Friday, February 25, 2011
Victor Davis Hanson on the Adolescent Mind
Occasionally there appears an article that I wish I had written; this one by Victor Davis Hanson is one of those. It is said that the maturation process stops the moment one starts taking drugs, that a 30 year old who started drugs at 15 years old still has only the maturity of the 15 year old. I think that connection can be extended to the addiction to victimhood, the addiction to entitlement, and the addiction to self-righteousness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
"the addiction to victimhood"
I can definitely vouch for that. I have a friend with this addiction, and I have no doubt in my mind that it is identical to addiction to crack. Just the drug of choice is different. And he is quite immature.
This article caused me to recall a conversation I recently had with a Roman Catholic of great integrity. I'm not sure if this comment is appropriate for this blogspot, but I'd be most obliged if I'm allowed some latitude here.
OK, I don't think it would be a great leap to say that there's a link between traditional religion and traditional values. Traditionalists of all stripes (even the irreligious) would defend the importance of the freedom and accountability of the individual. Connected to this is the fact that organized Western religion is monotheistic. God is conceived as a supreme and personal (here's the key) Transcendent Other- there's an absolute separation between creator and created with an emphasis on rights and obligations.
But, according to many atheists, this "chasm" between the mortal and the Divine, results in a "sick" ethos- one that breeds fanaticism and ignorance because of its moralism and "slave mentality".
Atheists deny the supernatural outright. On the other hand, some non-theistic religions are "nature focused" and object to the "duality" of all deisms. These traditions are centered on Divine Immanence rather than Transendence- that is they regard the Divine as impersonal and radically present in nature. (George Lucas does a great job in presenting pantheism for beginners in his Star Wars Films).
Alright, so what does this have to do with the article about the "adolescent" mind set?
I had commented to a wise Roman Catholic that I often felt "silly" and, perhaps, even ingenuine, when I was attempting to cultivate a more virtuous character. This was her response:
"When you say that you sometimes feel phony in trying to be virtuous and silly when attempting to be detached, I hear in this the accusation of the world against anyone who trys to resist it; for instance, it will tell you you're being hypocritical when you're trying to be genuine; it always inverts true values. And it portrays Immanence as genuine and vital , and Transcendence as false and rigid, because Transcendence gives us access to an objectivity that Immanence alone cannot provide.
Immanence in itself is real, but it can get so wrapped up in subjectivity that we lose it- whereas Transcendence can always can stand apart like a bright sun and throw light on what the world actually is. It is the First Principle of objectivity."
I thought this response was very telling. It brings into focus some of the key contentious elements in the contemporary batte of Zeitgeist.
The “slave mentality” concept is interesting. The idea of slave means that one does not own oneself and is subject to rules not of his own devising.
This is derisible to Atheists, who insist upon making their own rules (yet being called “moral” and “good”). When Atheists bring this up (PZ ridiculed Christian slavery just last week), they should be challenged.
Atheism and arrogance go hand in hand. The Atheist considers himself to be the highest intellect and the wisest of the wise, merely because he has accepted the fallacious premises of Philosophical Materialism and has rejected the very concept of a rational First Cause. This type of self-elevation is impervious to any concept of humility including and especially intellectual humility. (Note 1) And this leads to rejection of all personal character traits as being of virtue. In fact, character is specifically denied value by the egalitarians because, “some people just can’t do that; they are too weak. It is not fair to them”. So equal outcomes are seen as moral, not personal character. The virtues which are considered of value to the Atheo-Left are Social Justice (egalitarianism) and omnibenevolence, both of which are applied top-down, not bottom-up as is character development. This is the function of the state, in Atheo-Leftist eyes – virtue as defined by the Atheo-Left is to be distributed (dictated) to the populace.(Note 2)
There is more here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/11/look-at-two-sides-of-ethics.html
Notes:
(1) A couple of months ago, an entire column was devoted to anti-humility over at Massimo Pigliucci’s blog, written by Julia Galef, I think.
(2) An immediate corollary is that anyone who defies the top-down application of "virtue" is immoral, and subject to state-applied correction.
I should add that the conflict between the Progressives and the Libertarians is a moral and ethical conflict as well as a political-pragmatic one. When the Left calls the Right immoral, they are serious, because of their attachment to Social Justice and omnibenevolence as the sole virtues. Denying the Left the ability to apply virtue (equality) top-down is a moral breach. Forcing immorality on them leads to self-righteous outrage, as does any talk of liberty or personal character. So moral outrage is the stock-in-trade of the Left.
Also the apparent communal characteristics of egalitarianism are belied by the Left's need to dictate that "virtue" top-down; the Left is morally attached to dictatorship.
A video you might find interesting concerning atheists and the thought of being a slave to Jesus being absolutely detestable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iMDNGXO88I&feature=channel
Nongle,
Interesting link, thanks.
One aspect not mentioned is the idea of Truth. Hitchens believes that he has Truth. Yet he is autonomous and beholden to nothing, and that includes absolutes such as Truth.
One of the characteristics of Truth is its absoluteness; Truth contains no not-Truth or falseness. And it is incorrigible, in the sense that it is not influenced in any way by what we think about it, say about it, or deny it. Truth is independent from us.
If we think our philosophies are based on Truth, then by definition we are depending upon Truth. Being dependent on Truth requires humility and the ability to form thoughts that are based on something outside ourselves. Atheist "autonomy" precludes this. Hitchens is free to make up his own stuff - and then be a slave to that if he wishes. And so he does.
Hitchens and Atheists in general are slaves of their own arrogance and rebellion. When they pound their chests and scream "autonomy" it is reminiscent of the rebellious two year old who rejects everything with no basis except his own cranky grasping for personal power.
There is no personal power to be had over Truth... regardless of the irascible boasting about autonomy.
"Hitchens and Atheists in general are slaves of their own arrogance and rebellion."
Exhibit A: Bullhorn Twotails.
I deleted bullhorn twotails. This is a blog, not a toilet.
Nice blog.
I had to enable comment moderation a time back given the proclivities of certain "Free Thinkers" who wished to display their openmindedness in questionable ways.
Keep up the good work
Back to the top of this thread and the adolescent mind.
Case in point. The Charlie Sheen saga. Is this an isolated "light" matter, or is this part of a larger serious matter indicative of the state of our civilization?
In your capacity as one of God's emissaries you've "deleted" me, have you?
Last I looked, I'm still here.
Don't you worry, Stan-the-nameless-one, like JD, you'll retreat yet again to the bolt hole of your campfire of vanities, for another circle-jerk to your phantasmagorical god.
Thank god for little mercies, then.
At least there, you'll be among your scummy friends for mutual petting & support!
Praise the Lawd!
Bullhorn,
This sounds personal. What's the deal guy?
Bullhorn,
Do you have something rational to discuss?
Hes from wearesmrt, that website that is dedicated to trolling Christians and Ray Comfort. Dont expect anything rational.
Actually I find the tone and subtlety and graciousness and logic of Bullhorn's statements revealing.
But I worked in a hospital and don't gross-out easily.
Is "phantasmagorical" an actual word?
Stan (alias the Nameless One)--
Though you deny you're one & the same (with typical Christian 'sang-froid'!!), you've actually gone fractionally up in my estimation for having dared leave my last submission in place....
Though, like the rest of the flotsam posting here, you're indubitably a flake, I'll be coming out to play with y'all.
I find temptation irresistible. The only proviso is that you play by my 'hardball' rules, & that your banter measures up.
Deal?
I'm off now, but I promise, on pain of death, to get back to those of you still chomping at the bit....
Praise the Lord!
Stan if you are scratching your head, dont hassle. I have told him numerous times I am not you nor do I own this blog. Sorry for leading immature kids to your blog.
unwhan,
Interestingly, your post there led me over to his blog for the first time. And it has led to traffic in this direction also.
I don't mind juvenile talk, if it is clean and without invective. It demonstrates to the people who read it the mental state of the writer.
What will get a juvenile writer banned is persistent insults, sewer-speak, or refusal to engage in rational discussion. The juvenile mind is chronically shallow, rebellious and disruptive, and disruptions are not long tolerated here.
Two Tails,
You appear to be under the impression that you are in possession of truths which we here do not possess. Could you enlighten us with those truths, please?
BTW, banter ceased being a virtue after junior high school; what is of value here is direct, clear exchange of ideas for discussion.
And a warning: continued insults will result in deletion.
Bullhorn,
Tell me that you're a young dude and you just like to bust'em. If you're not, then what the Hegel is your deal? I can understand why coocoo theists get all bent out of shape with you guys. But, why would a skeptic even care what the "nameless one" or anyone else thinks about anything. After all, with your worldview, what it does matter.
Moreover, if you call harassing the woefully ignorant on the internet "enjoying your life" without the lawd, I'd have to say you choose a rather odd form of pleasure.
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die! Right, bro?
As I suspected, you don't measure up!
What's with the multiple personalities? You're talking to yourself, aren't you? Unwhan, Name & Stan: any more where those came from?
As for being reasonable, if not rational, you wouldn't know the difference if reason & a sense of humour (the 2 are intimately linked, duh!) vied with each other to jangle your unicellular brain.
Unschooled, unread & unhinged is how I'd sum you up.
Problem is Nameless one, you & your cohorts are suffering from a debilitating case of projectionitis, for which I don't have the cure....
As for my being 'personal, irrational & immature', no need to dignify such hooey with a response. You know the score & so do I: I only have to see how you (& your feckless mates...) mangle the English language to know that you're not worth taking on.
The fact that you feel slighted, belittled, disoriented, & fed up, nay "worthless" (your own word, no less), isn't a licence to lie yourself, much less to others who can see through your charade.
I'm sure Jesus, if he were around, would disapprove.....
Get back to me when you've built up a little self-respect, & not before. In the meantime, you can expect the occasional barbed remark (at The Swamp) from me, if you continue to misbehave.
Over & out.
It matters 'cause these oafs want to be heard & taken seriously in the public square...
That's a no-no; I've got no problem anyone's beliefs as long as they keep 'em under wraps & don't try to corrupt innocent minds, or disrupt people's lives....
It's really that simple.
If people take their nonsense to me, & ask to be respected for it, then I mess with their minds.
Sounds to me, at any rate, like a sane way to proceed. What can I say?
It's also fun, if truth be told.
Two Tails,
You have had your say, and I'll leave it up for everyone to see. Arrogance is the coin of your realm, not rational discourse. So any future comments by you will be deleted.
Bullhorn,
Once again, what does it matter whether I'm speaking nonsense or not?
What does it matter whether there's such a thing as "sense" at all. Why should you object or affirm any point of view?
You talk about "corrupting innocent minds." Those words are loaded with value assessments. So, what are your values? And how are they determined? Value implies worth. What does worth mean to a materialist?
Lets stop with the name calling and engage. I can appreciate irreverent humor- but you seem to just enjoy ruffling feathers. OK, so you baited me and I responded? Right. So..... What up brutha?
Folks,
Two Tails has been given the chance to engage in civil and rational discourse. Instead he chose to continue in a path of shallow, arrogant, pompous denigration which he claims is fun.
I have no doubt that for him it is fun in the same sense that throwing bricks off an overpass is fun for some juveniles. It is merely vandalism.
I will engage any and all Atheists or non-Atheists who wish to discuss ideas. But I won't tolerate deliberately destructive, non-rational behavior.
And that is why Two Tails is being banned.
Charlie?
Is that you?
Bullhorn,
Take it easy, pal. Bustin chops aside, what's your deal. Really? I mean, I get it, you like stirring the pot. But, I'm wondering what happened with you. Sound and fury, signifying nothing- you're kind of charged up for a dude who regards existence as fundamentally meaningless. I'm puzzled.
Don't worry, peoples. Bullhorn is just an example of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Post a Comment