Who knew capitalism and Christianity were moral opposites?
For reasons having to do with ignorance and upbringing, I have long assumed capitalism and CWho knew capitalism and Christianity were moral opposites?
For reasons having to do with ignorance and upbringing, I have long assumed capitalism and Christianity were in agreement. Agreement about what? Well, morality, I guess. Such are the assumptions of unquestioned habit. Once again anthropologist Louis Dumont changed forever the way I think. In this text Dumont traces the evolution of economics, its separation from politics, from morality, and finally its claim to be a kind of independent science. The second half of Dumont’s text is focused on development of Karl Marx’s thought. We find Marx brilliant, and so biased by his revolutionary zeal responding to his outrage at the new morality of economics that he spins everything his way. Once Dumont digs deep into Communism, it’s so riddled with holes one wonders how any 1917 revolutionary could take it for more than a means to enslave people they claimed to free from the oppressive world of production. There remain those scattered Communist holdouts that could use a good read, and here it is.
More surprising than Marx’s failure was that great self-contradiction in the West between capitalism and religion. As Dumont and others note, prevailing moral standards at the time of America’s Founding came from Christianity. According to Dumont (1911-1998), Jesus emphasized empathy as central to humanity. Recognizing the potential for error, we should then strive to be selfless. Jesus placed emphasis on what I’ll term here as spiritual morality, degrading the material world of the here-and-now in favor of a world beyond. “For what has a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mathew 16:26) But seventeen hundred years after Jesus, Adam Smith (1723-1790) wrote Wealth of Nations and changed all this. Smith claimed that selfishness is central to humanity - a paramount interest in self-preservation, why not give into it? So long as we create a set of rules to play by, each can pursue their own self-interest by a new type of morality, of “private vice serving public good.” Smith reversed the Christian teaching by elevating the material world of here-and-now, seeking physical comfort for the greatest number of people. And it worked. Smith’s capitalist economy thrived in an atmosphere of “moral neutrality” and expanding individualism.
It’s clear that traditional morality and economic morality are in opposition: selflessness vs. selfishness; empathy vs. “greed is good,” as Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) clarifies in his Fable of the Bees that so influenced Smith. Hence, the most profound self-contradiction in Western civilization, which is generally Christian and simultaneously capitalistic.
From Smith eventually arrives the notion that material well-being is a realization of social justice, not that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This change in the human definition changed our ideology (according to Dumont) and thus our actions from an ideology once based on “man’s relation to men,” to “man’s relation to things.” It might be predictable that at this transition the individual accelerates their separation from others via control of the natural world, achievement, displays of materially defined success, etc. As such, true communities disappear. After Smith, the plodding pace of individualism becomes a sprint, eventually to trample traditional communal life with its many duties and responsibilities that we moderns view as positively stifling. While Dumont is occasionally dense, it’s worth the effort as his ideas are excellent and well supported. ...more
Incredible, spellbinding, and how the heck did she do that?
This is one of those very few books in my library that may produce more note pages than thIncredible, spellbinding, and how the heck did she do that?
This is one of those very few books in my library that may produce more note pages than there are pages in the book itself. Delsol is a rare individual with the capacity to see through the societal veil with near perfect clarity, then explain it to the rest of us in a manner so revealing in its simplicity, we wonder why we never saw the truth to begin with. Most remarkably, she reveals underlying psychology – a field generally considered witchcraft to those of us in the hard sciences - with the same kind of precision. I can’t say every paragraph was a revelation, but I can safely say nearly every page was. Delsol does for her subject what the periodic table did for those confusing elements. The world makes sense now. Delsol ranks with Allan Bloom and Michael J. Sandal as one of the giants in modern political philosophy.
In a very approximate nutshell, Icarus Fallen is about the evolution of Enlightenment ideals into what they are now, and the impacts those changes have on Western civilization. If this book doesn’t terrify the Western world for what it has become, nothing will.
For me there are, however, three distractions. First is the Forward by Virgil P. Nemoianu, which sounds like a partisan stab from the American political Right. If anyone needs to read this book, which is quite balanced, it is the American Left. Few copies will be read by liberals after Nemoianu’s second sentence. The next distraction is the publisher, ISI Books. ISI has published wonderful titles like this, and absurdities like Darwin Day In America with all the usual Creationist talking points that resonate with a scientifically illiterate public. This gives the impression ISI has a dogma to satisfy because with the small volumes they sell it’s not about the money. Lastly, Delsol herself bruises her image with her position on the natural world and popular responses to its demise. Instead of a measurable fact, it seems to be denied as, “Clearly a contemporary variant of pantheism.” Here she reads like the Church resistant to Copernicus. Could it be that the natural world is viewed less as a playground for Hippies, and more of a moral matter, perhaps for some, of God’s creation superior to market demands? All in all, this is a remarkable book, I hope everyone makes time to read....more
From the outset, what UCLA’s Wm. Clark reports is staggering: Death is “not an obligatory attribute of life,” he writesWhy we die and how to beat it.
From the outset, what UCLA’s Wm. Clark reports is staggering: Death is “not an obligatory attribute of life,” he writes, and did not appear with the advent of it. Cellular aging resulting in death may not have occurred for more than a billion years after life’s first entry on earth. Programmed cell death (PCD) which we suffer (displayed through wrinkles and forgetfulness) seems to have arisen about the time cells were experimenting with sex.
Sex is an energy costly activity, engaged in because it rolls the genetic dice, inviting variations with each new offspring. An advantage because with environmental change what was well suited in the old world is often not suited for the new. Gene variations result, and through natural selection, a few offspring amongst the dying progenitors may survive to save the species. For example, bacteria reproduce though cloning themselves, and can do so at a rate of 16 million per hour from one parent (take your antibiotics). But when the environment becomes harsh, bacterial parents spontaneously engage in sex, swapping genes with others as a gamble on survival.
In a description of catastrophic cell death, Clark displays a talent to meet or exceed even Sagan’s best – clear, rich, compelling. Here heart attack, and the wonder of cell machinery resist the inevitable as systems and their backups struggle to counter power failures and starvation in a chain reaction of fading miracles. Like a community, some components are wholly unaware of disaster while others sacrifice themselves, transferring energy to last lines of defense - pumps stationed in cell walls countering a siege of water pressing in about to wash them away.
Such stunning, intentioned actions of this tiny, helpless, complex organism, the cell (of which we possess about 100 trillion – as many cells as there are stars in the nearest 400 spiral galaxies including the Milky Way!) is starkly contrasted against our cell’s decision to commit suicide. This happens when life is late, or as early as the womb when ancient relics of evolution are flushed out of us - like reminders of an ocean origin when interdigital webbing of our onetime fins are removed through PCD, leaving what’s left between our fingers. Once the nucleus decides to pull the trigger, one last set of instructions emerge as its DNA begins disassembling. All the while a stack of unread commands are being executed by unwary elements of the cell. The cell detaches from its neighbors, undulates, breaking into globules while still ignorant workers in these blobs work away, floating into a void, devoured by immune systems. Awful…
But there are rays of hope for immortality. “Growth factors” are given to cells like lymphocytes to put a safety on their trigger. And there are executioners in this tragedy, T-Cells. Having spotted an invader they do not murder the foreigner, they command the interloper to kill itself, orders dutifully followed. T-Cells know the security code.
Clarks notes an important difference between us and other “primitive” life forms. For example, paramecium dodge death by letting their macro-nuclei run the show while a micro-version lays dormant. After enough cell splitting, it has sex with another paramecium. Its macro-nuclei suffers PCD and the micro takes over as a newly minted micro-nucleus goes to sleep. Once eukaryotic cells (what we’re made of) became multicellular, reproductive DNA would be not only kept in separate nuclei (as the paramecium) but in separate cells – our germ cells (sperm, egg). The rest of us, our bodies, are their guardians, not only redundant and irrelevant but we turn dangerous with too many divisions. When our germ cells meet others, clocks are reset just as they are for paramecium. Sex can save our germ cells but it cannot save us.
These growth factors, security codes, telemeres or some other mechanism may finally be commandeered to salvage us from oblivion. For now, as Clark writes, we must die and there are many mechanisms built into us to make sure we do. Death does not just happen, it is worked toward, with safeguards to assure cells don’t backslide into immortality – as cancer cells do, a recipe for disaster. The winner is our species because germ cells are immortal through sex as we contribute molecular chains of ourselves to the future and whoever is made of us. Clark reveals this and so much more. A pure joy to read. ...more
French thought, killed by Foucault, Derrida, Lacan and the Postmodern gang, appears resurrected by the likes oNew and captivating ideas about our past
French thought, killed by Foucault, Derrida, Lacan and the Postmodern gang, appears resurrected by the likes of Gauchet. In physics the most deeply piercing ideas are the simplest, and in the form of seemingly unrelated phenomena – gravity seen as geometry for example. Gauchet’s ideas are like this. “Disenchantment” is emphatically not a political history of religion alone, but much more – a perspective on the development of ideas, civilization and human thought.
Gauchet practices the tradition of substantive history Postmoderns failed to extinguish. The State is the first religious revolution in history, claims Gauchet. Per Gauchet the original religion - before advent of the city - meant “to preserve their inviolable legacy, repeating their sacred teaching.” But structurally the State comes with a hierarchy between people and their gods, some closer than others. “The gods withdraw and simultaneously the nonquestionable becomes questionable, affirmed by the hold humans have on the organization of their own world.” “The imperial ambition to dominate the world comes with the [advent of] the State,” bringing upheaval to man’s unchanging position in the world. “The power of a few individuals to act in the name of the gods is the barely perceptible, yet irreversible step toward everyone having an influence on the god’s decrees...The State ushers in an age of opposition between social structure and the essence of [religion]. Political domination, which decisively entangles the gods in history, will prove to be the invisible hoist lifting us out of the religious.” Opportunities to depart from previous religious ways presented themselves. Unavoidable questions arose concerning our fate, the search was on, each for themselves, fractured compared to what began as unquestioned practice of one’s place in the cosmos.
The State’s development is responsible for the so called Axial Age when all the world’s religions from Near East to Far East sprang forth by concepts emergent from circumstances of the State. “Higher religions” of the Axial Age sought to unify their nature via supreme transcendent principles – a superior God, Order, Idea. Ideas beyond mere order in life and no longer as self-evident as simply taking one’s place, repeating old rituals. One eventually must seek this higher reality via devotion / revelation (Near East) or understanding / enlightenment (Far East) - the conception moment of individuation.
Gauchet notes monotheism first invented by Akhenaton was on track with what had been taking place in Mesopotamia via Assyria and Babylon as Assur and Marduk were ethical superiors to their pantheon, tending to simplify it. However, the critical difference of Israelite’s god was not based on the old ancestral order but on a commitment to his saving intervention – as Israel did after all lay between the most powerful forces on Earth, thus creating something new out of an extreme social need to dominate what dominated them. Once established by the prophets who sound a good deal like lobbyists, there developed clarity of Judaism’s internal contradiction – a universal God exclusively for but one of his creations. At the height of human evisceration and unsettling of the Roman Empire - like Brooks Adams’ 1896 illuminating “Law Of Civilization And Decay” - Christianity responds with its own conceptual twist. Jesus is of God, maintaining that link, but God is now for all of God’s creation, directly accessible to all. “We are not dealing with a challenge to reason, but to the logic of a cultural system,” writes Gauchet, and only contradiction could supply the required response, leading people not to a terrestrial promised land as Moses had, but removing them spiritually from it while remaining bodily engaged in the suffering of life. A creative solution to another contradiction in empire between its inherited religious order of the old ways still present and the actual system of domination.
According to Gauchet, this separation and eviction of God from nature transforms everything that humans had held against themselves to maintain permanent identity with the past into a reversal of unrestrained action against everything around them. The old way submerged human order in nature’s order, feeling at one with nature, a co-belonging so strong any damage done required ritual compensation restoring the balance. Nature becomes opposed and possessed in a renunciation of this world in the name of the other. God, having been made external to the world, the world then became external to humans. As God was withdrawn, our perception of “the world changed from something unalterable to something to be constituted.” A full turn about occurs, from domination of people to the domination of nature. Hence our current worldwide environmental decline, the Far East only mimicking Western process without the belief system. This and development of the Church’s own undoing; the city to a Republic; independence of thought and the importance of mass opinion – so many penetrating ideas and connections. Though it could use more reference to historical evidence, a remarkable book.
Hamilton said, it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question - whether societies of men are capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. But according the Gauchet the latter is more like it. Our freedom to interact, without confinement to old controls creates a situation where no one can control the collective outcome much less predict it.
Perhaps the most important non-fiction ever written in English.
A revealing, penetrating, inspiring text on the state of education and the modern AmeriPerhaps the most important non-fiction ever written in English.
A revealing, penetrating, inspiring text on the state of education and the modern American mind. It was Bloom’s life work - his profession at the University Of Chicago - to compare human eras and their standards. Through his research no one has so completely uncovered the ills of our time, or affirmed what is positive. His courage to face modern dogma made Bloom hated by those adhering to new orthodoxies and open to their character assassinations, but Bloom wrote anyway.
Contrary to relativism of the new movements and their extinguishing of deep education – which in the end is a search for the right answers - Bloom claims there are indeed answers to questions concerning the human condition (thus the inspiration), and that “not obvious” does not mean “unavailable.” “The liberally educated person,” he writes, “is one who is able to resist the easy and preferred answers, not because he is obstinate but because he knows others worthy of consideration.”
Today’s social relativism is considered “not a theoretical insight” but a “moral postulate of a free society,” and hence the current totalitarianism we experience from fundamentalism - Left or Right as one dare not oppose such rule.
How did America reach its current state of intolerance to ideas without agreement on first principles? Bloom takes us on a lively tour toward an answer, engagingly written. As example, early on in America, religion was demoted from the level of “knowledge” to that of “opinion” in order to defuse dangerous elements of its passion we still see today in the Levant, but, importantly, the right to religious belief was not lost. This demotion was possible if society were to shrink its claims to moral certainty, subordinating old ways (but not abandoning them) to Enlightenment’s Natural Rights. Today this process of “value shrinkage” is taken to such extreme that the original ideas providing its basis are attacked, claiming each period has its “preferences.” None are superior, as that would be, by modern perspectives, discrimination. Today, “subordination” is equivalent to suppression. This radical democracy claims limits on anything to be arbitrary (since truth is now relative). “The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right,” writes Bloom, “rather it is not to think you are right at all.”
Bloom clarifies that “passion” and “commitment” have become the new political validations replacing reason and critical thinking. What the Founders worked so hard to balance (faction) due to its inherent opposition to the common good, is now promoted as a central role of government with its fondness for “groups.” With “common good” abandoned, factions are no longer problematic. What the Founders never imagined has set in - not a tyranny of the majority they strived to counterbalance, but a tyranny of passionate, committed minority interest groups.
Concerning multiculturalism in education Bloom notes that Greeks searched out other cultures too (as we still should), but for wholly different reasons - to learn what they had to teach about the human condition, not to nullify their own society as we now do. Moderns maintain America’s Constitution was the white man’s corrupt document designed to suppress, and that Western ways are a bias to be cleansed by exposure to other cultures through multicultural studies. But this is not to learn what they have to teach so much as it is a political maneuver to dismantle the West, its values, standards and science. Intellectual openness used to invite a quest for knowledge and certitude, while the opposite is now true. Open-mindedness means closing ones mind to our very roots. As though to deny them will settle a score with our history for having done so much evil, while conveniently dismissing the good.
While Fundamentalists assumed that removing reason from the mind would remove bias and prejudice, all they have done is vanquished our best tool for correction. Such is the state of the American mind. Though American education is in crisis, Bloom has given us the gift of knowing there is hope on our own.
At age 90 - and still with us - we hope Peter Gay remains another sixty to seventy years so we might garner another halfGreat ZOT, this man can write!
At age 90 - and still with us - we hope Peter Gay remains another sixty to seventy years so we might garner another half dozen books from him. While "The Enlightenment" was written in 1966, the ancients of 2300 years ago haven't changed much, nor have those Enlightenment philosophers of 300 years past that brought them back to life. In other words, the subjects of Gay's analysis and his stunning synthesis in this book remain relevant in any time, and what a book it is. So impressed is this reader I intend to read all of Gay's twenty-some odd productions, including those half-dozen on Freud (despite my dismissal of Freud). This interest in psychology - as slippery as it is - is apparent in Gay's "Enlightenment" revealing nuance after nuance with a sagacity and precision those in the field must wish they could approximate. Gay's treatment of the philosophes virtually rebuilds them whole with their biases, friendships, venom, insights, vulnerabilities, courage and persistence that freed the rest of us in the here-and-now. Note taking from this book may exceed its length due to the rareness of blank space left on a page after marginalia and highlights, and not infrequently for the joy of Gay's writing skills (noted simply so I can combine words the way he did). Metaphors and similes make this read like a novel. "The dozen-odd captains of the movement," writes Gay, "whose names must bulk large in any history of the European mind, were abetted by a host of lieutenants." When referring to Augustine's "Confessions", Gay adds it is "the exclamation of a tormented soul weary of mere thought, weary of autonomy, yearning for the sheltering security found in dependence on higher powers." And on Voltaire's lessons from ancient philosophy, Gay writes, "Men are thrown into the world to suffer and to dominate their suffering. Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats; life is a desert, but we can transform our corner into a garden." How a human could encompass so much knowledge (and at the time he was 43) then spit it out like Bach would compose a symphony is the rarest of things and Gay does that. ...more
Loading...
