Fantastic start. It's easy to dismiss these voices, and I think I'm very often tempted to, not because of the specific arguments they make but because at a meta level they are all just reformulated conservative individualism. That said, taking the time to deconstruct it is still a very worthy exercise and I appreciate you doing so.
This bit:
> "I think it’s precisely the other way round: concrete problems are causing a sense of meaninglessness and despair for many..."
is precisely what I kept thinking as you walked through their views here. It's a bit easy to say Marx identified all this with his work on alienation, which only seems exacerbated by social media and a "knowledge economy" where so many jobs in the West are bullshit (to use Graeber's term).
Add to that the overlapping crises you mentioned and I'm surprised anyone isn't in full existential crisis 24/7. (Thank Darwin for our ability to compartmentalize).
I guess my final thought for now is it's always funny that basically every apologetics argument (which these fundamentally are) boils down to a misdiagnosis of an issue followed by arbitrary dismissals of other hypotheses/solutions before claiming they are in fact in possession of the Capital T Truth.
Thank you for initiating this series. Humans are meaning makers. Striving for positive change in our world provides a deeply meaningful experience. Bravo James. Looking forward to more.
This was a very cogent, well-organized and thought-provoking opener. I am very curious where you go with this.
If this is where you're going, I suspect you will have more overlap with this quartet than you realize: "Humanism tends to reject belief in gods and the supernatural, saying this life is all we get and that we have a responsibility to create a world in which everybody can live their one life fully. Articulating and defending that perspective is the second main purpose of this series."
That goal will cover what values humans should hold, something the four of them also have opinions on. I look forward to the next installment!
I appreciate you laying this all out plainly, because the conservative nature of it all becomes pretty clear.
For example, you characterize the myth in point 2 as "for ages, in the west, we have had a metanarrative which has shaped our lives".
I don't know precisely what that metanarrative is in their minds, but Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, patriarchy and numerous other fluffed-up forms of bigotry seemed prominent in the US's past and materially harmful to many people, even if they gave some groups shared purpose.
Even though it's largely repackaged conservative values, I'm certainly interested in avoiding common left/right arguments as this topic continues. This unique framing they're offering may be an opportunity to meet folks more receptively than usual.
I'm excited for more and grateful for you covering this.
I had a couple minor points of disagreement:
> "how can how we think about the world cause problems with our economy"
You chose a weak example, in my opinion, here. Economic outcomes famously change at the whims of the collective, so if a large portion of a population are facing despair, I would expect their behavior around money, investment, and risk to change.
This is perhaps a different angle than the distribution of wealth and inequality, which you mention a few times. But I immediately had this answer in mind when you asked the rhetorical question.
> "The very school system is giving [children] a sense that they’re…the last generation"
While Pageau's emphasis on the "telling" of bad news is curious, the conservative nature of the meaning crisis suggests to me that he's also very concerned with "wrong information" being the source of student despair, which is perhaps more expected.
Fantastic start. It's easy to dismiss these voices, and I think I'm very often tempted to, not because of the specific arguments they make but because at a meta level they are all just reformulated conservative individualism. That said, taking the time to deconstruct it is still a very worthy exercise and I appreciate you doing so.
This bit:
> "I think it’s precisely the other way round: concrete problems are causing a sense of meaninglessness and despair for many..."
is precisely what I kept thinking as you walked through their views here. It's a bit easy to say Marx identified all this with his work on alienation, which only seems exacerbated by social media and a "knowledge economy" where so many jobs in the West are bullshit (to use Graeber's term).
Add to that the overlapping crises you mentioned and I'm surprised anyone isn't in full existential crisis 24/7. (Thank Darwin for our ability to compartmentalize).
I guess my final thought for now is it's always funny that basically every apologetics argument (which these fundamentally are) boils down to a misdiagnosis of an issue followed by arbitrary dismissals of other hypotheses/solutions before claiming they are in fact in possession of the Capital T Truth.
Thank you for initiating this series. Humans are meaning makers. Striving for positive change in our world provides a deeply meaningful experience. Bravo James. Looking forward to more.
Just discovered you, this looks interesting, thanks. A quick reply to start....
"Humanism tends to reject belief in gods and the supernatural, saying this life is all we get....."
If this is a matter of faith, I respect that and have no further comment or opinion. To each their own.
If you are proposing this claim to be a product of reason, we're going to need some proof.
This was a very cogent, well-organized and thought-provoking opener. I am very curious where you go with this.
If this is where you're going, I suspect you will have more overlap with this quartet than you realize: "Humanism tends to reject belief in gods and the supernatural, saying this life is all we get and that we have a responsibility to create a world in which everybody can live their one life fully. Articulating and defending that perspective is the second main purpose of this series."
That goal will cover what values humans should hold, something the four of them also have opinions on. I look forward to the next installment!
I appreciate you laying this all out plainly, because the conservative nature of it all becomes pretty clear.
For example, you characterize the myth in point 2 as "for ages, in the west, we have had a metanarrative which has shaped our lives".
I don't know precisely what that metanarrative is in their minds, but Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, patriarchy and numerous other fluffed-up forms of bigotry seemed prominent in the US's past and materially harmful to many people, even if they gave some groups shared purpose.
Even though it's largely repackaged conservative values, I'm certainly interested in avoiding common left/right arguments as this topic continues. This unique framing they're offering may be an opportunity to meet folks more receptively than usual.
I'm excited for more and grateful for you covering this.
I had a couple minor points of disagreement:
> "how can how we think about the world cause problems with our economy"
You chose a weak example, in my opinion, here. Economic outcomes famously change at the whims of the collective, so if a large portion of a population are facing despair, I would expect their behavior around money, investment, and risk to change.
This is perhaps a different angle than the distribution of wealth and inequality, which you mention a few times. But I immediately had this answer in mind when you asked the rhetorical question.
> "The very school system is giving [children] a sense that they’re…the last generation"
While Pageau's emphasis on the "telling" of bad news is curious, the conservative nature of the meaning crisis suggests to me that he's also very concerned with "wrong information" being the source of student despair, which is perhaps more expected.
But obviously you've done more research than I!