
In response to Matthew Taylor's blog comment on positivity
Matthew,
Right... I grasped the broader point you were making, which might be summed up like this – the individual vs. the state (or politic) as a focus for positive human change, or perhaps both.
Haven’t we been kicking this around since the birth of philosophy?
Is this not what Plato’s Republic is trying to address - That ‘intelligent’ beings, pull the levers and the public are made better/more positive by it.
Clearly clever people making the right 'collective' decisions for the benefit of the many is also essential, but it is the individual that must do the personal development. Complex ideas are made simple by simple minds, so that they can understand the complex.
RE Hegel: who followed on from Kant and was as you know was a massive influence on Marx, can be simplified by saying that he focused his philosophy upon ‘the unreality of separateness’, which is an illusion, nothing he believed was ultimately / completely real except ‘the whole’.
We have a divergence and perhaps a cross roads in society like never before. And (I believe) must watch very closely what plays out, that separation is - the individual vs. the state or community.
We are being told that we must be the masters of our own destiny, and that if we fail, then that is in some way our fault. A powerfully flawed suggestion in my opinion. Especially as if you don’t have the right information to hand or aren't taught what to do with it – how can you realistically act successfully?
We were told that there is no society (community) only the individual, which pits man against man. If there is no community, or ‘being with’ others, in reality there can be no state. Why should I care for some invented notion of Britishness (that feels like quite an inflammatory thing to write) if it’s all about me and my personal success? His loss, my gain, as I drive into my gated community.
We are all hooked into notions of success (collapsed with positivity and wealth) and we are to admire wealth and success regardless of how it is achieved. I heard someone who worked with a very famous music mogul say of his character - he was in essence a materialistic, ruthless, driven brute and made no bones about the fact that he was very, very rich. AND that was somehow OK. 'Say what you like about him – he’s successful' – isn’t that what you are trying to do – you’re just not very good at it.
We end up despising ourselves for not being 'successful' and will sell our gran for success. Why? Why do we so desperately 'want'... at the cost of community or the state, or others?
Is the state dead or is community?
Matthew,
Right... I grasped the broader point you were making, which might be summed up like this – the individual vs. the state (or politic) as a focus for positive human change, or perhaps both.
Haven’t we been kicking this around since the birth of philosophy?
Is this not what Plato’s Republic is trying to address - That ‘intelligent’ beings, pull the levers and the public are made better/more positive by it.
Clearly clever people making the right 'collective' decisions for the benefit of the many is also essential, but it is the individual that must do the personal development. Complex ideas are made simple by simple minds, so that they can understand the complex.
RE Hegel: who followed on from Kant and was as you know was a massive influence on Marx, can be simplified by saying that he focused his philosophy upon ‘the unreality of separateness’, which is an illusion, nothing he believed was ultimately / completely real except ‘the whole’.
We have a divergence and perhaps a cross roads in society like never before. And (I believe) must watch very closely what plays out, that separation is - the individual vs. the state or community.
We are being told that we must be the masters of our own destiny, and that if we fail, then that is in some way our fault. A powerfully flawed suggestion in my opinion. Especially as if you don’t have the right information to hand or aren't taught what to do with it – how can you realistically act successfully?
We were told that there is no society (community) only the individual, which pits man against man. If there is no community, or ‘being with’ others, in reality there can be no state. Why should I care for some invented notion of Britishness (that feels like quite an inflammatory thing to write) if it’s all about me and my personal success? His loss, my gain, as I drive into my gated community.
We are all hooked into notions of success (collapsed with positivity and wealth) and we are to admire wealth and success regardless of how it is achieved. I heard someone who worked with a very famous music mogul say of his character - he was in essence a materialistic, ruthless, driven brute and made no bones about the fact that he was very, very rich. AND that was somehow OK. 'Say what you like about him – he’s successful' – isn’t that what you are trying to do – you’re just not very good at it.
We end up despising ourselves for not being 'successful' and will sell our gran for success. Why? Why do we so desperately 'want'... at the cost of community or the state, or others?
Is the state dead or is community?
But all happiness as Hegel would suggest is in the whole. It is the desire to be in connection with others that creates happiness, it is the separation that creates unhappiness. Therefore, it is this sanitized version of happiness of ‘positivity’ which is the Prozac, the oil upon our dysfunctional selves that has us survive this ‘insane’ society we have built for ourselves, where the rich get richer and the prisons get fuller, there are more wars, more medication, more mental health issues, and what do we do?...line up to take advantage of the boxing day sales to buy designer clutch bags at half price, like demented fools, we justify the savings (from £1000 to £500 or whatever), when the product was undoubtedly made in China for pennies. Madness. But hey look at me, I have to show you I’m important, otherwise, I’d be like the others, and they are Helots, the serfs.




