Greetings David --
> I am reading a book about values called Eros and the Good
> that you would love. It discusses conservative values and relates
> them to John Dewey's metaphysics and seeks to understand the
> basis of wisdom. Platt would love this book too. For my part I
> agree with the analysis of Dewey and some of the analysis of
> current problems but I do not buy many of the conservative and
> right leaning values.
>
> What you say below could have come out of this book.
>
> What you call hedonism and freedom without values is questionable.
Sounds like a book I should have. You say it's "Eros and the Good? Could
you provide the author and/or source so I could research it? The only
philosopher I know who wrote about "eros" was the existentialist Herbert
Marcuse ("Eros and Civilization") As I recall, he was using Eros as a kind
of primary source. He spent a lot of time with the Hollywood set, and I
concluded that he was demented.
Is the statement above supposed to paraphrase me? (I don't recall using the
word "hedonism" in any posts on this forum or in my thesis.) I assume that
the following comments are expressions of your beliefs.
> Firstly, yes there is greater access to pleasure and less sexual
> restraint than in the past, but up to a point that is a good not a bad
> thing.
I'd be careful about making Pleasure a criterion of value. Licentious sex,
gorging on sweets, and addiction to drugs and alcohol may all be pleasurable
in the short term, but the overall value of these activities is deleterious
and negative.
> Yes, excessive and extreme sex and consumption is portrayed in the media
> but this is sensational and by the nature of media not the norm.
I disagree. In my day, being "sexually active" in one's teens was not only
extremely uncommon but was regarded as a perversion that required
psychiatric treatment. In today's society, it's almost the reverse. All
the statistics show that the "adolescent virgin" has become a myth. I'm not
sure what "extreme consumption" means as a social predisposition, but there
is no doubt in my mind that the "need" to have the latest gadget or fad is
rarely tempered by parents or an adult's ability to afford it. This was not
always the case. While the rapid rise of technology and the TV ads promote
consumption beyond our means, the major cause is an inability to curb our
appetite for material things combined with a devaluation of fiscal
responsibility throughout our society.
> Yes, there may be neglect of family and communal values, but
> to what extent is this driven by consumerism and commercialism
> that is the consequence of competitive markets as supported by the right?
Blaming the competitive market on the right is a frivolous argument. That's
like blaming George Bush for terrorism. The high standard of living that we
all enjoy, and that in less than two centuries made the U.S. a world power,
is a consequence of the free initiative that a competitive market offers.
The principle of individual opportunity on which this nation was founded is
neither "rightest" or "leftist". In a free society human values are not
dictated by politicians, and to make politics a scapegoat for "consumerism"
is a misconception of economics.
> Values still exist but they have changed. People value career success,
> their family life, self-expression, and yes pleasure too, but it is not
> all there is to modern values.
People have always valued personal success, but even that value has been
eclipsed today by the "by now, pay later" obsession with "having fun". I
see much less value of "family life" today than 50 years ago, single-parent
families are at an all-time high, nearly half of all marriages end in
divorce, and the elderly are far more likely to end up in nursing homes than
to be cared for by the family. I do agree that "self-expression" has been
emphasized by our progressive educators, unfortunately to the detriment of
literacy, historical perspective, scientific standards, and mathematical
skill.
>
> Where I think the Right have a point is where they attack the Left
> for lack of values and for attacking all traditional values with little
> to replace them with. I think that the Left like to align themselves
> with secularism and science, due to its fight to separate from religion,
> liked to claim it could access truth without any needto reflect on values.
> On this science and the Left are wrong. I say debunking elitist values
> should not stop us recognising what is of value and what is of high
> quality. Science and the Left should stop claiming religion is false
> or a lie or a myth and recognise that religion is largely about values.
> We, on the Left, may disagree with some religious values but let's
> not say this is about truth. The important questions are about values,
> what is good, and how can we realise it? Such is the open cosmos
> we live in, full of possibilities from which we must make our choices.
That's a large plate to fill, David. And I see no movement to fill it.
When politicians speak of values, they're typically referring to
entitlements like medical care, educational subsidies, tax cuts, or
"bringing the boys home". Ordinary people could care less about values,
apart from "having fun". When was the last time you heard someone outside
of government or the MoQ talk about value? We're fooling ourselves if we
think that people know what value is, reflect on it, or even view it as
important. Most people are concerned about issues, not values, and where do
they get their advice? From rock singers and movie stars.
But good luck with your agenda.
--Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
