It feels very patronising of me to make that list. — Brett

I don't see it that way - I just want you to show you have a basis for your comments. During a philosophical discussion, it's reasonable for one party to question the basis of a statement by the other. In this case, I'm being more aggressive because you are being disrespectful and condescending - patronizing - to people you don't seem to know or understand. All I'm asking is that you show me I'm wrong.

Maybe you’re just surprised that someone who’s done those jobs can write and spell.

In this case, I'm being more aggressive because you are being disrespectful and condescending - patronizing - to people you don't seem to know or understand. — T Clark

That’s being very disingenuous. I told you I feel patronising because I had to name the common man jobs I’d done to prove I know what I’m talking about, to satisfy you. I wasn’t being patronising before that. Nor have any of my comments been disrespectful or patronising.

All I'm asking is that you show me I'm wrong. — T Clark

Wrong about what?

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

How is it condescending? I’m certainly not saying that having to live off the money I make and raise kids (both of which I am currently doing) renders me incapable of self-reflection. I am ‘common’ and inauthentic when I fail to reflect on, question and critically examine who I am and what I do. This is not just a matter of circumstance, in my opinion - it’s a matter of awareness, not necessarily affluence or college education.

My father was forced out of school at 13, spent time living on the street, etc before raising five kids on a meagre postman’s salary - rain, hail or shine for 30 years. He spent much of his spare time educating himself - before the internet - and continually reflected on who he was and what he did. He was hardened poor, and yet most ‘uncommon’.

He was hardened poor, and yet most ‘uncommon’. — Possibility

I think you might be misunderstanding the use of the word ‘common’ here.

If you had read the article by Chesterton you would understand.

I think you’re viewing the word as used by the British as a synonym for ‘uncouth’, ‘rough’, ‘impolite’.

I think you might be misunderstanding the use of the word ‘common’ here.

If you had read the article by Chesterton you would understand.

I think you’re viewing the word as used by the British as a synonym for ‘uncouth’, ‘rough’, ‘impolite’. — Brett

No, I don’t think I am. Chesterton refers to the ‘Common Man’ as the uneducated, but then says the ‘Uncommon Man’, the supposedly educated aristocracy, have been the ones responsible for making the mess by being ‘unintelligent’. He’s setting up a contradiction, and you can interpret it one of two ways. Either the ‘Common Man’ is subject to a case of the blind leading the blind (in which case the dichotomy is false), OR it isn’t education that distinguishes this dichotomy, but making use of the increased awareness from what education/experience they have.

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

Yes, and for my whole adult life and part of my non-adult life, much of it working class work, and yes, i know lots of people who are not college educated though for me the comman man would include many people who go to college. I consider most people the common man - though it's not a term I usually use.

Chesterton refers to the ‘Common Man’ as the uneducated, — Possibility

No he doesn’t say that.

He said that ‘the mob has always been led by more educated men’ and ‘more true ... to say that it has always been misled by the educated men.’

He is not saying that ‘the mob’ is uneducated, just that they have been led by ‘more educated men’. These so called ‘educated men’, the ‘well informed’, are the ones he holds due for ‘the catastrophes we have suffered’.

So he is not saying the ‘common man’ is uneducated, and he is also asking, what do we mean by education, if those ‘more educated men’, ‘well informed’ men make such catastrophic decisions?

There is a key phrase in that essay: ‘the prosaic practical people’. Prosaic I read as: ordinary, everyday, straightforward, unadorned, literal, factual.

These might be said to be the qualities of ‘the common man’, qualities that have no time for abstract ideas that fail to put food on the table, imbue morality in their children, or give cohesion to society on a day to day basis.

If it’s true that such a man exists and has always been there, and endured, then why, how?

How and why do they survive centuries of nonsense?

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 have a very selfish reaction to people on one level. How much can I be myself around them and what happens if I am? And then also how would I be viewed, even if nothing in particular happens, if I was fairly open. All groups have norms, so all groups judge and on some things - for every major group with would even include things I just can't categorize as dangerous - they can judge very harshly. Wrong clothes, wrong way of standing, wrong beliefs, expressing the wrong emotions, wrong leisure activities are some areas. So when we say the common man, I get a vague picture of people with conservative social values and the norms that go with that. They can come from various economic classes, but share a kind of patriotic, men are men, women are women, set of perhaps even neo-classical values- talk of character. In relation to them I feel constrained in ways I do not in relaiton to other groups, with, often, the added issue of potential violence. I am not gay, for example. But it still feels like a box. Now don't get me wrong other groups have, I think very pernicious boxes they want you in, but for example in my public schooling, I was under the thumb of the common man. Very traditional values, very traditional ideas about child rearing - though corporal punishment was no longer legal in schools. Other groups can economically punish, socially ostracise, label - at least through most of my lifetime - but the direct in the room attacks would primarily be indirect and not physical. So I have issues both with the comman man's very binary reactions and with the very blunt dangers one experienced especially when young. And, again, this is not a class issue for me, though more of the comman man is not middle class, they are in there also. The midwest is filled with commen mon in all classes for example.

For me his values are shunned because he shunned me. Now there were not in my past all these confrontations with violence. A couple. But one plays the game, just as one would play the game in a corporate environment with its bizarre values and economic punishments ready at hand.

If we take a kind of God's eye view, we can look at these people as victims or at least marginalized. But for me growing up on the ground, they were authority figures and if I was not careful, they would put me in my place and with great hatred, a hatred generated by those very values. I do not see them as the primary problem. I see certain elite groups as the primary problem. Here whole countries can be devastated by the elite needs for power and more more more in various ways.

I have also been in very leftist environments and then there are other aspects of myself that can be judged harshly. There are no major groups where I can be myself. I have to be on guard. So it is not that the common man group, which we probably should define, is the only one ready to enforce norms. And lefty groups perhaps anarchist ones today what gets called the alt.left, are much more violent than when I hung out with them. The political radicals and the hippies for example could hang out. That must be more problematic now. The anarchists I knew got along well with working class people, homeless people and had a nuanced take even on religious people. Idon't think I was just lucky. I think something has changed. Everyone seems to feel justified in leaning toward violence and binary thinking.

I suppose the main point for me in this is that the common man survivor group is not just on the wrong end of judgments but also judges. And on the ground on the street in bars at pta meetings at city councile meetings, whereever, you can be putting your ass on the line just beind outside whatever the relevant box is, and find yourself in danger on the way to your car or walking home from school. Or on the less physical level looked at with hatred for things that are merely different, not even threatening these people in any practical way.

I have worked alongside these people for much of my worklife. I know how to navigate this. And I am not fraidy cat in the physical sense. I can throw a good punch and they tend to respect me - of course I am not showing my full self to them. So it's not like i have been a victim. But that I even have to waste time over what I consider trivia - though also on more major issues - hiding part of me or even my natural way of being and thinking, leads me not to either see that as simply put upon by elites. But often as people allowing themselves to be used by elites and by ideas that contain incredible hatred and self-hatred in them, and as wanting to enforce boxes and norms on others.

I want to add all that to what seems like your implicit perspective in the op and thread.

Yes, I understand. I’m not trying idealise them. I’m trying to work out why they are still there, still strong and determined. Is it their values? If so should we consider those values more than we do?

My father was forced out of school at 13, spent time living on the street, etc before raising five kids on a meagre postman’s salary - rain, hail or shine for 30 years. He spent much of his spare time educating himself - before the internet - and continually reflected on who he was and what he did. He was hardened poor, and yet most ‘uncommon’. — Possibility

Yes, and for my whole adult life and part of my non-adult life, much of it working class work, and yes, i know lots of people who are not college educated though for me the comman man would include many people who go to college. I consider most people the common man - though it's not a term I usually use. — Coben

As I wrote previously, I was asking my questions about work so I could understand what credibility you had to discuss the "common man." You two have given me what I asked for and I'll take your opinions on this subject more seriously.

If it’s true that such a man exists and has always been there, and endured, then why, how?

How and why do they survive centuries of nonsense? — Brett

They don't have another option.

They don't have another option. — Coben

What I was meaning is that they’ve done so without giving up their values.

I was asking my questions about work so I could understand what credibility you had to discuss the "common man." — T Clark

What credibility does one need to discuss any subject?

Suicide: what do you need?

The existence of God

What is freedom?

What I was meaning is that they’ve done so without giving up their values. — Brett

I am sure some don't, though I see a lot disappointed: in God, in life, in their country...and changing. The mass may stay the same but individuals can shift when presented with enough experience that seems, at least, to counter their values being right.

In reference to Kafka, I don't get how that is post modern. Or even "modern" as the expression goes.
Sorry. Carry on.

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. — Brett

I’m using them as two distinct ideas, as terms with very broad meaning which we understand. Their only connection is as broad terms.

I am sure some don't, though I see a lot disappointed: in God, in life, in their country...and changing. The mass may stay the same but individuals can shift when presented with enough experience that seems, at least, to counter their values being right. — Coben

That’s quite true, but as you say, the mass may stay the same. Individual have always moved away from their roots and started a new life. Of course it doesn’t necessarily mean they abandoned their original values, nor that those values fail to find a place in their new life.

That’s quite true, but as you say, the mass may stay the same. Individual have always moved away from their roots and started a new life. Of course it doesn’t necessarily mean they abandoned their original values, nor that those values fail to find a place in their new life — Brett

No, but either way we have a large group and the group continues. It does slowly change its beliefs. The mob in Rome (cause I think that's what the Romans might have called the common man) likely had other expectations and values. I think one quality of the common man is that they consider their beliefs to be on good authority and they are not cynical about them. IOW you might have someone else who professed to have this or that value, but it is Machievellian or a front, but not with the common man. And unlike certain parts of the well educated classes they are less like to proudly assert their open mind - and assertion I consider mixed, so this isn't me judging the common man. I think this steadfastness and certainty in relation to their values may be a strength - I mean it can cause problems as well, since whatever the problems with an asserted open mind, a closed mind is also a problem. But despite the problems it can cause being hard in one's values, it also can make one very tenacious. And less neurotic.

So my question is, have or have not these values shaped the world. And if they have is the world a better place or not, and if they have shaped the world then why is the ‘common man’ not in a better position as a result? Or is he in a very good position after all? If these values are not responsible for the world as it is then why is the opposition fighting against them?

So my question is, have or have not these values shaped the world. — Brett

Yes, their values have shaped the world. I don't think for the most part they are the creators of these values. They are taken from traditions and everyday lived out. There is a delay between the making of these values and their application and belief by everyday people. And some of these ideas were made to consolidate power.

And if they have is the world a better place or not, and if they have shaped the world then why is the ‘common man’ not in a better position as a result? — Brett

1) If the ideas are partial truths and untruths, then there is only so much use an everyday person can get out of them.
2) often the very ideas they hold are not even in their best interests or are part of oppressive systems. I think parts of religious beliefs are like this, though there are all sorts of secular beliefs also. The everyday person has been told what is possible, what their place is, how to get ahead, what learning is, who has the right to decide, who they should listent to....etc. A lot of this might not be in their interests, but they will often fight for it. In WW1 the type of shell shock was bizarre. The men lost control of their bodies, often completely. Of course it was a horrible war and trauma is a given, but I think the severity of the emotional trauma had to do with two things: the mathematical cold ludicrousness of that war coupled with all the noble values attached to war that everyday people were less likely to be skeptical about. They weren't just shocked by bombs and death, they were shocked that there was nothing noble at all going on - they were value shocked and suddenly were face with cognitive dissonence about patriotism, leaders, God, and so on. It was simply too much. In later wars there was more cynicism, even if the goals seemed good.

often the very ideas they hold are not even in their best interests or are part of oppressive systems. I think parts of religious beliefs are like this, — Coben

That’s true, and it’s offered opportunities for oppression or manipulation. But I would also assume that there have been times when it’s all they had and it’s what got them through.

I don’t think they are the creators of these values, but they have lived them most consistently and for the longest time, and at risk of sounding naive, they are the the core values that have got us this far.

It’s true that the war and technology shook people up and tested those values, and there was cynicism, however those values did not die as a result, even though other ideas about values emerged. As I said, those original values endured, until now.

That’s true, and it’s offered opportunities for oppression or manipulation. But I would also assume that there have been times when it’s all they had and it’s what got them through. — Brett

Probably. It can be painful to notice what is really happening or that things might be better. Hopefully there comes a time when things shift or you do and you can then notice without being overwhelmed.