Posted on 02/04/2006 1:49:53 AM PST by mark_interrupted
Europe's problem isn't hedonism; Europe's problem is socialism.
Wasn't it Arnold Toynbee that civilizations are never defeated
by external threats, but that they commit suicide?
One leads to the other.
How many people voted for John Kerry in the last election?
Yes, but the direction is definitely:
socialism -> hedonism
and not
hedonism -> socialism
And you can do nothing about the hedonism so long as you have the socialism, because the socialism leads directly to the hedonism.
PS. And actually, in Western society the direction is as follows:
socialism -> women's liberation -> hedonism
But it's very un-PC of me to put it how it is!
Anyhow, that's why you can do nothing much about either the socialism or the hedonism, because women's liberation depends on the former and produces the latter.
That's why time is better spent figuring out how to get modern Western society to succeed despite both socialism and hedonism, because they're here to stay. Reminiscing about a fading past that's dead and gone gets you nowhere.
Maybe we're doomed, but I think technology is what'll save us in the end and keep us in the lead for a long time to come.
I don't know about that. Though the conflict has a material dimension it also has a spiritual dimension as well. That is the Achilles Heel of the West.
The original article was written in 2003.
except we sell or give away our technology by manufacturing overseas.
quite frankly, the nazis beat the nazis first. a fatal flaw in their philisophical foundation led to their defeat. of course, we helped, as did the russians and everyone else. i dont see such an allied group going after islam in time, do you?
Great line in a great article. It may be old but it's certainly valid and full of great points - thanks for posting it!
One thing has changed, however, since 2003: the Vatican, which he describes as the defender of last resort of Western culture but one which had, alas, also opted for appeasement of Muslims, now has a different head. It is obvious that one of the biggest priorities of the new Pope is that of restoring Western culture and the society based on its now nearly-vanished principles. He has also been very firm and realistic when speaking about Islam. I think this is one very positive change, hopeful for the West, that has occurred since this article was written.
The spiritual dimension is simply an unwillingness to proclaim and advance the superiority of our culture - Western culture. This results simply from the rejection of Christian tradition, which is in actuality a rejection of patriarchy more than anything. This brings things back to women's liberation, which is still a novelty in many ways, so that the ramifications haven't yet entirely worked themselves out.
The question at hand is whether secular Western values can exercise the same function, and that's what the Europeans are working out right now with this Muhammad cartoon controversy. The problem is that secular values don't tend to involve fanatic zealotry as do religious values. Secular values are inherently predicated on rationalism, and reason is never fanatic.
Then also, the notion that secular values are what define and unify the West is not embraced by all of Western society - not by a long shot. There are many who think that the solution is to be found in winding back the clock. That's exactly what this article is getting at. So long as the West is torn between the two, I doubt that it will prevail over the long run.
PS. And the best option, in my view, is to reinterpret Christianity in such a way as to eliminate patriarchy, which is a process that's been ongoing, but far from complete and far from certain. You can't just wave your hand and say 'this is how it should be' when it comes to religion. At least not anymore. The last person to do that with any success was Joseph Smith, and before that Mohammad. I doubt it's gonna happen again anytime soon, if ever.
Opps! I left out Martin Luther. He qualifies too!
just because i dont think like you, i must be a trouble maker? then you question my location? are you a joke?
ok, im american by birth and live in the usa. btw, i am a contrarian by your definition. i would also say that the policies of the majority vis a vis toward islam is what got us into this problem. perhaps more should think a bit contrarian
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.