Why do Some on the Left Hate Western Civilization?
As I was reading Anne Baring and Jules Cashford’s The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image for background information as I look forward to writing my dissertation about one of the most celebrated godesses in Western civilization, I was struck by the vehemence of their criticisms of the “patriarchal” traditions of the West, particularly the records of its two primary monotheistic faiths, Judaism and Christianity.
This is not to say that our traditions have had a spotless record, especially in regards to the treatment of women and ideas of the feminine divine, but to wonder at this tendency of contemporary Western intellectuals to be so critical of their own traditions.
And it’s not just intellectuals who are critical of the West.
In a recent post, Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) wrote that it seems the BBC “reflexively sides with the enemies of Western Civilization.” He cites a Little Green Footballs’ post finding that government-owned broadcasting agency “in trouble . . . for once again allowing ugly antisemitic and anti-Christian slurs to remain posted at the BBC 5 message boards, while instantly deleting any criticism of Islam.” Anti-Semitc remarks where allowed to “remain for a week” while the BBC “immediately deleted” an individual’s comment that “No one can surpass the Muslims for denial of their role in Terrorism and Suicide bombing.”
It is the very openness of the Western tradition which has allowed writers like Baring and Cashford to criticize its doctrines. At the same time, Western governments, by and large, protect the rights of journalists to report information critical of or embarrassing to the government and those of individuals to offer opinions at odds with state policy.
To be sure, Baring and Cashford do not mention the Islamic tradition. Iff they did, they might have to acknowledge that Judaism and Christianity have shown a greater openness to female ideas of the divine than has that faith. At least since the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., when it proclaimed Mary Theotokos, God-bearer or Mother of God, the Church has recognized the divinity of Mary. Jewish Mystics have long talked about the Shekinah, the female presence of God. Many Christian congregations today welcome women as spiritual leaders while Jewish seminaries of the Reform and Conservative traditions ordain women as rabbis.
Even while recognizing some of these facts, Baring and Cashford remain critical of the “patriarchal” faiths. And yet it’s these very faiths which have demonstrated an ability to respond to criticism and change their attitudes toward women — and the female divine.
Perhaps, it’s that in highlighting some of the flaws of their own tradition, they come to see the tradition for its flaws while ignoring its strengths.
But, it does seem that in many cases, this criticism of the flaws of the West, both in its religious traditions and in its treatment of minorities, has lead some on the left to reflexively criticize Western civilization, even to the extent of, as Glenn noted, siding with its enemies. One wonders why they hate their own civilization so, especially when that civilization has given them the freedom to criticize it.
UPDATE: I sometimes wonder if maybe my title was a bit harsh for although Baring and Cashford were on occasion contemptuous of the Western monotheistic traditions, their book did serve as good introduction to ideas (and images) of the female divine. But, there are many in the academy who constantly deride Western Civilization. Should I perhaps have title the piece, “Why do Some on the Left Show Such Contempt for the West?”
64 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
Really.
It’s the same reason that spoiled children are whiny, ungrateful, and always complaining about how awful they have it and how bad their parents are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 23, 2007 @ 6:01 pm - August 23, 2007
Correct me if I’m wrong but the goddess you refer to is a Greek goddess which would bring that topic under the heading of Western Civilization. Who are these “some on the left,” which I’m sure many here will simply truncate to “the left” or “those left of center” that fit this bill? How many of these criticisms are not requests to look at the spots in our record and correct for them but instead requests to totally overthrow the system? There are fringes no doubt fringes on the left that would like to see some skewed utopian experiment that will once again fail. However I don’t think you are talking about even most left leaning intellectuals much less left leaning individuals.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — August 23, 2007 @ 6:09 pm - August 23, 2007
Mr. Moderate, I think these criticisms began as attempts to look at “spots on the record” (as you put it), but (as I wrote in the post) “in highlighting some of the flaws of their own tradition,” some have “come to see the tradition for its flaws while ignoring its strengths.”
And the example is the language Baring and Cashford use in describing Western tradition and the alacrity of the BBC’s web-monitors to delete posts critical of Islam while letting anti-Semitic (and anti-Christian) posts stand.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 23, 2007 @ 7:46 pm - August 23, 2007
Maybe you’re getting to the route of that “self-loathing” that the Left, especially the gay lemming majority, loves to throw at anyone who isn’t in lock-step. Democracy doesn’t work well for any extreme; be it socialism, communism, fascism, national socialism or religion. What the Left fears most is loss of control. They counter with the most draconian measures beginning with ostracization, phariseeism and usually implode by their own excesses (as well they should).
Comment by Shawmut — August 23, 2007 @ 7:47 pm - August 23, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Why do Some on the Left so Hate Western Civilization? — August 23, 2007 @ 7:59 pm - August 23, 2007
I don’t think the hatred of the left-wing for western civilization is “fringe,” I think it’s central to leftist philosophy. Like most other participants, I graduated from college and the open contempt for Western Civilization expressed by faculty and student activists was part of the landscape. Those professors are still there, and many of those students have gone on to become part of the media, and the Democrat activist base.
At the very core of Western philosophy are the rights of the individual to self-determination. The left is collectivist, and the individual essentially has no rights since they can be revoked at any time, in the words of Hillary Clinton “for the common good.”
Look at the way the left celebrates brutal dictators like Castro and Chavez, men who have focused their regimes on hostility to western values… confiscation of property, silencing of opposition voices, imprisonment of anyone who dares assert their value as an individual.
Opposition to Western Civilization is only a fringe leftist value? If only it were true.
Comment by V the K — August 23, 2007 @ 8:22 pm - August 23, 2007
Everyone likes to hate someone, or to blame someone for their problems or perceived lack of success and power.
Some of us are a little more aware of it than others – or try to keep it under a little more control, or choose to be a little happier (whenever one’s attitude can be chosen).
In the case of far lefties: They’re unhappy to begin with and they’ve picked a really, really safe target for their blame/hate. No consequences to hating/blaming the West.
I could go more into their desire for power and approval, their need to re-make the world in their image, their desire to be free of the constraints of logic / reason / ordinary responsibility / ordinary productivity, etc., but it would all be variations of what I just said.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 23, 2007 @ 8:31 pm - August 23, 2007
And the example is the language Baring and Cashford use in describing Western tradition and the alacrity of the BBC’s web-monitors to delete posts critical of Islam while letting anti-Semitic (and anti-Christian) posts stand.
I’ll have to read B&C to have a point of reference on that. The BBC thing systemic at the BBC but instead a handful of board moderators not evenly emphasizing hatred across the board.
Despite all this I still fail to see a large element of the left that rails against all of Western Civilization. Even when they push for socialist programs that is still leveraging political theory that grew out of Western civilization.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — August 23, 2007 @ 8:50 pm - August 23, 2007
ummm…you can’t start a debate/arguement that begins with a false premise.
6: Yeah, what you’re thinking is wrong by the way.
Comment by Kevin — August 23, 2007 @ 10:07 pm - August 23, 2007
Ah, one small correction: The divinity of Mary? Nope. The council affirmed that the Child born of Mary was truly God not some hybrid or mutant. It did not claim Mary was divine. It did hold her as worthy of all honor and as first among the saints (which you can think of as the saved with language drift). And that started something in Western Society. If the most honored among the Saints is a woman, and the first person to see Christ God after He rose from the death is a woman, it kinda becomes hard to claim they aren’t really equal. Even Paul, the accursed of feminist, refers to a woman as equal to the apostles.
I could probably find some references if you want them. But your statement is wrong.
Otherwise, interesting post as I wonder how you can justify any tolerance of Islam as a feminist since the law says a woman is worth half of a man. Marxism too. Anyone familiar with either Communist Russia or Communist China may note women aren’t exactly equal. I have a friend who teaches in Beijing and woman are apparently still second class citizens there.
Comment by Kevin — August 23, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - August 23, 2007
6: Yeah, what you’re thinking is wrong by the way.
Not if there’s a shred of honesty in you.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 24, 2007 @ 1:36 am - August 24, 2007
Kevin, I’m trying to make sense of your comment #10, especially given my reference to the Council of Ephesus.
Oh, and one reader wrote me indicating that he thought the title was too harsh. Should I perhaps have used a word less strong than hate? I mean some academics do express a strong contempt for civilization and those at the University of Colorado initially welcomed Ward Churchill despite his distaste for Western Civilization.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 24, 2007 @ 2:10 am - August 24, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Why do Some on the Left Hate Western Civilization? — August 24, 2007 @ 3:20 am - August 24, 2007
Everyone hates. But you. Share some of that refined air from up there, please.
Really, the tired lines…”why do some on the left”….are very old. You cite Glenn Reynolds and LGF. As if they are authoritative and as if you are going to actually say something that they already haven’t.
Comment by sean — August 24, 2007 @ 3:28 am - August 24, 2007
Really, the tired lines…”why do some on the left”….are very old.
Sean’s right.
You should replace “do” with “does” and remove “some on” and you’ll be spot on.
Do NOT doubt me.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 24, 2007 @ 5:48 am - August 24, 2007
“This is not to say that our traditions have had a spotless record, especially in regards to the treatment of women and ideas of the feminine divine, but to wonder at this tendency of contemporary Western intellectuals to be so critical of their own traditions.”
Uhhhhhhhh, wow. Perhaps some are critical of the ‘traditions’ because they are steeped in lies and fabrications. Real history has been destroyed or distorted. The only traditions kept alive are those that have oppressed the feminine divine you so backhandedly dismiss.
Comment by Goddess — August 24, 2007 @ 7:21 am - August 24, 2007
I think NDT’s post is pretty much spot on.
It is really a matter of hating what you are familiar with, and mixed with envy-that whole “the grass is always greener on the other side.”
Comment by just me — August 24, 2007 @ 9:26 am - August 24, 2007
Criticism is analysis.
I criticize my beloved Vikings (MN NFL team) to no end. (You should hear the awful my mother says about them) It doesn’t mean we hate the Vikes. No it means we hope they change to become better.
A better title to this post would be:
“Why is the Right so Insecure?”
You could type about how for conservatives: honest criticism must be attacked, accusers must be slandered, conjectures becomes facts and on and on and on.
It could be quite the article!
Comment by gil — August 24, 2007 @ 9:45 am - August 24, 2007
“Even when they push for socialist programs that is still leveraging political theory that grew out of Western civilization.”
Zactly. Churchill wrote (I paraphrase), “Once we gave women the vote, we doomed ourselves to socialism.” Socialism is matriarchy and it’s interesting that the target of criticism is not Eastern cultures, the most patriarchal ever known. Only the West with all its Christianity could produce socialism, not as a mere familial structure or individual mindset, but as a system. When leftists promote socialism, they are as Western as any capitalist; socialism (particularly guild socialism) is not accidentally occidental and its codification is specifically German in origin.
Comment by HardHobbit — August 24, 2007 @ 9:58 am - August 24, 2007
GPW, I personally don’t think the title is particularly harsh. I appreciate the addition of “some”, but even I would have to agree that there are folks on my side of the spectrum who do seem to simply hate western societies. There is no hope for such people, who think they want some sort of happy ideal, but are just really miserable for no reason. Except perhaps the reason noted by NDT in #1.
Happy Friday!
Comment by Mike — August 24, 2007 @ 10:08 am - August 24, 2007
Socialism, as manifested today, is coupled with collectivism, which is profoundly anti-Western. One key tenet of Western philosophy is individual freedom of conscience. And whether it’s forcing firefighters to attend gay pride rallies or forcing pharmacists to distribute abortificants, the left is engaged in trench warfare against individual conscience.
Just because socialism happened to arise in the geographical west does not mean it is a Western philosophy, any more than ketchup is Chinese food because it happened to be invented in China. If i recall correctly, the whole point of Marxism was to undo capitalism, religion, and the other products of Western thought.
Comment by V the K — August 24, 2007 @ 10:57 am - August 24, 2007
Part true, part untrue. Socialism as a tendency is universal – and in that sense, not Western. It is essentially tribalism writ large. It essentially says, “Your life belongs to the group / tribe. The tribe, or its appointed voice, rules all.” That is characteristic of least-developed countries and cultures – such as Russia (which, although Eastern Orthodox, I don’t consider the West), the Middle East, and of course the West itself in its more primitive days, as HardHobbit has pointed out.
On the other hand, socialism as a Western-style philosophical and political system (not a mere tendency) is, and necessarily must be, an invention of the West. But the reason should be obvious, from how I just phrased it. Obviously, only Western scholars are going to seriously go about developing and documenting any Western-style philosophical and political system, whatever its content/aim.
The West’s socialist thinkers of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, then, have taken an existing, universal tendency, and developed it in Western conceptual structures and language with which they can then attack what is new and different about the West, namely, the West’s strict conception of individual sovereignty, or “self-ownership for all” – and its concomitant: economic freedom for all.
Need I say more? Well, with some in this crowd, “yes”, so here goes.
Every civilization produces ideas that represent its strength and its health, or what’s good about it. And ideas that represent its weakness or corruption or destruction, or what’s hateful and bad about it. The West is no exception.
The Germans gave us so-called “German art music”, which is a plus (though even that was more Austrian and Italian). And what else? Some of the absolute worst of the West; some of the absolute worst in hating or tearing down what I just identified as new/different about the West. In other words, yes, the Germans gave us Marxism. Fascism. Socialism in general. That’s bad on them.
What HardHobbit’s comment highlights (but not that he meant it this way, or realizes it) is merely that hating the West has a long tradition in the West. It’s not an invention of the 21st century; it blossomed with German thinkers of the 19th and German “statesmen” of the 20th.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2007 @ 11:14 am - August 24, 2007
(P.S. in referring to Russia, I was thinking of their centuries of medieval collective farming and primitivism, followed by 70 years of Communism, followed by the ruin and continued degeneration we see today – all with a veneer, on their part, of aping the more developed / advanced West.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2007 @ 11:18 am - August 24, 2007
Hey, “Goddess” in #16, I do anything but dismiss the feminine divine. The mere fact that I am spending so much time reading about it and that I am writing my dissertation on one aspect of it should serve to show exactly the opposite.
So I wonder yet again, why is it our critics are so determined to find things in our posts that just aren’t there.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 24, 2007 @ 11:29 am - August 24, 2007
Perhaps, instead of saying that Western intellectuals are so critical of their own traditions, I should say that some are just plain dismissive of them.
And gill, do you want to back up any of you allegations in #18 with actual facts?
I do believe that honest criticism is warranted. Were I to write on about the Baring/Cashford book, I would note that they do make several valid points about what they call the “patriarchal” traditions of the West.
Oh and, Mike, “some” was in the original title, but I did edit it to remove the adverb “so” which had been modifying “hate.”
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 24, 2007 @ 11:34 am - August 24, 2007
Dan, I’d like to put in a vote for the original title. The “Some” waters it down too much. – Or how about “many”? “Why do Many on the Left Hate Western Civilization?” Just the right amount of sting, IMO.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2007 @ 11:39 am - August 24, 2007
And now I see your #25. OK, makes sense.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2007 @ 11:43 am - August 24, 2007
Patriarchal – that is the problem in a nutshell. Western tradition, that combination of Greek and Judeo-Christian beliefs, understands that there is no freedom without responsibility and boundaries.
That means individual responsibility, one must function within a set framework.
Little children (which is what most socialists are), want the benefits of life, while having the adults bear the responsibilities. So they lash out at the responsible ones.
One of the benefits of being a small child is that nothing is your fault. So only the adults are to blame – and of course all non western cultures are children in the eyes of the left. So even if they do heinous things, it’s not their fault. The West on the other hand is always culpable. Because of course, the West must be perfect at all times. (to make up for the total lack of responsibilities on the part of the rest of the world).
Comment by Leah — August 24, 2007 @ 11:43 am - August 24, 2007
Those well left of moderate are Utopians who rely on the blunt force of government power/coercion. Their views are always guided by their vision of “optimal.” And, they see themselves as power broker rather than the recipient of the “optimal” outcome.
Do they hate Western Civilization? They at least despair of it. Democracy is an untidy mess of compromises between competing forces. Utopia is a well oiled machine where everything runs like clockwork and there are no competing forces. It is the Emerald City where even the cockroaches are conscientuous participants in promoting the general welfare.
Traditional religion is anathema to them, because the managers of Utopia are the ultimate ecclesiastical authority. The more fundamental the religion, the more it is a competing force with the dream of Utopia on earth.
Socialism tends toward state socialism – tends toward a state directed economy – tends toward pure socialism and the necessity of total state control from A to Z.
The left dreads the small mined masses who act out of self interest and self determination. They (the left) are moral relativists who become jihaddists when it comes to forcing on others what they “know” to be “right.”
Only the left has a clear notion that “privacy” or “hate crime” or “greatest good” or “general welfare” is a knowable thing among the knowing elite.
I have yet to meet a person on the left who does not consider himself above the governed.
Comment by Heliotrope — August 24, 2007 @ 12:20 pm - August 24, 2007
#29 Heliotrope: Nicely stated. I note, for example, how the left’s response to “climate change” focuses on social control instead of adaptation. The left’s response to deficiencies in the health care system is not to empower individuals to make choices, but to institute a state-run bureaucracy that deprives people of choices.
Through the long run of human history, the global norm has been for a small oligarchy to hold absolute power over the masses. Western philosophy has, until recently, been a movement where more and more self-determination was provided to the individual. Sadly, the rise of socialism is a reversion to the norm.
Comment by V the K — August 24, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - August 24, 2007
The left look at the world and despair at the “chaos” (inequality of outcome) that is an inevitable component of freedom. They believe in planning and management, never understanding that the world is simply too big and too complex for such planning to work.
I found a wonderful cartoon version of Hayeks “Road to Serfdom” which shows where this urge to plan and manage always leads.
I would recommend everyone to take a look.
Comment by The Thin Man — August 24, 2007 @ 12:37 pm - August 24, 2007
Just to be clear:
“Part true, part untrue. Socialism as a tendency is universal – and in that sense, not Western.”
Partly true, partly untrue. Socialism is a manifestation of part of human nature and thus is universal. Thus, it is Western, just not exclusively Western.
“On the other hand, socialism as a Western-style philosophical and political system (not a mere tendency) is, and necessarily must be, an invention of the West.”
True and is a paraphrase of what I wrote:
“Only the West with all its Christianity could produce socialism, not as a mere familial structure or individual mindset, but as a system.”
and:
“…socialism (particularly guild socialism) is not accidentally occidental and its codification is specifically German in origin.”
Only Hegel could have written his dialectic and only Germanic intellectual culture could have produced a Hegel.
“Socialism, as manifested today, is coupled with collectivism, which is profoundly anti-Western.”
Mostly untrue. Individualism is also human nature and is also universal. The West has no monopoly on individual achievement or its philosophic underpinnings. A quick glance at the writings of Lao Tze illustrate a profound respect for the idea of the individual vs. the collective, even though a systematic codification was not its aim nor its result. Just because Western individuals live in relative freedom as compared to their Eastern and Southern counterparts and just because the West is attacked from within (which proves the Western-ness of the socialist system) and without does not mean that socialism is profoundly anti-Western.
Comment by HardHobbit — August 24, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - August 24, 2007
just because the West is attacked from within (which proves the Western-ness of the socialist system) and without does not mean that socialism is profoundly anti-Western
Except that it is, in every political manifestation. (Yes, unpleasant reality contradicts philosophical abstraction.)
Comment by V the K — August 24, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - August 24, 2007
Not quite. It’s quite easy to conceive of other cultures (not the West) producing or elaborating on socialism as a system. In fact, they have. It all depends how broadly you want to construe the word “socialism”.
If you construe “socialism” only to mean “the system elaborated by Marx and other Westerners”, then yeah, of course it could only have been produced by the West. But then you’ve uttered a mere tautology.
Which was my point: your general claim, “Only the West could produce socialism as a [Western-style] system [produced by the West]” is true in an obvious, tautological and trivial sense.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - August 24, 2007
As for:
True: the worst in human nature. Tribalism and, as Leah put it briliiantly, “want[ing] the benefits of life, while having the adults bear the responsibilities.”
Yes it does.
What’s distinctive, new and good about the West is its codification (as you prefer to put it) of reason, individualism and freedom. Naturally you will find their opposites in the West as well – irrationalism, collectivism and socialism. They’re primitive impulses, and the West, like anything, has arisen from the primitive. Those who want to bring them back – codified as a system, in your terms – want to bring back the primitive and, basically, to attack what’s good and special about the West – what’s best about the West. And to systematically (your word) attack what’s best about something, is to be profoundly against it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - August 24, 2007
To put it another way: Socialists would have the West abandon what’s distinctive and good about the West and become thoroughly bogged down in socialism and tribalism, no different from what the Third World suffers under. Only outright terrorism (which is sheer nihilism) is more anti-Western.
That it’s produced by Westerners only means that (1) it’s an instance of the phenomenon known as “self-hate”, and (2) as I suggested earlier, that the West has a long tradition of tolerating and even indulging its own enemies within.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2007 @ 1:41 pm - August 24, 2007
#36 ILC: “the West has a long tradition of tolerating and even indulging its own enemies within.”
What the West has is a long tradition of vigorous intellectual debate and receptiveness to new points of view. This is precisely antithetical to a left that seems obsessed with silencing debate on global warming, on issues defined as “offensive,” and where alternative political and philosophical viewpoints are labeled as “hate speech.”
When leftists point to what happened to Galileo, it’s ironic because now they are in the position of the papal establishment, and they want to silence anyone who says ‘maybe global warming is not the crisis it’s being made out to be’ or ‘socialism doesn’t work.’
Comment by V the K — August 24, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - August 24, 2007
Good point, V.
Separately – to clarify my use of “tribalism” just above – I meant socialists want the West bogged down in “group rule” or “the rule of the tribe”, not literal inter-ethnic warfare. (Although, where socialism goes, ethnic warfare has an odd way of flaring up.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 24, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - August 24, 2007
After the War was over, even though I had been Overseas more than two years, I had to wait 6 move months before coming home. The ones with children came first and the married one next. As soon as the war was over (and even before) we were fraternizating with the German people even though the Non-Fraternization Act forbid us to do so.
Some of my new found friends told me that they were not Socialists. I thought “So what! It made no difference to me”. We were over there fighting NAZIs not Socialists. I didn’t know what WE called NAZI was the National Socialist Part of Germany. Why was Americans told differently?
Comment by John W — August 24, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - August 24, 2007
John above makes a good point. He also should have pointed out that by 1947, two years after the war, the NYT was decrying the “secular violence” among the German people and asking the US to pull out from the Occupation. This factional fighting was instrumental in dividing Germany into occupational zones for the allies – something the history books don’t tell our kids nowadays.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 24, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - August 24, 2007
“Yes it does.”
Nope. Both individualism and collectivism are human nature and their philosophic and political products are logical constructs (as concrete, conceptual outcomes, not necessarily as products themselves) of this duality and no region has a monopoly on either or both.
It’s only obvious that codification of such is the Western scientific method, but political systems of all kinds have existed throughout history and in all regions that reflect both socialism and collectivism to varying degrees. But a codification alone does not make a system Western per se and thus, any attack upon any system practiced in any region does not make the attack ‘profoundly anti-region’, but profoundly anti-system or anti-philosophy. That a codification makes a system more successful or more generally accepted or better able to withstand criticism (as any codification should) does not lend it exclusivity either to itself or to any region from which the codification was/is made. Smith codified Capitalism, but did not invent capitalism; he was a brilliant economist/philosopher, not Prometheus.
It should be clarified that just as socialism is considered tribalism by some, individualism can be considered anarchist by some and both types predicate their considerations upon a belief in society. Nietzschean irrationality for example is considered the height of an animalistic irrationality and is considered ‘individualism’ in its concept of ego, usually by lazy students (usually socialists). Primal urges exist both as individual aggression and as collective passivity and in tandem; most often, larger social consequences are ignored by the former and are the end goal of the latter. That cooperation is an automatic virtue and competition an automatic vice damns Western thought above all others (for the hard bigotry of high expectations — expectations as a result of experience and, yes, codification), but the opposite is only as primal, even despite voluntary and coercive considerations.
Comment by HardHobbit — August 24, 2007 @ 3:33 pm - August 24, 2007
# 39
should read National Socialist Party of Germany
Comment by John W — August 24, 2007 @ 4:50 pm - August 24, 2007
HardHobbit tells us that “Both individualism and collectivism are human nature…”
Could someone direct me to the authoritative list of the known characteristics of human nature?
For many decades I taught philosophy. One day, I woke up and realized that I had been trapped in a web of terminology and mystique that I was constantly protecting from intrusion by the uninitiated. From there it was a short distance to a mirror where I beheld the image of a pompous ass.
Luckily, I happened upon a comment by Yogi Berra that pretty much saved me from choking on the rarified air of the ivory tower. Yogi said: “You can observe a lot by just looking.”
There is much to consider in the musings of the philosophers, but a great many of those long hairs also had severe Messiah complexes. For many who wander into the realm of philosophy, it is only a mini-step from philosophy to cosmology.
Chevas Regal discussions concerning the nature of man with one esoteric quip trumping another may be sport for some, but for most mortals it is a waste of perfectly good vowels.
Comment by Heliotrope — August 24, 2007 @ 5:24 pm - August 24, 2007
“Could someone direct me to the authoritative list of the known characteristics of human nature?”
If there were an authoritative list, there would be no discussion, no philosophy departments, no such esoteric quips. Life would be much simpler because it would have to be; I can offer that this complexity is also part of human nature. This is why we humans find ourselves endlessly fascinating.
Comment by HardHobbit — August 24, 2007 @ 8:38 pm - August 24, 2007
It doesn’t mean we hate the Vikes. No it means we hope they change to become better.
Is that why you constantly accuse the military and Bush of “torture”?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 24, 2007 @ 11:54 pm - August 24, 2007
HardHobitt, thank you for your concession at #41, which I accept.
For the un-initiated: we see HardHobbit (a) looking more toward his imagination of my position/claims than the reality; (b) happily deploying fallacies such as the stolen concept and relativism; and (c) in general, shifting the discussion’s ground into gobbledygook. From past experience, he does those things if he can’t win otherwise, in lieu of conceding. To borrow a concept from linguists, one may consider them the “dynamic equivalent” of conceding, for HardHobbit.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 25, 2007 @ 12:15 am - August 25, 2007
#43 Heliotrope: I think you put your finger on it when you say, “One day, I woke up and realized that I had been trapped in a web of terminology and mystique…” HH iis arguing semantics, whereas you and I are looking at how things actually work out in the real world.
Comment by V the K — August 25, 2007 @ 9:49 am - August 25, 2007
Again reflecting his weakness, V. – BTW, I should have numbered equivocation with his other resorts-to-fallacy at #41.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 25, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - August 25, 2007
GayPatriot –
IMHO the standard critique of Feminists of Western Civilization, that men seek to repress and control women’s sexuality is correct. File that under “duh.” But the issue is deeper — the incompatible and mutually exclusive goals of men and women under society.
Women want to be the mistresses of powerful men. And prevent ordinary men from bothering them for sex, or blocking the advances of powerful, high-status men. Having sex (and children) with powerful men is to women’s advantage. Even a fraction of the wealth and attention of a powerful man is better than all the wealth and attention of an average man. The genes of a powerful man in a “winner-take-all” society are a better bet than the genes of an average man who will lack the ruthless violence and aggression of the powerful man. And of course a courtesan or harem girl lives far better than a peasant wife.
Meanwhile the interest of men is for a flat or relatively non-hierarchical society with relatively open access for all men to women and reproduction, and a society that is not based on “winner-take-all” or “big man” chieftans and peasants but mutually cooperative, extensive high-trust networks. And of course control of women’s sexuality so they cannot be the mistresses of powerful men in large numbers.
Simply put, Western Society creates winners and losers. Winners include most men who have a chance at family formation and reproduction (or at least, before increased freedom for women they did) that encourages high levels of male cooperation. This is likely the “secret sauce” of Western success.
Losers in Western Civilization include most women, who are prevented from becoming the harem girls of powerful men. And of course powerful men or would be “big men” lose the ability to hoard all the women. Lose the ability to have the number of descendants of say Ghengis Khan. Nearly 8% of the men in the former Mongol Empire carry Khan’s DNA. In Darwinian terms this is a huge payoff and explains why otherwise failure-ridden societies of low trust-cooperation like “Big Man” societies have hung around so long.
I know you are Gay Patriot, but gays also largely lose in Western Civilization. In Prison or in Islamic societies where access for most men to women for sex is limited to non-existent, gay sex as a substitution for heterosexual sex is rampant. The ability of most men in Western Society to have sex with women causes gay men to “lose” in that they have a much smaller range of possible partners. To me this completely explains “Queers for Palestine” and the ignoring in gay circles of all sorts of horrific behavior: hanging of gays, etc. Look deeper at the widespread practice of what IMHO amounts to “prison sex” in Muslim societies and the benefits to gays who are “covert” in their behavior.
This to me explains why Women, particularly feminists, “Big Men” and those who think they will be “big men” i.e. Leftists, and gays largely oppose Western Civilization and back Islam. Yes some curtailment of personal freedom and behavior will happen under Islam. But look at the payouts: women become the concubines of powerful men, “big men” spread their DNA far more, and gays have most men to choose from for sexual partners.
People are not stupid. They are hard-wired to find their own advantages particularly sex. This pretty much explains it.
Comment by Jim Rockford — August 25, 2007 @ 5:40 pm - August 25, 2007
The Left would throw the country under the bus just to prove they could.
Then they’d wonder why they were all eyeing each other for the next victim.
Look at Chritianne Amanpoor, John Walker Lyndh, Jose Padilla, and Adam Gadahn.
Comment by Shawmut — August 26, 2007 @ 12:34 am - August 26, 2007
Jim,
You make quite a few assumptions and arrive at a number of conclusions with which I disagree. I’ll limit it to this one:
“This to me explains why Women, particularly feminists, “Big Men” and those who think they will be “big men” i.e. Leftists, and gays largely oppose Western Civilization and back Islam.”
Generally, those whom you describe don’t support Islam. They see members of Islamic societies and their national aggregates as victims, just as they see themselves. They identify first and foremost on an emotional level, which colors and even substitutes for their intellect; if they make statements in support of, say, a particular regime (a state or an organization), it is likely coupled with statements against a perceived aggressor such as the U.S./Israeli relationship. They invoke sympathy without scruples, without standards; every interaction with the ‘patriarchal’ West is seen in terms of victim/perpetrator. If one’s self-image, one’s identity is that of a victim, a perpetrator must always exist and particularly if one is paid to promote this identity (the media, academia, etc.).
(This is not to say that victims don’t exist or that Islamic nations, groups, individuals are never victims of the West or any other perpetrator. As for “Big Men”, I think of tyrants as rather small, stunted individuals who crave for hierarchy above all else, whereas their leftist counterparts are rather small, stunted individuals who crave for complete equality above and below nothing else. Both hate the individual.)
But do these self-identified victims wish to live under an Islamic regime? No. The West, with all its progressivism and matriarchy (out-of-wedlock births are now at about 35% of total births) fails them because all systems fail them. There is no system yet devised that addresses to their satisfaction the inequality inherent in human nature, try as they and others might and have. For them, a system is the sole determinant of all social outcomes including theirs.
Comment by HardHobbit — August 26, 2007 @ 7:08 am - August 26, 2007
#51 HardHobbit notes: “I think of tyrants as rather small, stunted individuals who crave for hierarchy above all else, whereas their leftist counterparts are rather small, stunted individuals who crave for complete equality above and below nothing else. Both hate the individual.”
One may “think of” tyrants however one wishes, but they are deadly serious and each and every one of them has proved to be a “dead-ender.” They know that every day is just one more day of power and that makes them even more deadly. All manner of studies have been done on Hitler to try to understand his mainspring, but they are all little more than a fool’s errand. Tyrants have all figured out how to control the pulse of power in their time and place. This is not usually because they are great thinkers, but because they are outrageously daring.
It is too easy to write off leftists by saying they hate the individual. Leftists are oligarchs at heart. While most of us dream of how we would spend the lottery. Leftists dream of the benevolence and grace they could create when they get their hands on the national treasury.
When their dreams of Utopia begin to unravel, it is not unusual for a dictator to arise to carry out the “national good.” At that point, there is not a lick of difference between them and the dictator that rises from right.
Comment by Heliotrope — August 26, 2007 @ 11:54 am - August 26, 2007
Heliotrope, my personal definition of evil, and one that corresponds nicely with my church’s concept of evil, is the desire to have control over other people. I think that’s why there has never been any such thing as benevolent dictator.
Another angle, vis-a-vis why the left hates Western Civilization is the strong relationship of the latter to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Under Judeo-Christianity, adultery and coveting are two very grave sins. Yet leftism is based on coveting, and using the power of the state to confiscate and redistribute that which is coveted. As for adultery, the cultural left is four-square against the notion that one should ever put the good of society ahead of one’s sexual gratification.
Comment by V the K — August 26, 2007 @ 1:07 pm - August 26, 2007
“It is too easy to write off leftists by saying they hate the individual. Leftists are oligarchs at heart.”
Too easy? Too true. Oligarchy (understood as a priveleged elite) is based upon a hatred of belief in the power of the individual. A political system that truly upholds the rights and responsibilities of the individual is not compatible with oligarchy. In such a system, the individual is priveleged. And oligarchs aren’t necessarily rulers of and by wealth nor are they necessarily utopians.
Comment by HardHobbit — August 26, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - August 26, 2007
I should add a small correction. Some leftists are oligarchs, some aren’t. Some are true believers in a complete equality, so my statement “…leftist counterparts…crave…complete equality above and below nothing else.” should read “…some of their leftist counterparts…”
I have a movie recommendation whose subject is in keeping with some of this conversation. Last night, a buddy of mine and I rented one neither of us were able to see in the theater: The Lives of Others. What a wonderful movie! About the Stasi, it describes how the lives of a several East Germans are affected by the ‘know everything’ system created to control all segments of society. The poignancy of the movie is its ability to personalize the political, to convey the real ramifications of the system on very personal levels. The acting in particular, the sets (most of the movie is set in about 1984 — no coincidence there), and direction (Florian von Donnersmarck) are all superb. I was astonished to read on the DVD jacket that this is the director’s first movie.
Ironies great and small are used to great effect. In one scene, Wiesler, an information agent of the Stasi who is utterly orderly, punctual, and calculating to the nth degree has a sordid ‘date’ with a corpulent and rather unattractive prostitute. This is the first time the audience is allowed to see his need for human contact, though the very system he so staunchly and devotedly upholds only allows for this kind of seamy, fleeting transaction. The prostitute gets up to leave him and he begs her to stay a little longer. She replies that she cannot possibly do so — she, after all, works on a tight schedule. We see Wiesler once let go of his punctuality only to become of victim of punctuality by the very nature of his activity. What is moving is his desperation and what begins as a grim realization.
Anyway, it’s a great movie. Don’t miss it!
Comment by HardHobbit — August 26, 2007 @ 2:21 pm - August 26, 2007
With all due respect, HardHobbit, do you respond to the beat or the echo of the beat that only you hear after the parade has passed? Look, if your opinion is truth incarnate, so be it. But others might not agree with your order of the universe and wish to point out why your bucket of philosophy is leaking. Naturally, your response would be that the bucket is not leaking, it is watering and nurturing the environment. As Oden Nash so aptly put it: “I don’t mind eels, except as meals and the way they feels.” When it comes to semantics, you are an eely one. So endeth my thoughts couched in “all due respect.”
Comment by Heliotrope — August 26, 2007 @ 6:01 pm - August 26, 2007
Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence. — Robert Frost
Some terribly insecure folks find disagreement terribly offensive. When all else fails, they sink to derision (see #56, #46) and this always with an absence of discussion. That, or they feign indifference such as complaints that intellectual precision is all just semantics. Some use multiple screen names.
I welcome honest disagreement. Disagree? State where/what/why. It’s really quite simple; some call it a discussion.
Comment by HardHobbit — August 26, 2007 @ 8:16 pm - August 26, 2007
#53 VtheK: I, too, believe that the desire to control the life of another is evil. The Judeo-Christian heritage is the foundation of Western ethics. We seem to have reached a point in our history where current liberals wish to turn their backs on the vanities and sins and replace them with gel soles, huggy blankets and cloaks of relativity. But they also realize that an ordered society must have guard rails of some nature. To that end, they have created a mist of political correctness that is not readily dicernible, even though THEY “know it when they see it.” One can be conservative in most social issues but enormously “liberal” in the use of language. I have lectured on semantics for many years at the graduate school level. While I encounter many who can not bring themselves to be precise, I find that liberals in particular resort to the abuse of language in order to control the direction and meaning of the discussion. I would add to your assessment, that many liberals employ the demagogue’s method(s) in addressing issues in order to be in control. There is no better way to throw a brick into the crowd than by continuing to challenge what describes the brick or whether or not there were enough present to comprise a crowd. I respect a person who clearly disagrees with my point of view. (Emphasis on “clearly.”) I try to reserve the use of the word “evil” for the big stuff, because some pests rise to the level of pernicious (in the noxious sense) without having crossed over into full blown evil.
Comment by Heliotrope — August 26, 2007 @ 10:25 pm - August 26, 2007
Indeed, though I have a slightly different way of putting it. I tell people, I can make a totally Christian case for small government and laissez-faire capitalism: because there is nothing, repeat nothing, remotely loving about holding your neighbor’s life at gunpoint – which is what taxation and confiscative measures are.
I half-jokingly tell people that Mao converted me to Capitalism, because of something very true that he said: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” No matter how much Democrats and others may claim otherwise, government’s “prestige” and power always come down to the fact that if you don’t go along with them, (1) they can gun you down, or/and (2) they can gun down the people who administer your bank account.
As you are not the first to discover
Would it were so.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 26, 2007 @ 10:56 pm - August 26, 2007
One last bit re: HH:
Let the record show that at #46, I didn’t engage in derision; I engaged in description of fact. (summary of repeated observations of an individual over time)
If and when I care to deride HardHobbit, it looks much more like this example (click here). Incidentally, I also wait for him to go there first.
Jim, you posted that as a joke, right? A far more likely explanation for why many Western gays ignore Islamist homophobia is that they just can’t face thinking about the horror. Gays are giant *winners* in Western civilization.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 26, 2007 @ 11:16 pm - August 26, 2007
#58 Heliotrope: When you say, “There is no better way to throw a brick into the crowd than by continuing to challenge what describes the brick or whether or not there were enough present to comprise a crowd.”, I am reminded of how a number of my leftist intellectual friends reacted shortly after 9-11-2001 by insisting that we could not fight “terrorism” until we first arrived at a definition of “terrorism” and since there would never be a consensus on what the definition of “terrorism” was, nor any clear way of fighting “terrorism” in any way that could not itself be described as “terrorism” from someone else’s perspective, then any attempt to fight terrorism was futile.
This is why I have no use for leftist intellectuals, and little use for intellectuals generally.
Comment by V the K — August 27, 2007 @ 7:51 am - August 27, 2007
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 27, 2007 @ 10:50 am - August 27, 2007
(sorry, bad format… Second block is me responding)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 27, 2007 @ 10:50 am - August 27, 2007
[...] Why do Some on the Left so Hate Western Civilization? [...]
Pingback by Queer Fever - Today’s Top Blog Posts on Gaylife - Powered by SocialRank — October 3, 2007 @ 12:02 am - October 3, 2007