Did you know Cicero was a conservative Ciceronianus? ;)Alas, poor Burke. He could be perceptive, but his creepy infatuation with Marie Antoinette, so extravagantly expressed, makes him appear, ultimately, to be a ridiculous figure.
As for this bit, Aristophanes did this sort of thing much better, but Aristophanes had a sense of humor and it's unclear whether Burke did. This complaint has a long, long history. As a result, I think it's more tedious than insightful. — Ciceronianus the White
after WWII, when many many Marxist professors, and other radicals fled from Europe to the US, and took positions there — Agustino
Did you know Cicero was a conservative Ciceronianus? ;)
I disagree with you about Burke - whose favorite philosopher was none other than Cicero in fact. Burke supported the French monarchy because replacing it by force and all of a sudden instead of gradually would cause more chaos and suffering than anything else. And it did - it gave rise to Napoleon Bonaparte who re-established it, as Trump said, bigger and better than ever before - he made Monarchy into Imperial Dictatorship. Burke prevented the same thing from happening in England by fighting against both Monarchy, AND the revolutionaries who wanted to do away with religion and traditions, and yes monarchy.
And thanks for the suggestion of Aristophanes - I wasn't aware he was a conservative — Agustino
You have to do a calculation in that case. Is it worth it to die in the fashion of Jesus himself or of Socrates to teach a valuable lesson to your brothers and sisters in moral courage and resolution in opposing evil, and the triumph of the human spirit? Or is it worth saving yourself by lying for example, in order that you may protect your family from being killed as well? — Agustino
Probably you also found the local atmosphere to be more decent and welcoming than a large metropolitan college would have beenI was fortunate to escape the baleful influence of decadent continental intellectuals by attending a small state college in the midwest starting in 1964. — Bitter Crank
Why do you think this happened?But the most non-conformist history professor derived his non-conformity from his Unitarian church. — Bitter Crank
I only know of William Burroughs in more detail from the three - from memory I remember that he came from quite a wealthy family and went to a private boarding school. He was a homosexual from school, but I don't think homosexuality in itself is necessarily a vice (and even if it is, it would be a minor one) - if by that we mean attraction to the same sex. It's about how one uses their sexuality that I would count as the source of the main sexual vices (as nothing can be a vice which isn't in one's control). However - he was shaped by the time he spent in Europe, if I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), after college - which seemed to be very significant for a large share of his views. The other two I don't know much about."The Beat Generation" ("beat" derived from "beatitude") of people like William Burroughs, Jack Kerouac, Allan Ginsberg, and the like were the home-grown American decadent immoral set -- I don't think they were brought into being by European decadence. — Bitter Crank
I would say though that the moral imagination is largely a product of, and constrained by (sensibly I would contend) the moral environment. — Baden
Divorce rate: 50%+a social structure wherein the companionship and love of a few friends and family is possible? — John
I think the secular state should work together with all major religions present in the country to form a community which is friendly to the believers, and not antagonistic. — Agostino
In short, culture. Men don't live on bread alone. A society considered merely as an abstract multicultural material superstructure isn't livable. A body can live in it (maybe), not so much a person.
Modern secular humanism's vision of a human being as an abstract particular with material desires and preferences, devoid of religion, history, culture, and nationality is a vision of the human as non-human. It is possible for materially functioning society to be spiritually bankrupt in this way. We are not just things plopped here out of nowhere, but what we come from informs who we are. The message of a modern Western state is: "you are no one." — The Great Whatever
Secular humanism (at last once we get past Modernism and Classical Liberalism) views the individual as part of a culture of humans as they exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't really believe i the 'expression of the individual,' I guess, in that there is no individuality to express outside of a heritage. — The Great Whatever
But what we're seeing is the option of having a culture essentially forcibly removed. — The Great Whatever
Hegelianism is bunk. — The Great Whatever
So says the great pontificator! Why would you say that? Do you believe there is no evolutionary logic to historical development? — John
I think what you say here is very one-sided: there could be no heritage absent the presently available expressions of unique past individuals. — John
At best, it can only act as retrospective apologetics, which is what Hegel was interested in. Granted, whenever something happens, it always seems necessary in retrospect, due to natural solipsism / lack of imagination. The same solipsism that leads to humanism I guess. — The Great Whatever
Geniuses are few, and culture arises without being able to say who wrote the folk song or invented the tradition, etc., because no one did. — The Great Whatever
But I don't think the notion of a society constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual makes sense, except insofar as this is something the culture privileges. — The Great Whatever
Of course if a person wants to operate entirely freely, outside of a tradition, I think this is possible insofar as 1) they grow up in some tradition to begin with, to be a coherent human being, and then 2) abandon it in favor of being a 'lonely soul' (think Emil Cioran or Ralph Ellison). Even here one's loneliness tends to be a reflection of the previous culture, although I think works of genius are especially likely in this space. — The Great Whatever
Then you'll have people who are there basically by accident and along for the ride, who will never feel comfortable there, and that all things considered the society itself would be more comfortable without. It's the former people's problem, not the latter's, how the society is supposed to continue, because the latter have no stake in it and can't be expected to cultivate something that is hostile or alien to them, or that they have no interest in maintaining. — The Great Whatever
Seems a bit superficially dismissive. And I don't think apologetics of any kind was what Hegel was actually interested in.
Have you actually attempted to read Phenomenology of Spirit or Science of Logic or even done significant reading in the secondary literature? — John
I don't understand this at all. A society could not be "constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual" "except insofar as this is something the culture privileges", so I don't know waht you are trying to say here. — John
In order to be thought a genius at all there work would have be (at least) culturally relevant, wouldn't it — John
Unlike Classical Liberalism and Modernism, where the human is understood as an abstracted being (effectively as God or tradition were before it), it understands humans are always come from and are embedded within culture. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No. Genius is independent of cultural merit and needs no approval. — The Great Whatever
I found nothing to respond to in what you wrote except this. How do you determine genius in the absence of any criteria of cultural value? — John
Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in apparently valorizing genius as being beyond all culture and yet denying the importance of the unique individual. — John
Many of your comments seem to me relentlessly offhand and facile, even perverse. They seem more to be expressions of your dissatisfied temperament than to be well-considered expressions of the intellect. — John
Why would cultural value be relevant? Does approval of something make it genius? Clearly not. Does disapproval of something make it not genius? Clearly not. — The Great Whatever
To that end it's indifferent whether the surrounding culture assimilates and understands it. It might very well do so, but in doing so the culture yields to the genius; the genius doesn't yield to the culture. And if the two never hit, then the genius is still so on its own terms. — The Great Whatever
What I said was that the unique individual is generally not important to a culture; I then mentioned genius explicitly as an exception to this in noting its rarity. — The Great Whatever
Tbh it would help if you read more carefully before responding. I'm fine with these sorts of criticisms but e.g. the 'contradiction' you thought you found above could have been remedied by paying attention to the post. — The Great Whatever
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.