I read that article on the illusion of moral decline, but it leaves me somewhat less enthusiastic than it leaves you. Here's the comment (one of several, actually) that I submitted
PAUL NATHANSON
Jun 11
It's true that no period is a golden age, because every period is better in some ways than in others, better for some people than for others. No one has ever lived in utopia (which means "nowhere'), and no one ever will despite the rhetoric of utopian ideologies.
But you undermine your own premise (that we now live in a better world than earlier generations did) by assuming that the only important measure of moral decline or vigor is the condition of minorities. In that respect, it's true that minorities are better off now than they were in earlier times (although even that is questionable in some respects). Trouble is, society as a whole is now more polarized--explicitly and obviously--than it was in at least some earlier times. I refuse to ignore, much less to condone, current ideologies such as wokism that overtly promote hatred. And by "hatred," I refer not anger (a transient personal emotion) but to culturally propagated and institutionalized malice (thus confusing justice with revenge). This occurs on both sides of the political continuum, sure, but its most educated, most sophisticated and most influential promoters today, by far, are the wokers (who have absorbed earlier philosophies, methods and ideologies including postmodernism, feminism, racism and now added transgenderism).
Consider that in the context of democracy, which is at least in theory our explicit goal. For democracy to work effectively in promoting justice (and thus belief that life makes sense or even that conditions are improving), it must discourage not only tyrannies of the majority but also tyrannies of (allied) minorities.
In any case, I don't really care about public perceptions. Nor do I have confidence in the ability of social scientists to discern anything deeper than perceptions. I strongly suspect that Germans in the early 1930s believed that their world was getting better and better. They often said so in letters, diaries, memoirs, speeches and so on. For some of them, moreover, it really was getting better and better. For whatever reasons, many people were very idealistic about the New Order and would surely have told sociologists or psychologists that the level of personal morality was improving. This suggests to me that there's a huge gulf not only between personal morality and collective morality (assuming that we can agree on precisely what is moral or immoral) but also between public perceptions of morality and the reality of morality.
The inability to see moral decay may speak more to the possibility that we may be living in the Age of Deception made possible by the preponderance of the reprobate mind. In any case, I appreciate your response to Nathanson.
Ah, Castle Hedingham! I had a grad student who wrote a major paper on Hedingham several years ago. She got access to the whole place when doing her field work, and while up on the roof her boyfriend (who had accompanied her on the trip) produced a ring and proposed. They now have (last I heard) one child. May the place's good vibes find you, too!
Completely agree about Detectorists, by the way. The characters are eccentric oddballs, but the script is never cruel to them, never descends into gratuitous ridicule. Its creator loves the gallery of oddballs he created, and so did I.
I'm glad to "meet" you, Dan. I like your article and share your interest in history. Are you familiar with History Reclaimed (https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/)? I'd like very much to see The Detectorists? Where can I find it? PBS?
I loved the Detectorists and been trying to spread the word. It’s so charming, quirky, smart, funny and beautiful. I guess I want to marry it!
Enjoy your trip!
I read that article on the illusion of moral decline, but it leaves me somewhat less enthusiastic than it leaves you. Here's the comment (one of several, actually) that I submitted
PAUL NATHANSON
Jun 11
It's true that no period is a golden age, because every period is better in some ways than in others, better for some people than for others. No one has ever lived in utopia (which means "nowhere'), and no one ever will despite the rhetoric of utopian ideologies.
But you undermine your own premise (that we now live in a better world than earlier generations did) by assuming that the only important measure of moral decline or vigor is the condition of minorities. In that respect, it's true that minorities are better off now than they were in earlier times (although even that is questionable in some respects). Trouble is, society as a whole is now more polarized--explicitly and obviously--than it was in at least some earlier times. I refuse to ignore, much less to condone, current ideologies such as wokism that overtly promote hatred. And by "hatred," I refer not anger (a transient personal emotion) but to culturally propagated and institutionalized malice (thus confusing justice with revenge). This occurs on both sides of the political continuum, sure, but its most educated, most sophisticated and most influential promoters today, by far, are the wokers (who have absorbed earlier philosophies, methods and ideologies including postmodernism, feminism, racism and now added transgenderism).
Consider that in the context of democracy, which is at least in theory our explicit goal. For democracy to work effectively in promoting justice (and thus belief that life makes sense or even that conditions are improving), it must discourage not only tyrannies of the majority but also tyrannies of (allied) minorities.
In any case, I don't really care about public perceptions. Nor do I have confidence in the ability of social scientists to discern anything deeper than perceptions. I strongly suspect that Germans in the early 1930s believed that their world was getting better and better. They often said so in letters, diaries, memoirs, speeches and so on. For some of them, moreover, it really was getting better and better. For whatever reasons, many people were very idealistic about the New Order and would surely have told sociologists or psychologists that the level of personal morality was improving. This suggests to me that there's a huge gulf not only between personal morality and collective morality (assuming that we can agree on precisely what is moral or immoral) but also between public perceptions of morality and the reality of morality.
The inability to see moral decay may speak more to the possibility that we may be living in the Age of Deception made possible by the preponderance of the reprobate mind. In any case, I appreciate your response to Nathanson.
Response to whom? It looks like you referring to my comment, not someone's comment on mine. But who knows?
Ah, Castle Hedingham! I had a grad student who wrote a major paper on Hedingham several years ago. She got access to the whole place when doing her field work, and while up on the roof her boyfriend (who had accompanied her on the trip) produced a ring and proposed. They now have (last I heard) one child. May the place's good vibes find you, too!
Completely agree about Detectorists, by the way. The characters are eccentric oddballs, but the script is never cruel to them, never descends into gratuitous ridicule. Its creator loves the gallery of oddballs he created, and so did I.
Nice. Sounds like a great trip. The UK is pretty interesting.
That Mastroianni/Gilbert paper is amazing. Thanks.
Sounds exciting! Have fun!
I don’t get Prime, but thanks anyway.
I'm glad to "meet" you, Dan. I like your article and share your interest in history. Are you familiar with History Reclaimed (https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/)? I'd like very much to see The Detectorists? Where can I find it? PBS?
It is available on Prime.