Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:41 pm I’ll do what I can …

Sounds good.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:08 pm When we examine the thinking and perspective of Alexiev and Seeds, we discover at the core a deeply internalized universalism. It is impossible for these men to think, see or feel in terms that give validity to anything identitarian.

I can't speak for Alexiev, however, the reason why I cannot give validity to anything "identitarian"* is because I find it a form of devolution to hold such a child-like and regressive perspective of reality.

But, by all means, my old friend, you do you, because far be it from me to deny a person's right to refuse to evolve.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:08 pm This is the universal attitude that is part-and-parcel of America’s ‘civil religion’ and it is expressed though all aspects of Americanism as that Americanism became the expansionist, deeply moralized, expression of “what is right and good” for the world.

Along with this — perversely! — is the normalization of the “globo-homo” ethos.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is "perverse" to want to remove all of the social and psychological barriers that divide us and cause us to hate each other? Really?

My goodness, I see that my jokingly calling you "Apollyon" isn't really a joke after all.

*("Identitarian" - what a pretentious and silly sounding word. it reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where Kramer accused Jerry of being an "anti-dentite" after Jerry made some negative comments about his [Jerry's} dentist. )
_______

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 3:10 pmDo you read novels, Henry, or just mock people who like foreign authors.

No, I read novels and mock people who like foreign writers.

I said earlier that I don't object to Trump's attempts in the Ukraine (except for his obnoxious rudeness). Always change your game if it isn’t winning.

You did. Sorry I didn't acknowledge that. Here's your

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:12 pm…

When you, Seeds, share your ideology and your perspective, it is as an activist for that view. When an idea is submitted — merely mentioned — that seems counter to your belovèd position, it excites your activism and lo! you appear, ready for battle, in glorious shimmering chainmail, and sporting a helmet with an ostrich feather (which I admire tremendously BTW).

So, whether you like or not, and whether you understand it or not, ideas are changing at a cultural level in Europe and America. And the issue of identity is definitely being discussed.

The universalism of 1960s hippies is just one perspective. There are others and (having studied them) they have validity and relevance.

I did find what is said to be a “go pound sand” emoticon-set. I try to make myself useful you know.

Did the US even have an identity before Hollywood gave it one?

Good point, Atla. It would be an interesting topic — were there anyone here capable of having it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:04 pm [

No, I read novels and mock people who like foreign novels

If you are an American, does that mean you mock people who like English novels? Or is it just the lovers of Tolstoy, Turgenev, Hugo, Joyce, and Stendahl that merit your derision?

[He’s playing the “literary one-upmanship gambit”. That’s a tough one to counter!]

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:08 pm When we examine the thinking and perspective of Alexiev and Seeds, we discover at the core a deeply internalized universalism. It is impossible for these men to think, see or feel in terms that give validity to anything identitarian.

This is the universal attitude that is part-and-parcel of America’s ‘civil religion’ and it is expressed though all aspects of Americanism as that Americanism became the expansionist, deeply moralized, expression of “what is right and good” for the world.

Along with this — perversely! — is the normalization of the “globo-homo” ethos.

To understand the rebellion and reaction of the present (in Europe and America) one must become familiar with those ideologues that define anti-liberal positions which resist this spirit of universalism.

One quote from a talk by Jonathan Bowden is interesting because it calls for a metaphysical redefinition:

“Belief [metaphysical, religious belief] is an understanding that there are truths outside nature and outside the contingent universe that's in front of us that are absolute. The left-wing view that it's all relative or we make it up as we go along, is false. And the the more primordial we are, the more we live in accordance with what we might become, the more we link with those concepts which are eternal and that exist outside us.”

I have no universal or dogmatic "belefs" regarding multiculturalism. It is not due to some sort of idealism that I think other cultures can improve Western cultures and educate Westerners. Instead it is out of practical experience. I pointed out some of the many English (language) novelists who have done so -- as well as a cab driver whose eloquence enhanced my experience.

Of course a Christian who thinks all non-believers are damned will decry the introduction of heresies. He may also think heretics should be tortured and burned. Torquemada wasn't irrational -- isn't a little temporary torture better than even one person being tormented eternally? But I don't buy it. Doubt is the fountain of wisdom.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:58 pm Good point, Atla. It would be an interesting topic — were there anyone here capable of having it.

Ah, a challenge.

Let's see if I can answer...without boring you all, and myself, with an essay.

Did the US even have an identity before Hollywood gave it one?

Of course it did.

America was, and is, self-exile and unruliness.

Better to rule in *Hell than serve in Heaven.

-The Morningstar


*In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter—bitter," he answered;

"But I like it
"Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

-Stephen Crane


Yeah, I nailed it.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:23 pm If you are an American, does that mean you mock people who like English novels? Or is it just the lovers of Tolstoy, Turgenev, Hugo, Joyce, and Stendahl that merit your derision?

I think my post just above answers your questions.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:35 pm [He’s playing the “literary one-upmanship gambit”. That’s a tough one to counter!]

Quite easy.

I'm on fire today!

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:28 pm Did the US even have an identity before Hollywood gave it one?

Of course it did.

This is like asking "Before X happened, did Joe have an identity?"

You're assigning too much significance to X, unless X is the birth of Joe.

Hollywood created myths, but myths are not identity.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:28 pm Did the US even have an identity before Hollywood gave it one?

Here's Walt Whitman's take:

Centre of equal daughters, equal sons,
All, all alike endear’d, grown, ungrown, young or old,
Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable, rich,
Perennial with the Earth, with Freedom, Law and Love,
A grand, sane, towering, seated Mother,
Chair’d in the adamant of Time.

"The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem.” Whitman believed that both poetry and democracy create a united whole out of distinct parts.

The novel that portrays the American Dream is Big Rock Candy Mountain by Wallace Stegner. Wallace Stegner is known as the dean of American “Western” writers. “Big Rock Candy Mountain” is his first successful novel, published in 1943. It is autobiographical, centering around the married couple Bo and Elsa Mason and their two children, Chet and Bruce.

It is also about the search for home. Western migration involved both leaving home, and seeking a new home. Bo Mason is a nomad, frustrated by his abusive family he runs away and moves about the West, always seeking, never satisfied. He also repeats his own abusive history with his own family. Elsa wants nothing so much as a home to call her own – but it will never happen. Bo is too troubled. He can't stay put. The myth of hardy, Western individualism is lampooned in Bo, who always thinks the “big score” is around the next bend in the road. He sees the mythical Big Rock Candy Mountain of song awaiting, just over the rise, where “the bulldogs all have rubber teeth and the hens lay soft boiled eggs.” He's energetic and talented – but his dream is the easy score, and he will settle for nothing less.

Elsa is the good wife and mother, kind, supportive and loving. She turns against Bo only when it is necessary to protect their children from his abuse.

The novel is not easy to read. It's not difficult intellectually, but emotionally. I've just finished it, and I feel as though I've been abused. But Bo and Elsa are two of the great fictional characters, and the emotional turmoil they bring to the reader is justified by the profundity of their depiction. Highly recommended