The common man has always been there and endured it all.

Brett

“I believe the new society would temporarily reject post modernism. I believe post modernism is more of a end of the road thing. Hardened (keyword hardened) poor people tend to reject touchy feely things like post modernism. Blue collar people although very often severely flawed tend to reject post modernism ... A new society very often forms from people who just previously went through calamity and thus i would call them hardened poor. Lets not get carried away arguing about the term i chose. Perhaps you have a better term or label to use for this discussion.” Christian2017

“There's no doubt that the person who thinks is superior to the person who doesn't.” jorgealarcon

‘Hardened poor people’: there’s something very interesting to me in this post of Christian2017. ‘Post modernism’ seems to have been an idea that rode right over the lives of what was once called ‘the common man’, and which the common man saw as another shibboleth they would have to endure.

I think we all know what’s meant today in using the term post modernism, just like we know, accurately or not, what we mean by ‘Kafkaesque’. In the end post modernism meant absurdity.

Recently the Labour Party in Australia lost the election they ‘couldn’t lose’. Despite their thrashing they still didn’t understand what had happened. ‘Low income, low education and Christian religion were all features of electorates which swung to the Coalition’. Stephen Long, ABC News. Not that they could know this, but they needed a scapegoat.

The ‘common man’ has always been there and endured it all. ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ is one of those epic stories of their endurance. But they’ve always been marginalised, despite their numbers, by labels such as low education, low income (as if that has something to do with intelligence) and the idea that ‘the person who thinks is superior to the person who doesn't.” I don’t know what ‘thinking’ really means here, but the sentiment is against the common sense of the common man.

There’s a feeling around that the common man is no longer needed, that he’s a impediment to what we should be. Yet every group with pretensions to power use him as a tool for success and then turn away when they achieve their objective.

But the common man transcends all issues of race, gender, religion or ideology because he exists in all those categories.

What’s happening in the world is that the common man is beginning to assert himself and I hope for his success because it means our success.

Naturally this post will have weaknesses which I look forward to discussing.

Noblosh

Replace postmodernism with modernism and you'll realize this has happened before. It's the same rhetoric as back then, on the interwebs now instead of in the bars. We can both cut corners all we want so to eschew radical talk, but we both know what we're talking about. The "common man" with his "common sense" I do not trust, that is all.

Brett

It's the same rhetoric as back then — Noblosh

I’m not sure what you mean there. Could you clarify it?

Deleted User

‘Hardened poor people’: there’s something very interesting to me in this post of Christian2017. ‘Post modernism’ seems to have been an idea that rode right over the lives of what was once called ‘the common man’, and which the common man saw as another shibboleth they would have to endure. — Brett

ONe aspect of postmodernism was the idea that there isn't high and low art, just art, which opened the door to all sorts of things not really considered art: anything from comics to soap operas to advertising to pop music. In this the common man was respected, at least un-disrespected, because his or her tastes were no longer low, they were just tastes. And this opening was also parallel but a challenge to expert tastes and values in a wide variety of fields. Sometimes, when the common man follow an authority closely (like, say, the church) this may be insulting to them. In other cases this opens the door for the common man not to listen to elite positions, for good or for ill. I don't really see postmodernism being specifically problematic for the common man. I am not particularly postmodernist, but I am not sure this is the best line of attack.

christian2017

↪Coben

For thousands of years mythology and religion was a chief source of "art". Many archeologists would attest to that fact. In some ways anything we hold in high esteem is similar to religion, right wrong or indifferent.

Brett

ONe aspect of postmodernism was the idea that there isn't high and low art, just art, which opened the door to all sorts of things not really considered art: anything from comics to soap operas to advertising to pop music. In this the common man was respected, at least un-disrespected, because his or her tastes were no longer low, they were just tastes. — Coben

I don’t think that’s enough of a description of post modernism as it relates to ‘the common man’ or anyone for that matter.

This describes it a bit more thoroughly:

“ ... postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism ... common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.” Wikipedia

As well, I only brought up post modernism as one of many ‘isms’ the ‘common man’ has seen and go. Though it seems reasonably clear to me that the nature of post modernism would have little relationship to his daily life, or benefit, and that he’s seen many groups who know what’s better for him fall away and he still remains.

Deleted User

I don’t think that’s enough of a description of post modernism as it relates to ‘the common man’ or anyone for that matter. — Brett

I started what you quoted with 'one aspect' I later gave a couple of examples of how postmodernism, in more charged areas does not necessarily go against 'the common man'..

“ ... postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies of

modernism

... common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.” Wikipedia — Brett

And this description includes attitudes that the common man has. Skepticism about progress, rejection of many grand narratives. The common man is often cynical of politics in general. And certainly critical of the grand narratives of modernism....
from Wikipedia

My emphasis added to the quote above on Modernism. Modernism, in general, includes the activities and creations of those who felt the traditional forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, philosophy, social organization, activities of daily life, and sciences, were becoming ill-fitted to their tasks and outdated in the new economic, social, and political environment of an emerging fully industrialized world.

Many common men and women did not like modernism and dislike the moves away from traditional art forms - and realism - and traditional ideas about religious faith. They did not do this from a postmodernist viewpoint, but from their own. Modernism is a very intellectual movement and the common man and postmodernism share a criticism of it. At least, often they do. Sometimes, as I pointed out, the common man will agree whole heartedly with postmodernism's acceptance of their tastes as just as valid as elite tastes.

Though it seems reasonably clear to me that the nature of post modernism would have little relationship to his daily life, or benefit, and that he’s seen many groups who know what’s better for him fall away and he still remains. — Brett

It is pretty much inherent in postmodernism, though some adherent may not be consistent about it, that people cannot possibly tell other what is better for them.

Brett

I started what you quoted with 'one aspect' I later gave a couple of examples of how postmodernism, in more charged areas does not necessarily go against 'the common man'.. — Coben

I understand that. I just felt that a definition needed to be a bit broader.

common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. — Brett

The common man would most assuredly be for the first part of this quote and against the last part. Those post modern ideas are a direct threat to their view of life.

And this description includes attitudes that the common man has. Skepticism about progress, rejection of many grand narratives. The common man is often cynical of politics in general. And certainly critical of the grand narratives of modernism.... — Coben

I think there are more things about modernism the common man would be comfortable with than not, as your quote indicates. Though I might not agree with his being critical of the grand narrative.

Because the common man and post modernists share some dislike of modernism doesn’t mean they wish to share the same bed.

Modernism is a very intellectual movement and the common man and postmodernism share a criticism of it. At least, often they do. Sometimes, as I pointed out, the common man will agree whole heartedly with postmodernism's acceptance of their tastes as just as valid as elite tastes. — Coben

I don’t think the common man would think for one moment that the post modernist shows acceptance of their tastes. The success of low art, for instance, has nothing to do with the common man. In most cases they would be baffled by low art, or find it without value according to their outlook on life,

Brett

It is pretty much inherent in postmodernism, though some adherent may not be consistent about it, that people cannot possibly tell other what is better for them. — Coben

Of course you’re right, but that does not mean it isn’t happening right now. Refer back to my quote about the Australian elections.

Deleted User

Of course you’re right, but that does not mean it isn’t happening right now. Refer back to my quote about the Australian elections. — Brett

I have a hard time understanding that quote. I am not sure what he is saying. I don't think postmodernism is touchy feely, quite the opposite. More detached. Ironic or distanced or perhaps just throwing stuff into their shopping cart with glee. I don't like the way the Left is dealing with recent losses. I don't think they have the foggiest about what is going on. I think unfortunately, given the lack of real options, the comman man, as you put it, has not had much to chose from. But I don't know Australian politics at all. I don't see leftist politics as postmodern. They have values, they think those are the right values. Period. Everyone is digging in with little nuance. I do think the Left cherry picks ideas from postmodernism and I do understand why the Right - and even sometimes the Left themselves - thinks they are cultural relativists, though they are not. Otherwise there would not be so much much mutual hatred. You can't virtue signal, for example, if you don't have an idea of what a virtue is.

The next quote about thinking I probed in that thread. I think it is a fairly ludicrous thing to say. Humans who are not thinking are in comas, and people in comas probably think now and then. How we think and what we think certainly differs.

I have sympathy with the OP here. I just think everything is so binary these days. So I hopped in regarding postmodernism which I think has some positive aspect, some negative ones and a lot that are really hard to track.

There’s a feeling around that the common man is no longer needed, that he’s a impediment to what we should be. Yet every group with pretensions to power use him as a tool for success and then turn away when they achieve their objective. — Brett

I thnk this is true. The contradictory use of the common person and seeing the common person as merely a mob.

Brett

I don't see leftist politics as postmodern. — Coben

No, nor do I, though they have got into bed with post modernist thought and found themselves, possibly unintentionally, far removed from their original constituency.

Nor should it be assumed that the common man votes for the right. For many years the political left represented the immediate concerns of the common man, like wages, working conditions, and general social issues. But it was the right that represented their deep seated values, like family values, institutions, morals, etc.

I can’t help thinking that the common man is looked down on by people (who I’m reluctant to define: inner city, whatever) because his life just looks so ordinary to those who need constant stimulation, constant new experiences and as a result constant change. And yet it’s the ‘ordinaryness’ that’s behind his survival against all the ‘isms’. Whatever you people might think, he is a survivor. I don’t know why his values are so shunned.

Brett

From an essay by G. K Chesterton. The Common Man

“To put it briefly; it is now the custom to say that most modern blunders have been due to the Common Man. And I should like to point out what appalling blunders have in fact been due to the Uncommon Man. It is easy enough to argue that the mob makes mistakes; but as a fact it never has a chance even to make mistakes until its superiors have used their superiority to make much worse mistakes. It is easy to weary of democracy and cry out for an intellectual aristocracy. But the trouble is that every intellectual aristocracy seems to have been utterly unintellectual. Anybody might guess beforehand that there would be blunders of the ignorant. What nobody could have guessed, what nobody could have dreamed of in a nightmare, what no morbid mortal imagination could ever have dared to imagine, was the mistakes of the well-informed. It is true, in a sense, to say that the mob has always been led by more educated men. It is much more true, in every sense, to say that it has always been misled by educated men. It is easy enough to say the cultured man should be the crowd’s guide, philosopher and friend. Unfortunately, he has nearly always been a misguiding guide, a false friend and a very shallow philosopher. And the actual catastrophes we have suffered, including those we are now suffering, have not in historical fact been due to the prosaic practical people who are supposed to know nothing, but almost invariably to the highly theoretical people who knew that they knew everything. The world may learn by its mistakes; but they are mostly the mistakes of the learned.”

Possibility

I tend to interpret the ‘common man’ as simply a lack of self-reflection. It is who we are and what we do when we aren’t paying attention to who we are and what we do.

Brett

I tend to interpret the ‘common man’ as simply a lack of self-reflection. — Possibility

Yes, imagine you would. It sounds like you’re saying that ‘the common man’ doesn’t know who he is and what he’s doing and why. Consequently someone else must do it for him.

T Clark

‘Hardened poor people’: — Brett

The ‘common man’ has always been there and endured it all. — Brett

The "common man" with his "common sense" — Noblosh

when the common man follow an authority closely (like, say, the church) this may — Coben

Sometimes, when the common man follow an authority closely (like, say, the church) this may be insulting to them. — Coben

As well, I only brought up post modernism as one of many ‘isms’ the ‘common man’ has seen and go. Though it seems reasonably clear to me that the nature of post modernism would have little relationship to his daily life, or benefit, and that he’s seen many groups who know what’s better for him fall away and he still remains. — Brett

And this description includes attitudes that the common man has. Skepticism about progress, rejection of many grand narratives. The common man is often cynical of politics in general. And certainly critical of the grand narratives of modernism.... — Coben

Many common men and women did not like modernism and dislike the moves away from traditional art forms - and realism - and traditional ideas about religious faith. They did not do this from a postmodernist viewpoint, but from their own. Modernism is a very intellectual movement and the common man and postmodernism share a criticism of it. At least, often they do. Sometimes, as I pointed out, the common man will agree whole heartedly with postmodernism's acceptance of their tastes as just as valid as elite tastes. — Coben

The common man would most assuredly be for the first part of this quote and against the last part. Those post modern ideas are a direct threat to their view of life. — Brett

I can’t help thinking that the common man is looked down on by people (who I’m reluctant to define: inner city, whatever) because his life just looks so ordinary to those who need constant stimulation, constant new experiences and as a result constant change. And yet it’s the ‘ordinaryness’ that’s behind his survival against all the ‘isms’. Whatever you people might think, he is a survivor. I don’t know why his values are so shunned. — Brett

I tend to interpret the ‘common man’ as simply a lack of self-reflection. It is who we are and what we do when we aren’t paying attention to who we are and what we do. — Possibility

I'm not certain, but I think this thread may be the most pitiful I've read on the forum. Condescending, ignorant, naive, arrogant, disrespectful. Pitiful. Have any of you ever worked for a living? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TmfBHfiUk

Brett

Have any of you ever worked for a living? — T Clark

Oh, don’t be so boring and sanctimonious.

T Clark

Oh, don’t be so boring and sanctimonious. — Brett

So, have you worked for a living? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated?

It's not the disrespect that bothers me the most, it's the ignorance and arrogance.

Brett

↪T Clark

What ignorance and arrogance?

And if I give you my work history would you believe me?

T Clark

What ignorance and arrogance? — Brett

First - Have you ever worked for a living? Where you actually had to live off what you made? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated?[/quote]

Brett

↪T Clark

Of course I’ve worked for a living. Does that satisfy you?

I’m not your enemy here.

Brett

First - Have you ever worked for a living? Where you actually had to live off what you made? — T Clark

What is it that makes you ask this?

Possibility

I'm not certain, but I think this thread may be the most pitiful I've read on the forum. Condescending, ignorant, naive, arrogant, disrespectful. Pitiful. Have any of you ever worked for a living? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated? — T Clark

Chill.

Personally, I don’t like to use the term ‘common man’. What I was referring to was how I interpret the term in relation to the attitude of those who use it. Yes - it can be condescending, arrogant and disrespectful. The term often implies that the person using it does not see themselves in it. It is a way of being self-reflective without including the self. It connotes pity rather than compassion, and implies that the author’s ability to comment on this aspect of being human elevates him from being one of them. In truth, unless we are continually self-reflective, this term refers to all of us most of the time.

So I don’t agree that there is an ‘uncommon man’ as such, either. It’s only in those moments when we think about who we are and what we’re doing that we become ‘uncommon’ - a bit like Heidegger’s authentic mode of being.

T Clark

Of course I’ve worked for a living. Does that satisfy you?

I’m not your enemy here. — Brett

You're not my enemy. Just tell me your experience with the "hardened poor" and the "common man" that gives you the credibility to pontificate on his life.

Brett

Yes - it can be condescending, arrogant and disrespectful. — Possibility

Of course it can be used that way. But I’m not using it to be “condescending, arrogant and disrespectful”. So let’s drop that angle and continue with the discussion in the terms it’s meant.

T Clark

Chill. — Possibility

I was civil, if blunt. Some posts call for raised voices, rhetorically speaking.

Personally, I don’t like to use the term ‘common man’. What I was referring to was how I interpret the term in relation to the attitude of those who use it. Yes - it can be condescending, arrogant and disrespectful. The term often implies that the person using it does not see themselves in it. It is a way of being self-reflective without including the self. It connotes pity rather than compassion, and implies that the author’s ability to comment on this aspect of being human elevates him from being one of them. In truth, unless we are continually self-reflective, this term refers to all of us most of the time. — Possibility

I was mostly with you until the last sentence, which dips back into the condescension I referred to.

Brett

the credibility to pontificate on his life. — T Clark

I’m hardly pontificating on his life.

However if it makes any difference you I’ll give you some of my work history:

Worked on a construction site

Worked as a cleaner at a girls’ school

Drove a van delivering mail

Cleaned out animal compounds at a marine park

I don’t think this proves much, but hopefully it satisfies you.

Brett

↪T Clark

However I have to say it seems extremely patronising to do what I’ve just done.

T Clark

However if it makes any difference you I’ll give you some of my work history:

Worked on a construction site

Worked as a cleaner at a girls’ school

Drove a van delivering mail

Cleaned out animal compounds at a marine park — Brett

For how long? Did you have to live off the money you made - pay for your housing, food, car, heat, power, health care? Raise kids?

Brett

↪T Clark

Come on.

T Clark

However I have to say it seems extremely patronising to do what I’ve just done. — Brett

I'm patronizing or you're patronizing? I just want you and the others to show you have some credentials to talk about the "common man."

Brett

↪T Clark

It feels very patronising of me to make that list.

And why should I have to show you credentials to talk about the common man?

Are you satisfied?

The common man has always been there and endured it all.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions