I would say anti-subjectivity, which is almost the same, but guides towards a clearer direction. About civilization, it doesn't work because it is just a popular, social, unrefined version of progress of subjectivity. For example, art is subjectivity and it is not by chance that dictatorships and violence are against art and viceversa. I would say the same thing with another more explicit word: spirituality.

A social existence, is I believe, intended to be a mutually beneficial arrangement. Part of the deal is sacrificing personal freedom or compromising on one's individuality.

There are 3 possibities here.

1. Sacrifice all of one's individuality (communism)
2. Sacrifice none of one's individuality (anarchy)
3. Sacrifice some of one's individuality (democracy)

As you can see, democracies hit the sweet spot!

Why, it has already happened… Civilization has made man, if not always more bloodthirsty, at least more viciously, more horribly bloodthirsty.” — Dermot Griffin

This is certainly a popular view. Personally I have seen no good evidence to think humans are more violent or cruel than in earlier times.

"Civilization" is the symbolic construct of administratively distancing decision-makers (elites) from the adverse risks/consequences of decision-making (à la "moral hazards") for "sovereign war-making" both at home against social enemies (e.g. scapegoats, outlaws / prisoners / captives, factions) and abroad against foreign enemies (e.g. other sovereigns). After all, as history shows, it's more "civilized" to mass-murder remotely (or by proxy / remote control) than to butcher people face to face (pace Levinas); thus, the (mostly expendable) young sent to war must be sufficiently de-"civilized" for indeterminate, often prolonged, periods of indiscriminate slaughter. "Civilization" every few or more generations feasts on its own children (& grandchildren) along with those "others" they have destroyed. The practical necessity for the (legal) fiction of "person" as the fundamental principle establishing customary civil "etiquettes of murder" (i.e. who ought to and ought not to kill and be killed à la "castes") must be "self-evident" to anyone properly "civilized". :mask:

Although not a typical philosopher I like to think the Trappist monk and author Thomas Merton, who I must say has left a lasting impression on me, got it right. In New Seeds of Contemplation he writes “Instead of hating the people you think are war-makers, hate the appetites and disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed - but hate these things in yourself, not in another.” He kind of represented a different way of thinking during the 60’s; he wasn’t for the destruction of cites (the extremism of rioting), he commended and supported peaceful protest (e.g. MLK with the march on Washington) but I still personally think he found it insufficient, and was critical of the bohemian freethinking libertarian types (such as Alan Watts who has also made an impression on me but whatever Watts said Merton said it better). Merton seemed to believe that writing and indeed a life of contemplation and solitude could interestingly enough change the world for the better like all the other three groups believed that they were doing. In his last lecture titled “Marxism from a Monastic Perspective” (sometimes published as “Marxist Theory and Monastic Theoria”) he writes the following:

“I think we should say that there has to be a dialectic between world refusal and world acceptance. The world refusal of the monk is something that also looks toward an acceptance of a world that is open to change. In other words, the world refusal of the monk is in view of his desire for change. This puts the monk on the same plane with the Marxist, because the Marxist directs a dialectical critique of social structures toward the end of revolutionary change. The difference between the monk and the Marxist is fundamental insofar as the Marxist view of change is oriented to the change of substructures, economic substructures, and the monk is seeking to change man’s consciousness… The idea of alienation is basically Marxist, and what it means is that man living under certain economic conditions is no longer in possession of the fruits of his life. His life is not his. It is lived according to conditions determined by somebody else. I would say that on this particular point, which is very important indeed in the early Marx, you have a basically Christian idea. Christianity is against alienation. Christianity revolts against an alienated life. The whole New Testament is, in fact—and can be read by a Marxist-oriented mind as—a protest against religious alienation. St. Paul is without a doubt one of the greatest attackers of religious alienation. Alienation is the theme of the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians, and it is something worth knowing about… When you stop and think a little bit about St. Benedict’s concept of conversio morum [literally a change of one’s behavior or perhaps more accurately a conversion of life], that most mysterious of our vows, which is actually the most essential, I believe, it can be interpreted as a commitment to total inner transformation of one sort or another—a commitment to become a completely new man.”

In the full lecture he goes on to briefly try and breakdown the main thesis of the critical theorist Herbert Marcuse’s book One-Dimensional Man (which I have never read). Merton basically suggests that the thesis of the book points to two variations of totalitarianism, a kind that is violent and nasty and another kind that is overly compassionate. Both these forms of totalitarianism he believes, and I likewise believe, have the potential to be combated when man undergoes this Benedictine idea of conversio morum; biblically this could be termed “repentance” or “conversion” (coming from Greek metanoia, “to have a change of heart”).

Of course, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy said it first but I can’t help but quote him. If we really want to change the world then I think we need to start with a change in our own hearts first. This too, is what what communists and fascists get completely wrong.

One monk's change in heart, once it metastasizes and reaches critical mass initiates an unstoppable chain reaction which is precisely what a Marxist would love to be credited with but for a different purpose. It just dawned on me that is a meme version of a nuclear bomb but millions of times more powerful, some have a blast radius that spans the entire globe!

Maybe its the other way around? Maybe continual erosion of all that was communal/shared in favour of the individual has left a void, to which all of these movement sought some kind of solution?

If we really want to change the world then I think we need to start with a change in our own hearts first — Dermot Griffin

I essentially agree, but then we need to clarify what kind of change we should make in our hearts. Peace, hating violence, is not enough, because they are negative concepts: peace has some meaning only assuming conditions of war. What shall we do after having realized peace? If we are unable to give solid directions, unfortunately war is able to be more attractive than peace: if peace means just “not-making-war”, it is almost equivalent to “making-nothing”, that is, at the end, death: dead people are those wo are in the most perfect peace. So, if peace means being dead, then war is better. I am not supporting this opinion, I am just showing how problematic the concept of peace is. That’s why, when peace has been reached, for example by democracy, a lot of more problems come out, problems that are able to cause war again.
Let’s assume that we should change our hearts towards personalism. I disagree. Today “person” is becoming more and more poor, because more and more people realize that there is no need to be a person to deserve respect: animals deserve respect, plants as well, the environment as well. And, actually, thinking that we are “persons”, could even have a violent result, if we take the consequence that animals and a lot of other things are not persons, so that they don’t have the same dignity we have. Again, I am not supporting this thought, I want just show that such ideas like peace, non violence, person, are weak ideas, good just to move hearts in naive ways, good to make revolutions that actually prepare the conditions for new wars.
That’s the reason why I consider more effective, more able to create a clear context about where the real problems are and where the best solutions are, the concept of “subjectivity”: I think that this concept is able to include automatically peace, non-violence, person, with the advantage of making things much clearer and creating a much more solid basis to work on.

I see your point; the existentialists and phenomenologists discuss subjectivity a lot. To keep the emphasis on human beings for the sake of the discussion, Merton believed that there exists what he called “monastic therapy.” In the same paper stated in my post prior he writes the following:

“Adam of Perseigne has the idea that you come to the monastery, first, to be cured. The period of monastic formation is a period of cure, of convalescence. When one makes one’s profession, one has passed through convalescence and is ready to begin to be educated in a new way— the education of the ‘new man.’ The whole purpose of the monastic life is to teach men to live by love. The simple formula, which was so popular in the West, was the Augustinian formula of the translation from cupiditas into caritas, of self-centered love into an outgoing, other-centered love. In the process of this change the individual ego was seen to be illusory and dissolved itself, and in place of this self-centered ego came the Christian person, who was no longer just the individual but was Christ dwelling in each one. So in each one of us the Christian person is that which is fully open to all other persons, because ultimately all other persons are Christ.“

Thought this was interesting. I think to see oneself as a person only makes sense unless it is understood via grace.

Of course, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy said it first but I can’t help but quote him. If we really want to change the world then I think we need to start with a change in our own hearts first. This too, is what what communists and fascists get completely wrong. — Dermot Griffin

Then I guess your speculation that the world is a worse place now or that civilisation is evil is some sense is unlikely to be relevant to the project. Change yourself. :wink: Forget about the others...

The whole purpose of the monastic life is to teach men to live by love. — Dermot Griffin

I would say, about the monastic therapy of love, the same I said about person: it doesn't work, there are too many objections that make it unreliable:
- if love is so powerful in changing people's heart, why people, including the monks who are most advanced in their path, find loving so hard to practice?
- The obvious Christian answer is: because they are all sinners. Well, this shows that even being in Christ's love doesn't heal at all anybody. The word "therapy" in the expression "monastic therapy" suggests some kind of healing, while actually no advanced monk, nobody, has ever been able to witness any kind of freedom from sin;
- Even Jesus himself has a lot of contradictions. Essentially he is exposed to the problem of theodicy: why doesn't he save the world, leaving instead it under the power of sin? If God, or Jesus, is love, why doesn't he do anything about the suffering that oppresses the world?
Even charity, if meant as witnessing the power of Christ's love, becomes contradictory in this context, because it seems that Jesus' disciples have the responsibility to compensate God's contradiction: when the disciple is successful in practicing some acts of love, then it is God's merit; when he is unsuccessful, then it is because he is a sinner: it is a perfect formula to always save God's face, so that the so important concept of "person" means actually, in this context, being God's victim, means slavery of a contradictory God, whose face needs continuously to be saved by the sins of the "person".

It seems to me that "subjectivity" at least opens to a humble idea of love, meant just as an attempt, a try, free from the contradictions of God, free from being idealized as a therapy that actually doesn't show any therapeutic ability. I think that love can be therapeutic only in the context of humility created by criticism and self-criticism, that includes criticism of the concept of love itself. Subjectivity means criticism and self-criticism.

Exactly my point. A lot of my criticisms of modern philosophies surrounding Marxism and “wokeness” stem from my experience as a Marxist. When I became a committed Christian (and no I don’t mean joined someone hippy dip evangelical church, I was raised Irish Catholic) I realized that the only way to combat a spiritually sick society is via an interior change in the person, the Benedictine conversio morum. However some people aren’t so easily convinced. That’s why dialogue is important.

I think some of your instincts are probably correct. But I would say that solutions may be as a diverse as the human race itself. Christianity is but one potential path and not everyone (myself included) is able to accept its ideas (however these are interpreted) as useful.

Making the switch from atheism to spirituality or taking the reverse path are fairly common experiments people make in trying to live with themselves - for some a harder job than living with others.

I don't think our society is any sicker now than at any other point in history - how would we even demonstrate this if it were true? Human beings have always been deeply flawed it seems and when they use politics or religion to transform or 'heal' the world, they tend to violate rights in the process. Hence one of my favorite quotes by Milan Kundera - 'You build a utopia, pretty soon you're going to need to build a small concentration camp.' Personal journeys of transformation definitely seem less harmful.

I have been waiting since you started the thread for the other shoe to drop. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my suspicion is that you are inching toward it. We'll see.

All these events deny people the right to be an individual; perhaps we can say that these governments are “anti-person” or “anti-personalism.” — Dermot Griffin

So you feel that capitalism and consumerism respect your right to be an individual?

If we really want to change the world then I think we need to start with a change in our own hearts first. — Dermot Griffin

A change to what, and why?

And “the other shoe” would be what?

The tendency towards collectivism is too great, towards individualism too rare, that there has never been a society that values the individual. Man seems unable to peer beyond his categories and generalizations long enough to care about the flesh and blood human beings that enter his proximity every day.

Telling you would interfere with the results. I will just wait to see how things develop.

I don’t think I’m interfering with anything. Just having honest discussion because topics like this keep me intellectually stimulated. I’m a pretty open minded person.

Concerning capitalism yes, I think it does to an extent. It is not without criticism; you’d be surprised how many people I see in my profession sit back and get paid to do absolutely nothing. It isn’t right. There’s an old phrase that comes from the New Testament: “He who does not work shall not eat.” Harsh, isn’t it? This is two sided. Capitalism keeps us all running but then you have people who simply sit there and get paid and honestly don’t deserve to get paid. Not to mention that we have career politicians who practically abuse the system and make millions. I tend to downplay critical theory but I just started reading Herbert Marcuse today and he definitely has valid points.

Concerning change I mean a change in the individual. I really think that before someone can go out and constantly protest he need’s to examine himself first; this isn’t the civil rights era anymore where it was justified to protest racial inequality. Of course this doesn’t mean someone can’t protest, it’s his right to. He simply needs to rationalize why and I strongly believe that some people haven’t done that yet when they go out and excess their freedom of speech. This is both left wingers and right wingers.

I come from a largely western philosophical background so I am forced to use a terminology built on this. I could in theory use a terminology steeped in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Indian thought to describe the same issues. However, not being an expert on these, I don’t want to cause confusion. But maybe I can try to summarize what I gather from some eastern philosophies.

Daoism: The spiritual is greater than the material and the government stays out of the peoples private lives. Emphasis on unconditional love.

Confucianism: Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to yourself, respect your fellow man and love others unconditionally.

Mohism: The benevolent leader strives to do good for the whole of society, unconditional love.

Legalism: Whatever action is practical is the right course of action to better serve society.

Buddhism: Stop living in ignorance. Learn to control the emotions (this is at least what I get from philosophical Buddhism; I think of it as a cousin to Stoicism).

Vedantism: Like Daoism, the spiritual is greater than the material. Realize your true nature as being one with God.

Jainism: Love others unconditionally and practice non-violence.

Yangism: Strive to serve your own individual self interests but don’t stray from acting in accordance with virtue.

These are of course just my thoughts; I didn’t mention Zen because I am not at all qualified to discuss it. But in my own reading I see it as similar to existentialism and phenomenology.

I don’t think I’m interfering with anything. — Dermot Griffin

It is not that you are interfering but that if I tell you where I think you are going with this thread that might interfere.But maybe my hunch is wrong.

Not sure what point you are making there DG.

Was responding to the start of your initial response. Didn’t mean to send the whole thing right away. My point was that even if you don’t adhere to a Christian system there are other systems that we can use to actualize our values and eastern philosophy just so happens to be a broad way of doing so. What I’d really like to discuss is your statement about society being just as sick as other periods of history. I think you’re 100% on point. Not to sound pessimistic but as you say human beings are innately flawed and yes we do attempt to try and fix everything. In all honesty, and this may take away from the entire thread, sometimes I think it’s best if we stay out of things. Attempting to cure a sick society, though? Thus may in fact be impossible. My whole rant about St. Benedict’s conversio morum I think is a good starting point. But is it really practical? It’s practical for me individually I can tell you that right now. I think seeking to better oneself and having dialogue with opposing views is important. But maybe this isn’t universally practical. In fact I don’t think it can be.

Mayhap there is a solution to solving this problem but I really don’t know what it is. All I can provide is an opinion.

Where do you think I’m going? I’m honestly curious. Sorry if I came off a tad short in my prior response to you, btw. I can never tell people’s emotions over chats like this.

Fair enough and I hear you. Thanks.

Sorry if I came off a tad short in my prior response to you — Dermot Griffin

I did not read it that way.

Ahh I see. What exactly are you referring to though? My religious convictions? Because believe me when I tell you I’m not going to cry if you’re a critic of religion. Every religion should be self-critical. Unfortunately this isn’t the case in many circles! I recently heard a sermon by Franklin Graham and I dunno. Pastors like him make me question the validity of some churches.

Wait in a different thread I made up about my favorite theologians and philosophers of religion you mentioned Martin Kavka‘s book. Tough to keep track of people on here, haha. I have yet to get into Kavka but would you happen to have any thoughts on Martin Buber?

What exactly are you referring to though? — Dermot Griffin

Again, I will wait to see where this goes. I will say this much. There is in Catholic ethics an argument that proceeds from the concept of persons to draw conclusions about an issue that is contentious and unresolved. But maybe that is not a direction you are going in.

[Added]

I did not address your question about Buber. Back in the mid-seventies when I was finishing college there was a lot of talk about Buber. As a result I think my expectations might have been too high. I read him and not much stuck or resonated with me. At about the same time I found Abraham Joshua Heschel. I particularly liked the way he flipped the script, from man in search of God to God in search of man. I have not read him in a long time and do not know how well he would hold up for me.

"Unconditional love?" But human beings are not unconditional beings. :monkey:

The whole purpose of the monastic life is to teach men to live by love — Dermot Griffin

... a teaching for dying in the monastery, but not for living among strangers. :point:

Milan Kundera - 'You build a utopia, pretty soon you're going to need to build a small concentration camp.' — Tom Storm

:up: