Well said. I am a 'baby boomer' hence have some affinities with the 60's generation which wanted to rebel against Western culture, on these grounds. 'Turn on, tune in, drop out', was the mantra. Of course that attitude was also fraught as for some it resulted in homelessness, addiction and apathy. In my case, it meant resisting my appointed life-path and instead studying comparative religion, anthropology, and philosophy, and learning meditation. I feel as though I have been able to achieve a reasonable balance (now in my sixties). But I'm acutely aware of the consequences of what you're describing, for many people, quite a few of whom join forums such as this in search of some perspective. So, again, well said.

The negative aspects of all six of your categories would seem to come down to a tendency to be attracted to instrumentalist thinking and its concomitant commodification of all things human.

This is interesting. In broad outlines it resembles my own take on modernity and possible means of overcoming its more damaging aspects on an individual and collective level..

I think it's also unique in that these basic positions may have some appeal to both political progressives and cultural conservatives, albeit of the now largely forgotten Counter-Enlightenment "Romanticist" form.

Seeking out those points of possible convergence and laying the ground for a new social movement is something I've been thinking about for a couple years now. Nice to see there are others out there engaging in a similar endeavor.

Erik — Erik

Read Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash, for accounts of how the world's oppressed majority is already moving beyond all this and the authors' belief that that is evidence of a unified movement. I read the 1998 edition.

Just give up like I did. It's easier than thinking about this kind of depressing stuff (although the thread title is a bit silly).

Gerald47 — Gerald47

"In a fragmented global culture and economy of exclusion that deem entire peoples and the earth itself expendable, Francis insists that members of human communities encounter one another first as persons, before ideas, traditions, and ideologies, and that we strive to encounter the poor and excluded primarily and most deeply: “We need to build up this culture of encounter. We do not love concepts or ideas; no one loves a concept or an idea. We love people." -- INTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES IN OUR COMMON HOME: BUILDING INTERFAITH CULTURES OF ENCOUNTER IN A NEW APPALACHIA

— Gerald47

Welcome to the forum, Gerald the 47th,

Your very first post is one of the best things that I have read here since I joined. I hope you'll stick around.

[Delete] @Baden

Very earnest post, as others have mentioned. Thanks.

A thought about this:

3. Secularism: Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves. Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all. A cure would involve regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativising perspective on our personal sorrows: music, the stars at night, the vast spaces of the desert or the ocean would humble us all in consoling ways. — Gerald47

What's the metaphysics of "the cure involving regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativisng perspective"? Are the sources actually transcendent, or do they just seem transcendent?

If they aren't actually transcendent, they're a form of delusion.

But if they are actually transcendent, then that would also answer a few other issues in your post, I would think.

I'll be the unpopular poster here, but, a rebuttal...

As with most diagnostic approaches to the ills of modernity and/or the human condition, this reads more like the geography of ones own mind projected on to the world.

Our societies tell us that everyone is free to make it if they have the talent and energy. — Gerald47

...

any perceived lack of success is taken to be not, as in the past, an accident or misfortune, but a sure sign of a lack of talent or laziness. — Gerald47

Societies don't do anything. They don't speak, they don't think, they don't make toast and jam. There is a web of structured interactions between individuals and groups that share and overlap that can be called society. The concept of meritocracy as a method of hierarchy doesn't tell us anything about the what the end result of any particular or group outcome should be other than "for the good of the group, the responsibility of X should go to the person that is the most qualified and capable to do X". The idea that this is saying anythiing else is an afterthought of some motivated interpretations. If I fall sick, should I go to a qualified doctor, tested and found to be competent (more times than not), rather than the neighbor who is a car mechanic that likes to watch medical dramas on TV? And if my car is not running, should I go to the professional car mechanic rather than my doctor who owns a Porsche? Does that mean then that the neighbor is told by society they are a no-talent, lazy hack and get depressed that I didn't go seek their medical advice?

And yes, one is "free to make it" (if we take the premise listed as a sort of generic, vanilla way-things-are). If one has talent, energy, timing, wisdom, and luck then "making it" should be what we strive and compete for. But, being "free to make it" does not equate to "guaranteed to make it". That is not implied. That implication is added, later, by other motivated reasoning. One is also free to fail, or to even change what the idea or definition of what "making it" means (as an individual, no less, rather than the "community").

The cure is a strong, culturally endorsed belief in two big ideas: luck, which says success doesn’t just depend on talent and effort; and tragedy, which says good, decent people can fail and deserve compassion, rather than contempt. — Gerald47

It is funny how these views become established as "the way society is". Perhaps it stems from the circles we are used to running in. I know a lot of people that are at, or just above, poverty level that would completely agree with that statement - how are they magically excluded from the "society" that states otherwise? When "society" is mentioned in this context, it is usually the case that the elements of "society" making the statement then simply attribute that view to the rest as a truth about the whole.

I would also bet that if this item's "antidote" was put in place I would bet my right arm that the "strong, culturally endorsed belief" means the poor and middle class (or equivalent lower rung demographics) simply would be at the butt end of whatever form or mechanism that would "strongly endorse" this belief.

The cure is a cult of the good ordinary life – and proper appreciation of the pleasures and quiet heroism of the everyday. — Gerald47

Telling that the choice of words here are "cult" and "proper appreciation". The cult tells us what the proper appreciation is. Without a proper appreciation by the individual, the cult retaliates. Using the word cult is a good choice in that it is the perfect analogy for the group mentality come-unhinged, and where it is only within the power of the individual to break themselves (and maybe then others) from the destructive power of the group. Perhaps the antidote to this would to simply not adhere to either pure individualism or communism, and to stay away from all ideological extremes by recognizing and addressing them for what they are - limited and simplistic.

Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves. — Gerald47

One of the most tired, worn out, and in-itself meaningless phrases ever uttered. Also, I would say statistically, usually uttered by those who, in their appeal to imaginary consequences, state that the effects of the absence of religious belief structures mean that any belief not religious in its nature or essence is suddenly "empty of meaning", self absorbed, or leads us to the path of fatalism, nihilism, and whole host of other "isms" thought up through history. If one finds meaning in religion and another doesn't, how weird is it that suddenly the non-religious ways of being are small, shallow, and uninspiring?

Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. — Gerald47

What history of human beings have you been reading? Were there not a long list of human societies shaped, sometimes solely, by "status battles" and "petty ways" engaged in with, and using, religion as the engines of those conflicts? And if not the engine, then they were definitely the gas poured into the existing conflagration.

But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all. — Gerald47

Like "God having a special purpose for you"? The creater of the entire universe is personally engaged with you as an individual and whose very simple actions can consign one to heaven or hell. Doesn't that, by design, make our triumphs and mishaps, the end all be all - for the reward or punishment promised for each?

And to relativise, we have been given all of post-modern philosophy. Reams of it.

A cure would involve regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativising perspective on our personal sorrows: music, the stars at night, the vast spaces of the desert or the ocean would humble us all in consoling ways. — Gerald47

Is it the indivual that gets to decide which source of transcendence will be used? Or the cult? Does "society" need to be reminded of this? Or doesn't the bulk of individuals have their own, or even parochially shared, sources in use or development? From the post about secularism being higher on the list - what point to the sky is there unless it isn't hung by a deity to give us, personally, something to look at?

The philosophy of Romanticism tells us that each of us has one very special person out there who can make us completely happy. — Gerald47

Did it? I am not an expert on Romanticism as a period in philosophy, but I am hard pressed to come up with any actual philosopher of the time that told us that we have a "soul mate" that makes us unquestioningly happy. I think it did seem to have the theme, roughly, and correct me if I am wrong, that the passion of the individual should not be muted, that it is a source of inspiration and action, and that one should not settle for that which does not enflame our passions and robs us of our awe in life and to make sure that we understand how we emply that passion. I believe it was the newspaper romance advice columns starting in the 60's that introduced the idea of not "settling" for less than interesting prospective romantic partners. Maybe we should be railing against romance advice columns instead, leading us to "media".

The media has immense prestige and a huge place in our lives – but routinely directs our attention to things that scare, worry, panic and enrage us, while denying us agency or any chance for effective personal action. — Gerald47

Can that be proven as a fact? If it were true, how is the issue presented in "individualism" affected by "media"?

The cure would be news that concentrated on presenting solutions rather than generating outrage, that was alive to systemic problems rather than gleefully emphasizing scapegoats and emblematic monsters – and that would regularly remind us that the news we most need to focus on comes from our own lives and direct experiences. — Gerald47

One of the goals of journalism, I thought, was to cover the news. The goal of media is to entertain. Here we have a mixing between concepts of "journalism" and "media". Perhaps, instead of forcing the environment of the news or media to comform to some Platonic ideal, the cure would be focus in the individuals capability to tell the difference between "news" and "media" and how it can all interacts.

Modern societies stress that it is within our remit to be profoundly content, sane and accomplished. As a result, we end up loathing ourselves, feeling weak and sensing we’ve wasted our lives. — Gerald47

Do "we"? Even if "we" do, maybe it isn't society, maybe that is individual psychology doing that. Also, which "modern societies" do this? The U.S., UK, China, Russia, Syria, and/or Argentinian "modern societies"? Straight society or LGBQT? Wealthy elite modern society or middle class modern society? There are so many modern societies to choose from. "Society" is become a cognitive construction that abstracts the web of people and their interactions into one simplistic narrative - like taking the many and reducing to one individual construct that we then label with the term "society". We look at a million people - then based off of one perception all million get reduced to "a society", which has traits like an individual.

A cure would be a culture that endlessly promotes the idea that perfection is not within our grasp – that being mentally slightly (and at points very) unwell is an inescapable part of the human condition and that what we need above all are good friends with whom we can sit and honestly discuss our real fears and vulnerabilities. — Gerald47

Didn't you ever watch Friends? (just dated myself...) Also, my current mental illness is writing really long Internet forum posts...please embrace me.

We deserve tender pity for the price we have to pay for being born in modern times. — Gerald47

When can't that be said by any living human being in any time in our history? Making the "modern day-ism" scapegoat is simply elevating our own current troubles over and above the troubles of all others at all other times. I am sure if there was an Internet forum for philosophy during the Mesolithic, it would be filled with the same "sources of mental illness" found in the OP, but listing the negative psychological effects of things like the near constant threat of injury and sickness, predators, famine, status, and conflict (sounds familiar...)

IMO, the numbered points in the OP don't survive scrutiny as they only pop up and thrive on generalities and dubious constructions and abstractions taken as reality. Well written though.

Hell of a good thread so far.

Mental illness is an ill-defined entity. Norms vary with culture. What is considered routine in one country may be madness in another.

That aside, in my humble opinion I think there's less mental illness now than in the past. I don't consider depression or anxiety or mania as mental illnesses. There are causes for these conditions and if one feels depressed because of something then, to say the least, one's mind is working rationally.

The real mental illness is delusion - beliefs that are not grounded in reason. Beliefs in spirits, demons, witchcraft, etc. are the real mental illnesses. They defy rationality and these conditions have decreased over time, haven't they?