We now live in a society that is bathed in utilitarian ideas, where the end justifies the means, although most people are unaware of it, because they are in survival mode. So many of the personal relations today are superficial and transactional with the hopes of monetization. Yes, money has become not only the measure of financial success, but also a (poor) social measure of stability.
This is why society and the media fawn over the wealthy, even if their ideas are nonsensical and they speak as ignoramuses on subjects way beyond their comprehension and understanding. The thinking goes, "If they are rich, they must be smart." So much evidence contradicts that statement.
Most people, besides academics and retired persons (I am one), do not have the luxuary or the inclination to think independently. Yet, thinking is not for the weak; it takes practice, for example, and reading leads the way, and in particular on how to read critically and closely. I highly recommend everyone who has the inclination to take a liberal arts education. Or do it at home. Read all the classics, all the great literature.
If you do, it will be a work and time well-spent: money will become significantly less important. What you will find out is that it is all about relationships--human, animal and our environment.
Thank you for sharing that perspective, which I I think contains valuable insight. The unstated and perhaps unconscious confidence in wealth as an indication of intellect or wisdom is, I agree, an important part of the problem. As is a strictly functional outlook on life. This is why many of the great thinkers of the past have reminded us again and again that we must make space to contemplate the ends of life, here of course they do not mean that which comes last in a sequence, but that which is of greatest value, our highest good. And thoughtful people can disagree on what that highest good is, but we cannot do without ends. The problem, which you get at, is that we are laboring on behalf of values which in practice we treat as ends, but we do so without conscious awareness. Erich Fromm , who contends that religion stripped of the particulars of one tradition or another has been a by word for that which a group of people have held as most important, most sacred and therefore the ends of life, suggest that much of what we say we believe in is belied by our actual ways of living. In other words, he writes, many of us maintain "secret" religions in favor of such things as power, money, dominance, vanity and the like. I think by bringing the question of what the ends and the means of Life are or ought to be we have a better opportunity to gain clarity about who we are and who we wish to be.
I agree; one ought to examine one's motives and desires, in light of an examined life, which is a good life. Your mention of Erich Fromm brought to mind one of his books, The Sane Society, originally published in 1955. His thesis holds true today, 70 years later.
I discovered his work after I had completed a doctorate. Way too late, in my opinion. I discovered it by way of the feminist and anti-racist intellectual, bell hooks, who drew on his work in her writing about love. Sadly I completed a very lengthy education at multiple institutions we're not one of his works wherever assigned. But as I make my way through his books, starting with the Art of Loving and then moving on to Escape from Freedom and then The Sane Society and then, perhaps his most important work, "To Have or to Be?" (1976), also his last, I've come to the firm conclusion that his work is exemplary, profound, and prescient for our time. That his work has fallen out of favor in the academic world, I think, reflects much that is wrong with our institutions. His writing is direct. He gives us serious analysis of not only facts but also concepts, yet he does so in a way that he thoughtful and basically educated person can grasp. He writes without burdening his work and his reader with verbosity or ego. And he manages to pull together insights from varied cultural traditions and disciplines. He was, not unlike the psychologist Rollo May and even Abraham Maslow, a humanistic intellectual.
Yes, nicely stated all-around, including what often ails our institutions of higher learning. Last point; there are many others who have fallen out of favour. I hope that in your journey, you will discover them.
We now live in a society that is bathed in utilitarian ideas, where the end justifies the means, although most people are unaware of it, because they are in survival mode. So many of the personal relations today are superficial and transactional with the hopes of monetization. Yes, money has become not only the measure of financial success, but also a (poor) social measure of stability.
This is why society and the media fawn over the wealthy, even if their ideas are nonsensical and they speak as ignoramuses on subjects way beyond their comprehension and understanding. The thinking goes, "If they are rich, they must be smart." So much evidence contradicts that statement.
Most people, besides academics and retired persons (I am one), do not have the luxuary or the inclination to think independently. Yet, thinking is not for the weak; it takes practice, for example, and reading leads the way, and in particular on how to read critically and closely. I highly recommend everyone who has the inclination to take a liberal arts education. Or do it at home. Read all the classics, all the great literature.
If you do, it will be a work and time well-spent: money will become significantly less important. What you will find out is that it is all about relationships--human, animal and our environment.
Thank you for sharing that perspective, which I I think contains valuable insight. The unstated and perhaps unconscious confidence in wealth as an indication of intellect or wisdom is, I agree, an important part of the problem. As is a strictly functional outlook on life. This is why many of the great thinkers of the past have reminded us again and again that we must make space to contemplate the ends of life, here of course they do not mean that which comes last in a sequence, but that which is of greatest value, our highest good. And thoughtful people can disagree on what that highest good is, but we cannot do without ends. The problem, which you get at, is that we are laboring on behalf of values which in practice we treat as ends, but we do so without conscious awareness. Erich Fromm , who contends that religion stripped of the particulars of one tradition or another has been a by word for that which a group of people have held as most important, most sacred and therefore the ends of life, suggest that much of what we say we believe in is belied by our actual ways of living. In other words, he writes, many of us maintain "secret" religions in favor of such things as power, money, dominance, vanity and the like. I think by bringing the question of what the ends and the means of Life are or ought to be we have a better opportunity to gain clarity about who we are and who we wish to be.
I agree; one ought to examine one's motives and desires, in light of an examined life, which is a good life. Your mention of Erich Fromm brought to mind one of his books, The Sane Society, originally published in 1955. His thesis holds true today, 70 years later.
I discovered his work after I had completed a doctorate. Way too late, in my opinion. I discovered it by way of the feminist and anti-racist intellectual, bell hooks, who drew on his work in her writing about love. Sadly I completed a very lengthy education at multiple institutions we're not one of his works wherever assigned. But as I make my way through his books, starting with the Art of Loving and then moving on to Escape from Freedom and then The Sane Society and then, perhaps his most important work, "To Have or to Be?" (1976), also his last, I've come to the firm conclusion that his work is exemplary, profound, and prescient for our time. That his work has fallen out of favor in the academic world, I think, reflects much that is wrong with our institutions. His writing is direct. He gives us serious analysis of not only facts but also concepts, yet he does so in a way that he thoughtful and basically educated person can grasp. He writes without burdening his work and his reader with verbosity or ego. And he manages to pull together insights from varied cultural traditions and disciplines. He was, not unlike the psychologist Rollo May and even Abraham Maslow, a humanistic intellectual.
Yes, nicely stated all-around, including what often ails our institutions of higher learning. Last point; there are many others who have fallen out of favour. I hope that in your journey, you will discover them.