Since it began, Western Literature has been in a state of devolution. The first two books produced by a Western mind (more likely a whole bunch of minds) were the Iliad and the Odyssey. These are archetypes of what a literary masterpiece ought to be.
On the lowest level, they are just really awesome adventure/war stories. It is unimaginable that before the invention of the television any child under the age of 18 could have described the stories in these books as “boring.”
On a more advanced level these tales illustrate almost every social relationship to be found in ancient Greece. One sees the ideal son in Telemachus, the ideal friendship in Achilles and Patroclus, the ideal military master in Odysseus (specifically when he deals with Thersites), and so on. These parts of the tales give a piecemeal picture of how a society should function and how people ought to relate to one another and the gods.
On the highest level, Homer’s stories defined the values that made someone a Greek, and most importantly a good human being. Homer was the educator of all the ancient world. Unlike the politically correct books we read to our children today, the Iliad is a book about courage, honor, and valor. It is about a war fought by two opposing camps, not of good vs. evil, but of good and noble vs. strong and courageous.There were no barbarians or evil forces, only Continental Greeks and Anatolian Greeks fighting over their honor and dignity.
Nietzsche, who loved Homer about as much as a person can without being an ancient Greek, said that the noble and strong man would invent his own values. He would smash the tablets of good and evil and create his own tablets of morality. While this is undoubtedly a beautiful tale, I don’t see it happening, and I don’t think it is happening; it is not likely to be possible in our time.
Perhaps here and there a strong person can go into the woods and live how he wants, but this is not exactly the way Nietzsche envisioned the coming of the future philosophers. Nietzsche wanted to create Homers and Alexanders and Napoleons — not hermits inconsequential to society. Ultimately, Nietzsche’s ideal has the same romanticism about it as does Han Solo.
The real question is: what is causing our cultural disintegration? This cannot be answered in a blog-post or even a book. An easier question would be what about aspects of contemporary society are actively opposed to the fermentation of a unified culture. The big two seem to be technology (mostly the internet) and living in a society that accepts liberal democracy, with all that is entailed therein.
When we live in a society that actively promotes diversity (of cultures and ideas), equality, and change/progress/the unique you will inevitably start producing whole generations that strive to not be like the others. Where traditional cultures strive to emulate the ancestors, we strive to forget them.
When you couple this with a technological framework in which everyone is given a free outlet, and in which information of any slant is available in just a click, there is no chance that anything resembling unity will emerge.
Under these conditions people will either do what is popular or will look for like-minded people and gather information from sources they already agree with. While we ourselves are somewhat guilty of this latter approach, it is infinitely better than the former.
What is better than both of them, however, is a conscious return to our roots, where even disagreements have a common point of reference within a shared cultural framework.
Contra Nietzsche, we don’t need to look forward to find our values; we need to look backwards, to the tradition and the culture that shaped us. To understand the situation that we are in now, your best bet is to read the ancient Romans who commented on their own declining state.
Without a unified background and history, something we are losing in the West, there is no hope for a political or cultural unification. An early step toward that unification is to understand our culture — the origins and the values that shaped us — through literature.
46 queries. 1.005 seconds
Thanks for a good thought provoking post.
“The real question is: what is causing our cultural disintegration? This cannot be answered in a blog-post or even a book.”
Does it mean, there is no answer on this question, no study, no book published yet?
If this is the case, our culture is doomed.
“The big two seem to be technology (mostly the internet)…”
In the past, Luddites blamed machinery for all their problems, though it wasn’t the cause. Today we are talking about the “terrorism”, though terror is only one of the methods of conducting the Islamic war against the West.
Now we are talking about the Internet as a bad aspect of our society… What if there were no Internet, then what, graffiti?
Why not to blame the educational system and the mass media first (though they are merely a tools as well)?
And why not to try to find the answer to “who is benefitting from our cultural disintegration?” Maybe then we’ll see the real cause?
“we need to look backwards, to the tradition and the culture that shaped us.”
Let’s say, we found that the ancient Greek culture has shaped us, and we are going to resurrect the good old traditions, to re-establish slavery, and to start wars against the strong and courageous. Would it what we need?
Or, maybe, in a few centuries people will talk about “that romantic XXI century, where two opposing camps of lawers faught the war of good and noble vs. strong and courageous”?
“What is better than both of them, however, is a conscious return to our roots”
What historical period exactly are those roots of?
Ferrets are such difficult creatures :)
These are basic, not difficult questions. I guess, anyone, who is curious enough, knows how liberalism and conservativism are related to capitalism. It is also obvious that any society shoud have an economic system of whatever kind. Brave and noble people should eat an wear something: it helps fighting the strong and courageous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalist_movements#Conservatism_and_traditionalism
I don’t see our problem resides in a wide array of available ideas. Rather it is quite the opposite. The scope of discussion has been so narrowed down, there is little on offer to disagree with without being labelled “a bigot, racist” or whatsoever. Cultural differences are also good. But today we don’t have the best out of German, French or American Cultures. It is pretty much the worse, and primeval cultures (with small “c”) have been raised to the level of others, without any considerations. As a result we have to say the UK and Zimbabwe are only different, and their cultures are just as good. But if someone asks you where you’d live, what would be your answer ?
The popularity of reality-denying social ideas, which are codified in liberalism.
Institutions are a vector of the disease, but the disease originates in the population, which really becomes infected when “equality” and “pluralism” occur, which means equal validity to opinions a/k/a “reality optional” living.
No one. The proles think they are benefiting but they’re unfit to tell the difference since their attention span encompasses two weeks at most.
You think like such a modern person. History isn’t a period, it’s a great sine wave. You need to look at the center as it was before liberalism took over.
It’s obvious what our culture is how and to adapt it to technology. People are afraid that it’s obvious and so they produce abundant objections and “meaningful questions.” None of them are relevant.
Return to our values, which means no equal validity. Get rid of government as much as possible. Bring back the monarchy, who do a better job than any democratic leaders.
And put the proles in their place.
“what is causing our cultural disintegration?
The popularity of reality-denying social ideas, which are codified in liberalism.”
Do you mean, capitalism has nothing to do with this process?
“Institutions are a vector of the disease, but the disease originates in the population,which really becomes infected when “equality” and “pluralism” occur”
Yuo also can say the dissease originates on the planet Earth, or Milk Way. What group of the population?
Can you give the definition of equality and back it with a source?
“You think like such a modern person…”
Are you commenting on my comment, or the original post by Mr. Jefferson? Not clear. And if you are for monarchy, what type of society you believe we need: slavery, feudalism, capitalism, or something else?
And what are “proles”, and how you can put them in their place, if after returning to our values there will be no such a group?
““who is benefiting from our cultural disintegration?”
No one. The proles think they are benefiting but they’re unfit to tell the difference since their attention span encompasses two weeks at most.”
Why not to consider social groups other than “proles”? Or the society comprises only “me” and “proles”?
I think we *do* need to look forward… and backward. We need to do what those teachers say they can do and develop some eyes in the back of our heads.
Janus is the ideal.
there is no diversity in the icelandic epics
SAVE DIVERSITY
END MULTICULTURALISM
SAVE LIFE
END GROWTH
There’s no hope for unification when the solution is feminizing society.
“A decadent civilization compromises
with its disease, cherishes the virus
infecting it, loses its self-respect.” Em Cioran
Great quote!
Who is benefiting? This is a logical question. How are they benefiting and why/how do they see disintegration as a benefit?
If the goal is profit, all means are good, including disintegration, depression, market down, war, etc. Any oscillation works. Some groups make money on these events.
I think you correctly point out that this is one of the few places where Nietzsche’s thought runs up against itself. I am a sucker for “romanticism” but I don’t believe we need “new” values, either. Good essay.
“While this is undoubtedly a beautiful tale, I don’t see it happening, and I don’t think it is happening; it is not likely to be possible in our time.”
;Snarl;
We’ll see.. about that.