Those who are familiar with the orginal Meaning and History blog will know that I’m generally a supporter of Patrick Deneen’s critique of “Liberalism”—I put that word within quotation marks to indicate that Deneen—a professor of political philosophy—uses the term in ways that may be unfamiliar to many. Those who are interested can find past references to Deneen
If you still have any 'Liberal' friends who are wondering what's wrong with the country and you're still talking to them, you could try out this list of what's wrong on them:
"It is obvious in everything they do, from the FBI swat-team home invasions of select opponents and the gross mistreatment of the January 6 defendants, to the craven censoring of public speech, to the imposition of medical tyranny and the deadly fraud of Covid shots, to the degenerate insults of their race-and-gender hustles, to their assault on the value of our money, to their sabotage of the oil-and-gas industries, to their treasonous abandonment of border control, to the deliberate perversion of policing and public order, to their promulgation of a faithless and unnecessary war, sharply against our national interests, in faraway Ukraine."
Your discussion of gnostic utopianism reminded me of a passage from *Why Sane People Believe Crazy Things*:
"A perfect society is impossible for three reasons.
First, human beings are imperfect. We are capable of intelligent thought and moral nobility, but not always or even most of the time. Too often, we are selfish, narrow-minded, impatient, cruel, and thoughtless. We want what we want, and we don’t care about others or the common good. We easily rationalize whatever sins we can’t deny. Alexander Pope (1688-1744) described it in his Essay on Man:
'Virtuous and vicious every man must be,
Few in the extreme, but all in the degree;
The rogue and fool by fits is fair and wise;
And even the best by fits what they despise.'
Second, social perfection is subjective. What we consider a 'perfect society' depends on our life experience, emotional makeup, moral values, and settled beliefs. Even people who have a lot in common often disagree about the details of a good society ... There’s no provable definition of a perfect society because it’s only partly dependent on facts. The rest depends on the people defining it.
Third, no matter how fortunate people are, they are never satisfied with what they have. Smart people want to be popular. Popular people want to be smart. Poor people wish they had money. Rich people fondly recall the simplicity of their lives when they were broke ...
Perfection is impossible in human society because it is *imperfection* that motivates us and helps give meaning to our lives. Like the utopian community William James described, a perfect society would be too tame, too second-rate, and too uninspiring. We are not merely thinking machines. We are full-blooded human beings, with energy, drives, and passions that we need to exercise on meeting challenges and solving problems. Without them, we stagnate in mediocrity."
This seems a bit strawmannish to me. I don't think anyone but abstraction-addled philosophers really believe in the possibility of a realized "perfect society". Practical people, to the extent that they think of these things at all, are concerned with "a good society" or "a better society": very relative and contextually situated notions that come apart easily into specific political, economic, or cultural concerns. These are the carrots that skilled mass-manipulators dangle, to lead us where they want us to go. (I won't bother to characterize the sticks. We all know them well enough.)
I don't doubt that's true of a small but powerful cadre. But as with bolshevism, their power derives solely from the submissive compliance of masses of coddled and terrorized ideological pushovers. Fear has much more to do with it than any but the most superficially construed notion of "belief".
It's a good question. What (de-)motivates people? Many things, of course, in various combinations.
I do think most of us have some "will to comply". I recall personality psychologists call this trait "agreeableness". Go along to get along, don't rock the boat. "Mass formation" wouldn't work without it.
As we learned to our great cost these last few years, most people are not interested in true freedom in its classical sense or even in thinking for themselves.
DD: Do you have a link to this transcript, I can found the video, but not a transcript. I like to read the discussions for better retention of the discussion and information. Thanks in advance if you can point me to the right place to find it.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your perspective and intellectual influences. These are interesting ideas.
If you still have any 'Liberal' friends who are wondering what's wrong with the country and you're still talking to them, you could try out this list of what's wrong on them:
"It is obvious in everything they do, from the FBI swat-team home invasions of select opponents and the gross mistreatment of the January 6 defendants, to the craven censoring of public speech, to the imposition of medical tyranny and the deadly fraud of Covid shots, to the degenerate insults of their race-and-gender hustles, to their assault on the value of our money, to their sabotage of the oil-and-gas industries, to their treasonous abandonment of border control, to the deliberate perversion of policing and public order, to their promulgation of a faithless and unnecessary war, sharply against our national interests, in faraway Ukraine."
--James Howard Kunstler
October 7, 2022
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/november-surprise/
He does have a way with words, doesn't he?
Your discussion of gnostic utopianism reminded me of a passage from *Why Sane People Believe Crazy Things*:
"A perfect society is impossible for three reasons.
First, human beings are imperfect. We are capable of intelligent thought and moral nobility, but not always or even most of the time. Too often, we are selfish, narrow-minded, impatient, cruel, and thoughtless. We want what we want, and we don’t care about others or the common good. We easily rationalize whatever sins we can’t deny. Alexander Pope (1688-1744) described it in his Essay on Man:
'Virtuous and vicious every man must be,
Few in the extreme, but all in the degree;
The rogue and fool by fits is fair and wise;
And even the best by fits what they despise.'
Second, social perfection is subjective. What we consider a 'perfect society' depends on our life experience, emotional makeup, moral values, and settled beliefs. Even people who have a lot in common often disagree about the details of a good society ... There’s no provable definition of a perfect society because it’s only partly dependent on facts. The rest depends on the people defining it.
Third, no matter how fortunate people are, they are never satisfied with what they have. Smart people want to be popular. Popular people want to be smart. Poor people wish they had money. Rich people fondly recall the simplicity of their lives when they were broke ...
Perfection is impossible in human society because it is *imperfection* that motivates us and helps give meaning to our lives. Like the utopian community William James described, a perfect society would be too tame, too second-rate, and too uninspiring. We are not merely thinking machines. We are full-blooded human beings, with energy, drives, and passions that we need to exercise on meeting challenges and solving problems. Without them, we stagnate in mediocrity."
https://www.consilience-publishing.com/whysanepeople/
This seems a bit strawmannish to me. I don't think anyone but abstraction-addled philosophers really believe in the possibility of a realized "perfect society". Practical people, to the extent that they think of these things at all, are concerned with "a good society" or "a better society": very relative and contextually situated notions that come apart easily into specific political, economic, or cultural concerns. These are the carrots that skilled mass-manipulators dangle, to lead us where they want us to go. (I won't bother to characterize the sticks. We all know them well enough.)
Yes, that's what we're seeing in so many ways.
I don't doubt that's true of a small but powerful cadre. But as with bolshevism, their power derives solely from the submissive compliance of masses of coddled and terrorized ideological pushovers. Fear has much more to do with it than any but the most superficially construed notion of "belief".
It's a good question. What (de-)motivates people? Many things, of course, in various combinations.
I do think most of us have some "will to comply". I recall personality psychologists call this trait "agreeableness". Go along to get along, don't rock the boat. "Mass formation" wouldn't work without it.
As we learned to our great cost these last few years, most people are not interested in true freedom in its classical sense or even in thinking for themselves.
DD: Do you have a link to this transcript, I can found the video, but not a transcript. I like to read the discussions for better retention of the discussion and information. Thanks in advance if you can point me to the right place to find it.