I do rather like the developing argumentum ad peanutem. — Banno

:up:

And you and I both know that one is true: there is meaning in food.

Tonight:
4 egg
125 g chopped mushrooms
1/2 cup self-raising flour
150g fetta chopped
1 1/2 cup milk
1/2 cup zucchini grated
1/2 cup corn cob kernels to taste

Mix ingredients together and pour into a greased quiche or pie dish.

Bake at 180C for approximately 40 minutes

A variation from here: Quick Quiche.

That's a great-looking quiche.

That was a yikes moment. — Jamal

And you can read your old posts! We've been having the same discussions for a decade.

Yeah but I like to think this is a different angle. I'm telling myself that.

Don't get me wrong, but didn't you have more than one angle on issues in your head back then too? And it's less the landscape of thought that's different, just the distribution of beliefs through it.

Sure, but this angle is a new one. Putting it differently, I'm more interested in Adorno than I am in myself. So, I'm reading Adorno via my perennial personal concerns, but I'm more interested in the reading than I am in coming up with an answer as to what I should do myself.

And look how that turned out! — Jamal

Early days yet, lad. In the sense of being a rejection of war and violence, of materialism and consumerism, and the accompanying environmental degradation, and the turn away from political power towards communitarian values, it looks pretty good still to me.

And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse. — Hilaire Belloc

Thus the instincts of conservatism. But times change, and if one is nursed by a lion, all bets are off.

So when a democracy votes to become a tyranny, one has to admit defeat as a democrat, no? And in that sense a democrat at the extreme necessarily becomes an anarchist. And an anarchist has to allow everyman to be his own tyrant. So the political world is truly a globe such that maximal order and maximal freedom, the other dimension of political thought also become the same at their extreme.

I don't think I've said the past was better than the present. I've said things have gotten worse in various regards, but the idea that the 20'th century is not uniquely evil means that the past was not better than than the present. I agree with you here: — Moliere

I went back and reread your post I originally reacted to negatively. Reading it again I saw you said almost exactly the same thing I did. I just jumped on it because of some of the phrasing you used. Mea culpa.

I'm a child of the South Bronx (NYC) in the post-Civil Rights seventies — 180 Proof

Did you ever read the “Power Broker?”

If at age 20 you are not a communist, you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not capitalist you have no brain — BC

I would say rather that, at whatever age over 20, if you don’t recognize and acknowledge what John Donne said, you have no soul.

“No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.

Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.”

And you can read your old posts! We've been having the same discussions for a decade. — fdrake

We’ve been having the same discussions for 4000 years years.

Ah, the tragic heart of your post. What do you mean by "And I do think this is different"? Different from the past?

Yes, although, like I said, you can see something in the period before WWI, a lot of discussion about how a war was needed to restore honor, glory, vigor, and to wash away modern malaise and hedonism. I don't think it's any coincidence that Jünger's "Storm of Steel," in many ways a positive account of the First World War—the brothership, heroism, meaning, and purpose service on the front provided—has become a best seller again (even warranting mentions by folks like Musk).

Such malaise exists in every era, or at least throughout modernity. We have the Beatniks, the Lost Generation, the Hippies, Gen X angst, etc. But we must not make the mistake of thinking that just because a problem is perennial it cannot be more or less extreme.

I think you can see this phenomena in the extremely high demand for apocalyptic media these days. Naomi Kline and Astra Taylor have a new piece on this for the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/13/end-times-fascism-far-right-trump-musk) although as one might expect it is a partisan polemic. I do think this sort of thing might be more active on the right, but it definitely exists on the left.

And I think there are key differences in range in intensity. People have always been attracted to politics as a replacement for religion, or revolution as an identity. But today we see desire for a revolution that simply tears everything down, where anarchy, not utopia, is the point, because people can only see meaning and heroism arising in such contexts, not in an improved political situation. I think this probably has something to do with the inevitably globalized, liberal capitalism projects for itself. People see no real escape from it outside collapse. As Mark Fisher says: "it is easier to imagine the world ending than capitalism."

Second, styling oneself a revolutionary and chomping at the bit for conflagration was previously largely a young man's game. The sentiment is stronger and wider now. Look at pictures of armed protests and you see more men with gray beards than teens. That's important, because we have societies where adolescence is long extended and young adults aren't taken seriously or given much power (a sea change from the Baby Boomers, who took control of the White House and Congress at Millennials' age, and held it for the next four decades, into their 80s, whereas representation under 55 remains absolutely tiny at the federal level*).

I cannot help but think this has something to do with the atomized, voluntarist conception of humanity that underpins the global system, but also its inability to sustain the "progress" it previously used to justify itself. That most people think coming generations will live shorter, poorer, less secure lives is a quite big shift in polling data, maybe a self-fulfilling prophecy.

*That's a US example, but gerontocracy is a phenomena across the West.

The answer might be something boring like finding a middle way. — Jamal

Yes. As an Aristotelian I think that's right. :smile:

And maybe that middle way necessitates the relinquishing of the ideal — Jamal

I don't think it requires a relinquishing of the ideal. I was just pushing back against what I saw as @fdrake's excessive promotion of the ideal, which seemed tantamount to justifying "monstrosities."

But it is hard to understand how to navigate the middle way. It's hard to understand how to hold the principle of conservatism and the principle of progress in tension.

To my mind an illustration of that navigation is when the father and mother of a large household decide to make a substantial change in the way the household is run. As Lent is now coming to an end, an example of that might be, "We are no longer going to eat candy in this household." In order for this rule to be implemented properly, there must be a respect for the children's habits and desires alongside the parents' desire for a more healthy environment. The parents must have patience with their plan, move slowly, and be open to the possibility that their proposed change might not work at all. A parallel here would be a government that wants to prohibit, say, alcohol. Or the recent Australian case of prohibiting social media for youth. These simplistic cases can help illustrate more general principles.

excessive promotion of the ideal, — Leontiskos

To be fair to myself, I wasn't promoting any ideals, I was complaining that ideal havers are full of crap and that people who forsake unrealistic ideals are evil.

Fair enough. I saw you as trying to pose a dilemma between evil and monstrosity, but I thought the tenor of your posts favored the monstrosity route over the evil route.

Maybe part of the problem has to do with the way we've come to view the world? The Baconian view of "nature" (and so, the entire cosmos, and literally everything per materialism) is that it is something to master. We make it serve us. We remake it in our image. You figure out how it works and then build it how you want.

When this is the default approach to being, and understanding being, then it makes sense that political issues might involve "scrapping one project and starting over." The political system, culture, and even human nature become our invention, and if they are preforming poorly we can radically rebuild them, or build something totally new.

Whereas if one starts from a more organic view of nature, the analogy is less something like the design of a new car engine (very much the model for contemporary political science and economics), and much more like tending a garden. When you tend a garden, you don't want to go around lopping of limbs unless you really have to. You work with the plants, with their natural form. A garden is something to be nurtured, and having to tear things up by the roots and starting over is a sign of failure. It's not what a good gardener does. They cultivate rather than design, heal rather than repair. Gardeners, from my experience, are particularly proud when they have extremely long-lived plants that have made it through all sorts of crises.

Yes, and I love those images, particularly project/invention vs. garden.

Another image here is Martin Buber's I and Thou. A Baconian mindset tends to treat as "it" what should be treated as "thou," i.e. persons. This is most evident in politics.

(It also bears on Orthodox vs. Catholic ecclesiology, but I doubt too many here care about that! :smile:)

Did you ever read the “Power Broker?” — T Clark

Why do you ask? (I was) a New Yorker, I'd lived in their ruins ...

Yes, and I guess there's always a risk that my kind of reflections are effectively conservative. — Jamal

I think it's primarily our actions, practices, commitments & habits which 'define' us politically. My own pessimism can seem "conservative" in isolation from my other overt concerns and agitations.

Why do you ask? — 180 Proof

I read "The Power Broker" last year. Robert Moses had an enormous effect on the quality of life in the area where and in the period when you grew up. I wondered how aware of that you were as a child and how much it influenced your philosophical and political outlook.

That's a deep can of worms. If I wanted to get into it I'd want to reference Dialectic of Enlightenment, J.G. Ballard's novel Crash (sceptical towards the dichotomy of humans variously using or misusing technology; it's more like technology is an expression of us and also remakes us), and possibly Straw Dogs by John Gray, but I'm not sure I do right now. It's a good point to bring up though. — Jamal

No worries. I'm not exactly addressing your concern, but sort of just thinking out loud because the topic appeals to me and is something I've thought about

I just don't have any arguments as yet. — Jamal

If you think of something then by all means share it, but also, it's sort of something that's not fun to think about. Do we really want to weigh the suffering of different peoples to determine which time period is really more evil? Does it matter that much?

I think fascism is scary enough without having to designate it as a special evil.

But, thinking back to Adorno's perspective I can see how he'd feel a certain connection and responsibility for those atrocities than another time periods, too. In a sense it's a unique evil because this is what concerns Adorno since it's a part of his life.

So in that sense it is unique -- I just meant to really drive home my pessimism ;) -- or something. Thinking out loud.

Yes, I don't want to give the impression that I think, or that Adorno thought, that the worst disasters were brought on by angry youths and revolutionaries. I'm not making the conservative argument here, not exactly. Certainly I agree it's the case that the disasters of the twentieth century were generated by the capitalist and imperialist order, by nationalism, the reaction against the workers' movement leading to fascism, etc., and on a deeper level the inherent movement of Enlightened Europe towards domination, over peope and nature.

I'm just digging down through the layers of Adorno's deep pessimism and shame on behalf of Europe. — Jamal

Gotcha. (FWIW, you got me starting Minima Moralia today by peaking at the Marxist.org version and reading a bit of the intro. No promises of course as I am easily sidetracked)

S'all good. I'm not exactly talking about a calming subject, or dressing up my opinion but stating it bluntly.

And you can read your old posts! We've been having the same discussions for a decade. — fdrake

And more!

I don't mind revisiting old topics. I often find that I've forgotten things when I do so and my impressions are, while understandable, also not as locktight as I was thinking they were -- I usually find another reading upon rereading, or in rereading my posts I'll rethink a position I've stated before because a new argument will come to mind.

Like much of the NYC establishment "movers and shakers" of 40s-70s, Robert Moses' "work" (in his specific case – inadvertantly?) accelerated urban decay and tax base collapse (e.g. divestment in public services) and the consequential social pathologies (& reactionary politics/policing). All of my family and white brown & black friends (except one Chinese dude who became a felon & successful career criminal) left the Bronx by the mid-80s.

I tried reading Robert Caro's book in the 90s but I didn't get very far – I skipped around a lot – and lost interest (even though, I had noticed (and just checked again), the book was published on my eleventh birthday). I'm sure the mega-engineering (& machinations) fascinates you, T Clark – I had been a mechanical engineering student for three years before I dropped out of university the first time – but I grew up playing in and making my way out of non-Bronxite Robert Moses' ruins.

I recommend The Bronx by Evelyn Gonzalez (scholarship) or Before The Fires by Mark Naison & Bob Gumbs (oral history) to give some much needed social context to Caro's biography.

I'm sure the mega-engineering (& machinations) fascinates you, — 180 Proof

It’s true, he was an amazing person. A genius. That doesn’t mean he was a good person. He did a lot of damage and hurt a lot of people.

I recommend The Bronx by Evelyn Gonzalez (scholarship) or Before The Fires by Mark Naison & Bob Gumbs (oral history) to give some much needed social context to Caro's biography. — 180 Proof

Thanks.

I appreciate the post.

As someone else's savior once said:

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

The point being, no apologies for having been a child. That's what you were supposed to be doing.

As someone else's savior once said — Hanover

That's actually from Paul. :razz:

In my opinion what is so admirable about @Jamal's post is the courage it takes to admit a deep mistake. Namely, to reconsider a foundational presupposition that has shaped your life for a very long time, and on which you took strong stands. It is incredibly difficult to do that. So yes, it's a lot like Paul, namely his conversion in which he turned around in an entirely different direction and joined the group he had long been laboring to eradicate.

But I want to provide a bit of caution to the idea that the 20th century was uniquely evil. The USA's extermination of the natives and exploitation of Africans and immigrants were liberal precursors to the evils of the 20th century; only the 20th century is more evil because of our abilities to continue the same with more firepower due to technological progress. — Moliere

That's a deep can of worms. If I wanted to get into it I'd want to reference Dialectic of Enlightenment, J.G. Ballard's novel Crash (sceptical towards the dichotomy of humans variously using or misusing technology; it's more like technology is an expression of us and also remakes us), and possibly Straw Dogs by John Gray, but I'm not sure I do right now. It's a good point to bring up though. — Jamal

No worries. I'm not exactly addressing your concern, but sort of just thinking out loud because the topic appeals to me and is something I've thought about — Moliere

If you think of something then by all means share it, but also, it's sort of something that's not fun to think about. — Moliere

I realize now that this is pretty much where I unconsciously wanted to go with the discussion, and merely used my own story to look at it --- but the moment I realize that's where I wanted to go, I don't want to.

Well leave it to me to be a threadkiller.

There's probably something to the idea of uniqueness when I think of relativizing accounts of suffering to the speaker -- in that sense it makes sense to feel my relationship to the aftermath of September 11th is unique because it is mine, and Adorno's relationship to the horrors of the 30 years war is unique because it is his.

This avoids the nasty business of weighing sufferings on some kind of scale as if it could be measured.

One realizes with horror that earlier, opposing one's parents because they represented the world, one was often secretly the mouthpiece, against a bad world, of one even worse. — Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia

At one point in 1984, Winston is confessing some horrible thing he did as a child that's always bothered him and Julia says: 'I expect you were a beastly little swine in those days. All children are swine.'

It's true, they are. I've worked with kids for almost 30 years. I look back in horror at what I believed and did as a teenager, but I was a stupid teenager. What can you do? Instead of being horrified, be glad you've grown up.

I'm now thinking of all this is in terms of a link between the dispositional dimension of arrogance vs. humility and the epistemological dimension of identity vs. nonidentity.

From Adorno's point of view, there is a dangerous arrogance in philosophy's attempt to corral the object within the bounds of a concept (whatever that concept might be, e.g., the Forms, the synthetic unity of apperception, the general will, etc.). Youthful rebellion has this arrogance too: the messiness of reality is brushed aside and swept under the carpet in favour of an ideal, since that ideal is based on a certain conception of what exists that might lead, for example, to regarding human beings as nothing more than counter-revolutionaries, or invaders, etc. This is a kind of identity-thinking.

In contrast, humility would lead one to an appreciation of the nonidentical, that which exceeds our concepts; the thisness of this and that. Thus, one opens up to the world in all its inconvenient multifariousness.

I like that.