ideals? What are the relative benefits of Idealism as a world view as opposed to Pragmatism?

This is a question I continue to struggle with as I get older, and less "idealistic".

I'm interested in #8 and what is meant by a "High Culture". Most would accept that Western European countries including the UK exhibit "high culture", but what are the criteria? Is it a culture that reflects its identity through arts, music, and science, or is it simply a culture that is prolific in its output of these things?

Nighthawk
7 Apr 2005, 09:59 PM
It seems to me that INTPs (and perhaps INTs to a lesser extent) are fundamentally Idealists rather than Pragmatists.

Perhaps an ISTJ or ISTP wouldn't have the insight to distill the world into "universal truths" but when presented with them, would perhaps be more likely to accept them and not seek to change the world.

Do we accept "universal truths" or do we continue to push for society to change to meet our ideals? What are the relative benefits of Idealism as a world view as opposed to Pragmatism?

This is a question I continue to struggle with as I get older, and less "idealistic".
I'm pretty pragmatic to the core, but I think I've become moreso as I've gotten older. I was fairly idealistic as a teenager and in my early 20's ... but getting knocked down in the dirt a time or twelve quickly cured (or robbed) me of my idealism. Now I look back at my own idealism as naiveté. Of course, I could just be a jaded old bastard.

nBT
7 Apr 2005, 10:49 PM
oh the revenge on postmodernism, the search for a god.
why is he such an american, that he cannot think beyond his own religion

SB34: i believe he satires the werstern view of natives. it created racism. it made slavery possible etc. american still (see war in iraq) consider some people 'less'.

Lee
7 Apr 2005, 10:52 PM
I like these :) well, maybe like is the wrong word...

I have lost all the idealism I once had.

songbird36
7 Apr 2005, 10:52 PM
Yeah probably - I wasn't commenting on the article as such but was interested in peoples' views on Idealism vs Pragmatism as world views.

coffeezombie
7 Apr 2005, 11:10 PM
I think there is an American "independent" counterculture that is quite interesting to study, actually, although I wouldn't say I'm really an active part of it, although I have been at times in my life. It just does not get the publicity that our mainstream capitalist-based "culture" gets. In that sense, I cannot agree with the premises of this article 100%. I do not believe that one needs aristocratic structure in order to bring about culture. I believe cultures like this have been too traditionalist and stagnant to tell the truth, actually. European cultures only really started to get interesting after these countries adopted more democratic values.

Claverhouse
8 Apr 2005, 12:33 AM
I do not believe that one needs aristocratic structure in order to bring about culture. I believe cultures like this have been too traditionalist and stagnant to tell the truth, actually. European cultures only really started to get interesting after these countries adopted more democratic values. Jesu, no ! I would never defend aristocracy*, but European culture has been declining since the renaissance. 'Culture' and the 'mass' are incompatible by very being. Some interesting things have happened in the last 300 years, but basically Euro civilisation is bumbling towards it's end: you only have to look at the sheer awe-inspiring astounding dullness of the European Union to see nothing further can be expected.

'Adler' ( a noted figure in Panzer General II, on whose website I nearly made a thread here ) would probably not agree with the analogy, he being a democrat etc., but from there:


I take great interest in history, mainly in military and conflict history, but also economical and social history (to a smaller extent). For some reason, my interest pretty much ends with ww2 in 1945 - which reminds me of an amusing thing I spotted in a local computer game store - a pack of strategy games, and on the box was a detailed timeline from 2000 B.C. until today with important wars and battles marked. The time between 1945 and 2004 had only one mark - "who cares?". The same applies in politics and art. Whatever they do is pointless and ugly.

As to America, in time it will develop it's own culture: but by then it will be neither the USA nor in any way democratic. [ For a hint, read 'A Canticle For Leibowitz' by Walter Miller (AFAIR) ].



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ I know Yanks think monarchy and aristocracy are linked: but they are not synonymous; republics are generally aristocratic, overtly in the cases of Venice & Poland, unnoticibly in your own. )

philonightmare
8 Apr 2005, 12:57 AM
Yeah probably - I wasn't commenting on the article as such but was interested in peoples' views on Idealism vs Pragmatism as world views.

Idealism: For every bad thing that happens to you, something good comes out of it or... retribution and justice will prevail over all, no matter if you are a Martha Steward or an O.J. Simpson. Happiness is what you make of it, in fact any situation that seems horrible really has some good to it (just have to dig deeply to find it).

Pragmatism: Just accept the damn world the way it is and work within the systems already erected. If this doesn't fly with you, then work on changing it to suit as many people as possible. Just don't wax poetic on how this world is full of love, law-abiding folk, or true-altruism. That's not true; much evidence exists to prove this.

I explained the two views by stating what I'd say were I a stereotypical Pragmatist or Idealist.

Serotonin
8 Apr 2005, 12:57 AM
I agree with the other 10, but 4 is a bit of a sticking point for me.
The "worth" of a person is entirely subjective. It's a folly to equate the achievements of a person with their worth. A mother values her delinquent son over Einstein or Mother Teresa.
This is why fairly mediocre people get elected head of state.....:P

coffeezombie
8 Apr 2005, 12:59 AM
You and I obviously mean different things when we talk about "culture." I think the art movements such as Dada and Cubism were among the most interesting European movements. Before everything was bogged down with religious crap. Culture is about experimentation, not stagnation and adhering to old forms.

CosmicDust
8 Apr 2005, 01:41 AM
I like this. Thought this was going to be all political/current events because it was in the "World" section rather than "Philosophy and Spirituality," so was slow to look at it. But I'm glad I did.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3933

#1: The truth will not necessarily make us happy.

The naive hope that I tend to cling to is that knowing the truth will make me feel superior, and feeling superior will make me happy. Thing is, though, I have a damn hard time feeling superior because of my natural pessimism and my desire to entertain the possibility or likelihood that the truth is ugly!


#2: Most People Never Think

Many of my "thoughts" are repetitive, and I don't always question everything...but sometimes questioning a lot drives me into the ground anyway. Bleh. Thinking is overrated. And never mind thinking about politics...I don't want to most of the time 'cause it's so freaking depressing, and I have enough depressing thoughts to occupy me.


#3: Life is basically material.

Yes, but the mind is material too, and can influence how you perceive things. I'd like to be able to control my own mind and expand my opportunities for sources of happiness, making the most of the material I have. I'd like to reduce my desire for small tokens of status because I can't get them all and it sucks being depressed and angsty in the meantime.


#4: Some People Are Worth More Than Others.
IMO, the concept of inherent worth is BS; all worth is relative to some market. So, that implies, along the lines of the last paragraph that was underneath this truth, that nobody has a special lack of inherent worth that deserves punishment. So for self-esteem purposes, it makes sense to me not to fret too much about one's worth, but instead to look for markets you have value in and make do with whatever you can obtain through trade or otherwise. Hence the value of cultivating quality of mind: you can get things for yourself that others are not guaranteed to give you if you have trouble finding a market in which you have worth.


#5: Most People Are Proles.
Mosquitoes have a right to live at the expense of others, so why don't I? That's what I tell myself when I start thinking that maybe I should be guilty for the life that I have. Nah. The luck of the draw is the luck of the draw. Fairness is not a property of the Universe.


#6: Nothing Can Be Done About History.
More luck of the draw. I sometimes thought about how I would have been dead or popping out babies in another time and place.


#7: It’s After 1914. We Are Living in a Broken Civilization.
Don't knock it if it works...makes sense to me. The brokenness of civilization doesn't bother me, really. I make do quite well in this world.


#8: America is not a high culture.
It doesn't bother me. People still have museums, right? Everything must end, anyway.


#9: We Will Never be Popular for Doing What’s Right.
What IS right? How do you know until you find out whether it works or not? If it works, keep doing it.


#10: God Will Not Buy You a Mercedes Benz.

Yeah, cold indifferent Universe.


#11: You will only really find out the ultimate truth after you die.

IMO, you probably will never really find out the ultimate truth, and when you die that's it.

kafkaesque
8 Apr 2005, 02:01 AM
I agree with the other 10, but 4 is a bit of a sticking point for me.
The "worth" of a person is entirely subjective. It's a folly to equate the achievements of a person with their worth. A mother values her delinquent son over Einstein or Mother Teresa.
This is why fairly mediocre people get elected head of state.....:P

I agree with this. It is also a pretty big leap in logic to equate the achievements of a person or even many people to groups to which they belong.

Also western culture currently values celebrity over achievement.

I agree with the main assertion, however, that some persons are more valuable than others. It is only thinly veiled in America when deciding who will be sent to war. The poor and uneducated are obviously not on equal footing.

Lucas
8 Apr 2005, 02:32 AM
***#8: America is not a high culture. ***

Hmmm, and how would you define 'high culture'?

Would it be based entirely on the western idea of culture being limited to painting, literature, architecture and sculpture? Are other rich cultural traditions inherently less valued than these things, be it the US or any culture?

(sighs loudly and mumbles something about ethnocentrism...)

jyakulis
8 Apr 2005, 02:43 AM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3933


#2: Most People Never Think

They have, of course, the right to try. But even when they do, most don't really think at all: they just recycle a few received truths and popular prejudices, applying not the slightest test of empiricism or logic.

People primarily choose their ideas on the basis of the social validation these ideas receive. A few hundred years ago, everyone believed in witches, and within living memory, almost everyone thought segregation was common sense. This is despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence supporting either idea. This is why accumulated liberalism is so difficult to dislodge, and we at Front Page have to find shocking facts to jolt people's minds free of it.

As for original thought -- which is overrated anyway, given that most true thoughts have probably been thought by someone else first -- some people go their entire lives without having one.

Most people's minds are narrowly occupied in dealing with the circumstances of their daily lives, their families, their professions. Outside this small circle, within which thinking actually benefits them, they expend almost no mental effort. And yet democracy presupposes meaningful choices being made by ordinary people, who can't possibly be making them if they won't even think about the issues. Sometimes I'm amazed that it seems to work anyway.

I sometimes think this is part of why it works, because it makes people shut up and not make trouble.



But but but what do they do???? I've always wondered what other people are thinking about. You mean there is nothing to wonder about.

Serotonin
8 Apr 2005, 02:55 AM
But but but what do they do???? I've always wondered what other people are thinking about. You mean there is nothing to wonder about.

They are thinking about whether other people are thinking about them.

songbird36
8 Apr 2005, 03:10 AM
***#8: America is not a high culture. ***

Hmmm, and how would you define 'high culture'?

Would it be based entirely on the western idea of culture being limited to painting, literature, architecture and sculpture? Are other rich cultural traditions inherently less valued than these things, be it the US or any culture?

(sighs loudly and mumbles something about ethnocentrism...)

Yeah I'm dubious about this one. What about Andy Warhol and Pop Art? America spawned it.

Frida Kahlo, one of the more important female artists of the 20th century came from Mexico (the Americas).

There is a bias against "new cultures" like the US, Australia and NZ amongst cultural snobs. Whoever wrote #8 was a Luddite.

Swift
8 Apr 2005, 08:40 AM
Before everything was bogged down with religious crap. Culture is about experimentation, not stagnation and adhering to old forms.I think you are wrong. If you look at the history of art in Catholic and Protestant country's, you'll see a big evolution of styles, eg baroque, roman, gothic, etc... Compare that to Greek/Russian Orthodox art, and you'll notice they haven't changed a bit in 2000 years of existence.

Swift

Swift
8 Apr 2005, 08:48 AM
I do not believe that one needs aristocratic structure in order to bring about culture. I believe cultures like this have been too traditionalist and stagnant to tell the truth, actually. European cultures only really started to get interesting after these countries adopted more democratic values.Culture has always been an elitist thing, whether aristocratic or new money. Peasants simply didn't had the refinement, time, money or education to get involved with culture those days. And if it weren't for aristocracy, there would have been nobody to financially support all those painters, writers, composers, etc...

Swift

Swift
8 Apr 2005, 08:50 AM
Would it be based entirely on the western idea of culture being limited to painting, literature, architecture and sculpture? Are other rich cultural traditions inherently less valued than these things, be it the US or any culture? What other cultural traditions are you talking about?

Hypnos
8 Apr 2005, 08:57 AM
Regarding #1: I guess it comes down to whether or not, for you, truth precedes emotion, or vice versa.

I subscribe to Keats/Socrates: truth is beauty, and beauty is truth.

Lee
8 Apr 2005, 10:13 AM
1: The truth will not necessarily make us happy.


Regarding #1: I guess it comes down to whether or not, for you, truth precedes emotion, or vice versa.

I subscribe to Keats/Socrates: truth is beauty, and beauty is truth.
I would love to agree with Hypnos here, but my feelings tend to act as they see fit, sometimes the truth is ugly, yet at the same time the truth is always preferable to the alternative.

#6: Nothing Can Be Done About History.

Plenty can be done about history, history has been written and rewritten time and time again, history can be reframed, parts can be ignored, some of it is lost forever and almost all is open to interpretation. People choose what history to bother with and which to ignore and there is so much of it how can anyone possibly hope to learn it thoroughly.

Nothing can be done about what actually happened, but frequently what actually happened is not what matters.

#9: We Will Never be Popular for Doing What’s Right.


What IS right? How do you know until you find out whether it works or not? If it works, keep doing it.
I agree with CosmicDust here, What most people define of as "right" is simply whatever best helps them achieve thier own ends, even if they do not realise this.

#10: God Will Not Buy You a Mercedes Benz.

Unless you get lucky, some people get lucky, the universe may be cold and idifferent but then some people experience that indifference better than others... lucky bastards!

#11: You will only really find out the ultimate truth after you die.

This one is just stupid.

Lucas
9 Apr 2005, 01:47 AM
The concept of high vs low culture can not be used to objectively compare cultures. Not that cultures can ever be compared in a linear fashion. All are suspended within the web of their own cultural context.


http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2t3a.htm
High culture, therefore, refers to what are (supposedly) the greatest artistic and literary achievements of a society. Clearly, what counts as "the greatest" is going to ultimately be a matter of values - judgements about what should or should not count as high culture.

Low culture, on the other hand, refers to a wide variety of cultural themes that are characterised by their production and consumption by "the masses". At various times, low cultural forms have included the cinema, certain forms of theatre, comics, television (especially soap operas, game shows and the like).

http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2t3e.htm

...conveniently assume that high culture is inherently superior to what they term low culture, yet it does not seem possible to differentiate this easily between cultural differences without making an arbitrary judgement.

SheepDog
9 Apr 2005, 03:13 AM
Truths, huh...

How does it make any sense to agree or disagree with anything labeled as such?

Lee
9 Apr 2005, 03:15 AM
Truths, huh...

How does it make any sense to agree or disagree with anything labeled as such?bah, just play along, we all know how silly it is, but we play along anyway.

You understand the terms on which the rest of us posted.

jimkopelli
9 Apr 2005, 04:21 AM
Very interesting... I'd thought a bit about some of that, but this was agood version written down. Yay.


[ For a hint, read 'A Canticle For Leibowitz' by Walter Miller (AFAIR) ].
Hmm... didn't know anyone else had ever heard of Canticle... but I'm also not suprised that it was you.
Been a while since I read it... need to look it up sometime and read it again.

mgb
9 Apr 2005, 05:34 AM
I think the truths are ridiculous and nothing more than pop culture placation to psuedo-intellectuals. I could go into detail, but I'm feelin' lazy.

SheepDog
9 Apr 2005, 09:51 AM
bah, just play along, we all know how silly it is, but we play along anyway.

You understand the terms on which the rest of us posted.
I was going to reply, but...

I think the truths are ridiculous and nothing more than pop culture placation to psuedo-intellectuals. I could go into detail, but I'm feelin' lazy.
I'm feeling lazy, too.

Swift
9 Apr 2005, 09:56 AM
Truths, huh...

How does it make any sense to agree or disagree with anything labeled as such?Don't stare yourself blind on labels. Labels are for soup cans.

SheepDog
9 Apr 2005, 10:13 AM
Don't stare yourself blind on labels. Labels are for soup cans.
Just the facts, man. Just the facts.

cathmc
9 Apr 2005, 05:07 PM
Provocative stuff. I am hereby provoked. I hope I can articulate my responses intelligently, and not just sputter, which was my initial reaction to some points!




#2: Most People Never Think
Agreed, it takes more time/energy/wherewithal than most people have to even begin to understand everything going on in the world (or just one's country), much less form opinions about what to do about it.
This means that elites of all kinds (politicians, wealthy owners of most of the world's resources, etc.) can step in and make the decisions and protect their oown interests.



#3: Life is basically material. People tell me that "justice" is more important than material things, but every example of injustice they give is somebody's deprivation of material things. I never hear the world is unjust because people are being deprived of spiritual enlightenment.
Sure, justice IS about material deprivation, or more to the point about gross inequalities in material resources. See above - the haves are in a good position to keep having. But I think the 'that's just the way it is you sentimentalists better accept it' crap is a cop-out. The concept of justice is exactly to say we have to look at the causes of such gross inequalities and look for ways to address them. And thinking people, though they may be in the minority - cannot just ignore this. I'd say the people posting here fall into that category.


#4: Some People Are Worth More Than Others.
Terribly sorry, but this clearly has to include racial, sexual, and ethnic groups.

Please. He leaps from the fact the certain unique individuals - Einstein, Mother Theresa - achieve great things and can be said to have more 'worth', to saying then that entire groups have less worth?
This is putting the cart before the horse. Or the chicken before the egg. Or something like that. Certain racial, sexual and ethnic groups do indeed have de facto less worth because - see above - the world is not just AND the elites protect their interests.
Again, a cop-out to say 'hey, that's the way it is'. It got that way through the history which, agreed, we cannot change, but we do not have to live our lives with our thumbs up our asses acting like nothing can be addressed now. (Oops, starting to sputter a little...)




#5: Most People Are Proles.
Yes, most of the world is poor. But I disagree that they all want to be 'here' (wherever that is). What they want is to have a decent life wherever they are. That doesn't mean everyone wants 3 TVs and a playstation and a car in the garage. That definition of material good is brought to you by every company in the world buying advertisements to convince you that you have to have them. But there is a hierarchy of needs, and the dirt poor rice farmer in this essay is not beating down your door trying to get your appliances, he is too busy wishing for a reliable source of potable water within a day's walk of his village. At the risk of being accused of sentimentalism, I don't think we at the high end of the equity scale can just close ranks and protect our loot from the unwashed masses. There are plenty of pragmatic reasons to fear a continuing boom of poor populations with a growing awareness of the gaps between them and us, if you find justice too wishy-washy a motivation. I'm sure I don't have to outline them to anyone reading here.

Anyway Like most people beyond a certain age, life has knocked a lot of idealism out of me. So I AM more pragmatic in what change I believe is really possible, and how it may come about. I even fight a constant battle against the complete victory of cynicism. But thinking people can't just throw up their hands and say 'hey, it's the harsh reality, you sentimentalists'. It's a massive rationalization for accepting massive injustices.

Jacque
9 Apr 2005, 09:49 PM
Yeah probably - I wasn't commenting on the article as such but was interested in peoples' views on Idealism vs Pragmatism as world views.
Pragmatism is idealism, practical idealism. Why "realists" corrupt this philosophy, I do not know.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

"Pragmatism does not hold, however, that just anything that is useful or practical should be regarded as true, or anything that helps us to survive merely in the short-term; pragmatists argue that what should be taken as true is that which most contributes to the most human good over the longest course. In practice, this means that for pragmatists, theoretical claims should be tied to verification practices--i.e., that one should be able to make predictions and test them--and that ultimately the needs of humankind should guide the path of human inquiry."

"According to Menand, pragmatism took form largely in response to the work of Charles Darwin (evolution, ongoing process, and a non-epistemological view of history), statistics (the recognition of the role of randomness in the unfolding of events, and of the presence of regularity within randomness), American democracy (values of pluralism and consensus applied to knowledge as well as politics), and in particular the American Civil War (a rejection of the sort of absolutizing or dualizing claims (i.e., to Truth) that provide the philosophical underpinnings of war)."

Hypnos
9 Apr 2005, 10:58 PM
Sure, justice IS about material deprivation, or more to the point about gross inequalities in material resources. See above - the haves are in a good position to keep having. But I think the 'that's just the way it is you sentimentalists better accept it' crap is a cop-out. The concept of justice is exactly to say we have to look at the causes of such gross inequalities and look for ways to address them. And thinking people, though they may be in the minority - cannot just ignore this. I'd say the people posting here fall into that category.
This smacks of "social justice," which is crap.

Jacque
9 Apr 2005, 11:46 PM
Please. He leaps from the fact the certain unique individuals - Einstein, Mother Theresa - achieve great things and can be said to have more 'worth', to saying then that entire groups have less worth?
If gaining "worth" can be achieved by helping those of lesser "worth", isn't that Sisyphean task? Of course, it encourages an overall increase in worth in that there is no limit since worth is caculated in relation to the worth of others.

And then the concept of "worth". If it is accumulated over one's life span, how can it spent when you die? And then to have more "worth" is characterized as having a greater output (sometimes in relation to input), and so you are more useful to others. Thus, your worth is derived from how much others can gain from you; not how much you're "worth", but how you may be "spent". However, cheap labor is "worth" a lot to some. "Worthy" enough to cause them to seek it out in the most desolate places, enough for them to abandon their moral conscience. Why is it that people of "great worth" are attracted to people of such "low worth"?

Biff_Loman
10 Apr 2005, 01:07 PM
Not sure about a few other things like the whole "pursuit of property" thing. Is that well documented? I doubt it.

Dude, they lifted it straight from John Locke. And yes, the original was "property."

[edit] That is, Locke's original phrase stated "property."

kafkaesque
10 Apr 2005, 05:33 PM
#11: You will only really find out the ultimate truth after you die.
There is no 'after you die'. The majority of those seeking the ultimate truth will concede it is the search that is the important thing.


#8: America is not a high culture.
Why is this a harsh truth? It seems like most people are okay with that.

#5: Most People Are Proles.

Why is this a harsh truth? I grew up in a small rural town in an agricultural family. It was not for me, but my dad and brother go to work on the ranch 7 days a week and have done so their whole lives. My dad (who is a bit of a philosopher) finds this life highly rewarding despite lack of monetary gain. Many eastern cultures contend that giving up desire for material gains is the only way to live fully.

#3: Life is basically material.


People tell me that "justice" is more important than material things, but every example of injustice they give is somebody's deprivation of material things. I never hear the world is unjust because people are being deprived of spiritual enlightenment. Or almost never, because I did hear this just once, and as an agnostic, I am willing to concede that it may be true.

5% of the time.
Are you kidding? Not all wars and conflicts have been about property. How many were/are waged because of religous or spiritual principles?
Many have cried 'Unjust' in regards to oppression of their spirutal or cultural heritage. Monks in Tibet, Fallon Gong practicioners, Native Americans (loss of land was not the only concern for them, they did not even believe in ownership). What about the 20th century Irish writers who wrote about the injustice of their forbearers being punished for speaking or teaching Gaelic, thus depriving their generation of a key aspect of their history? These are just off the top of my head, a little research I am sure could bring up volumes more. Not all injustice is about property, to say so implies some serious blind spots.

Swift
10 Apr 2005, 09:40 PM
In the end, it's all about money, property and territory. Don't tell me the English occupied Ireland because they didn't like the sound of Gaelic. They wouldn't have done that if there wasn't anything to gain.

Swift

kafkaesque
10 Apr 2005, 10:29 PM
In the end, it's all about money, property and territory. Don't tell me the English occupied Ireland because they didn't like the sound of Gaelic. They wouldn't have done that if there wasn't anything to gain.

Swift

I concede that in all of the cases I mentioned the opressors were motivated by money, property and territory. But this is not what made their actions unjust. They robbed people of their right to follow their own practices of spiritual enlightenment, or to maintain their cultural identity. For those oppressed it was not about about money or property. The Irish were already dirt poor and starving. So they did not have much to lose in that regard.

Swift
10 Apr 2005, 10:42 PM
Oh, now I see.

EDIT: Found a nice article that talks about just this.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/balkans.htm

Claverhouse
11 Apr 2005, 01:05 AM
In the end, it's all about money, property and territory. Don't tell me the English occupied Ireland because they didn't like the sound of Gaelic. They wouldn't have done that if there wasn't anything to gain.

Swift
Actually, ( and I'm English/Irish etc. ) this is partly true > the gaelic culture thing being a red herring so long as they conformed; although the religious aspect on both sides was pretty intense for the people that hated catholicism or hated protestantism > it was more about security than anything else. A large Island could not let a smaller Island be a staging-post for an invasion.

Anyway as I said before: neighbours always fight. Because that is what God created neighbours for. And if Britain had vanished like Atlantis, France or Spain would have done exactly the same thing to Ireland. Small countries have advantages, but they pay for those by both being targets for big countries, and very often being the main arenas for bigger nations to fight in. Always fight away from home: the key to a happy war.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

ppc
12 Apr 2005, 12:28 AM
***#8: America is not a high culture. ***

Hmmm, and how would you define 'high culture'?

Would it be based entirely on the western idea of culture being limited to painting, literature, architecture and sculpture? Are other rich cultural traditions inherently less valued than these things, be it the US or any culture?

(sighs loudly and mumbles something about ethnocentrism...)

My thoughts exactly. I love it how people think that they somehow figured out what is "real" culture and what isn't.

And they say Americans are arrogant... HAH!

Star Cannon
13 Apr 2005, 02:14 AM
Interesting article. It rings true, but there's always something humans can do about it once angered and amassed into a tidal wave of "veto" and "No!" and effort.