> 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?
DM: I provided a link in my last email did you see 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.
Marcuse was a student of Heidegger and I think his One Dimensional Man
is a descent book.
> 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.
DM: You should have noticed I was careful. But pleasure is an important
value, Nature obviously thinks it is useful. Nothing wrong with some excess,
nothing wrong with every day relatively modest pleasures,
but of course, there are dangers in too much, too often, but least so
with sex if proper precautions are taken as it is good exercise too
you know. I would suggest that given modern understanding of
hygiene and how infections are caught it is possible to use sex
recreationally in the modern world and to have very little negatives
as a result of this of you an work it into how your relationships
and family are structured. Much fear about this is derived from
real dangers in the past that can be avoided by modern technology/protection
and knowledge. So I'd say that as moderns we have more opportunity for
pleasure without the same costs that are ancestors faced so we can shrug off
some of their fears and customs. Of course, a life of sex, sex and only
sex is a poor one I would say. There is much more to life than sex and even
pleasure. For me a good life includes good converstion, love, intellectual
challenge, achievement, child rearing, education, travel, etc.
>
>> 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.
DM: Sure this is the culture, but the bragging exceeds the reality quite
often
and for many is not the norm in terms of their behaviour at all. Many still
find it hard to become sexually active and even intimate with others,
and have the same confusion and fears about life, love and sex that
young people always have. The media, of course, is pathetically obsessed
with this stuff. Surely one day we will be bored with our most basic
activities and give more attention to our more developed ones. I think
eventually the media will bore of this pushing back the boundaries of taste.
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.
>
DM: There is alot of money,credit and spending these days. Some of this
is due to more wealth. Vast vonsumption does look like it is beyond the
planet's
means, certainly for the majority. Again, I hope that this excess will be
found wanting and boring before too long. It is only after you have tried
excess that you can see how little it fulfils. Here's to quality, using your
time, money, resources on better quality ends.
>> 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.
DM: That is a very convenient answer and you should be ashamed. Companies
must maximise their profits, fools must be parted from their money,
and massive advertising spend seems to work very nicely. Surely you
are wise enought to see the problem here.
That's
> like blaming George Bush for terrorism.
DM: Lost me with your logic there Ham.
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.
DM: True, nothing wrong with creating great productive powers, and yes
markets
have helped achieve this along with technology, but markets require
consumers
and as someone who makes his living in business I can assure you that
business
spends alot of time creating 'needs' we did not know we had. How do you
think
gadgets get sold? -you see the problems and try to cover over what is
clearly one of
the causes. Drop the ideology please!
> The principle of individual opportunity on which this nation was founded
> is
> neither "rightest" or "leftist".
DM: I would agree.The Left often gets this wrong.
In a free society human values are not
> dictated by politicians, and to make politics a scapegoat for
> "consumerism"
> is a misconception of economics.
DM: Consumerism is driven by business not politicians. Of course, people
should wise up and not be dragged into wasting their money on crap
and many do, we should encourage more to wise up. But politicians could
tax and set higher standards for advertising, product guaranteesand quality
standards.
>
>> 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.
DM: I do agree that educational standards have a long way to go. But the
family
has not been undermined only by liberal freedoms. Globalisation has reduced
job security and increased the speed of change. People are less settled,
more to cities, move to improve their jobs, and this commercialisation of
life (along with women working more with no reduction in work for men)
has removed the stability that used to make familiesand communities more
successful and possible. When the right fail to admit this they are
pathetic.
>>
>> 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 need to 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.
DM: That's the sort of challenging boy I am.
And I see no movement to fill it.
DM: There is no flood but it is not hopeless.
> 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?
DM: Check out Gordon Brown's speech yesterday.
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.
DM: Yes, that's pretty dumb. But even something as small as this group
shows that there is hope, and we are not alone.
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/
