Friday, April 15, 2005
City Journal Autumn 2004 | The Frivolity of Evil by Theodore Dalrymple
Blah, blah, blah and blah. Long-winded chap starts out painting a basically rich picture of the levels of human misery, only to try to bend (wrench) it to a purpose he has in mind.
Any attempt to try to fully refute, rebut and broaden his thesis would consume far more time than either of us has. I think we can stipulate on a couple of points. Sometimes in a weird, ironic kind of way I blame some of our current problems on those goofy hippies of yore (the notion that freedom of action brings responsibility for choice wasn't really brought home philosophically). The notion of the frivolity of evil has been touched upon a number of times before in far more literate and expansive ways. There is considerable truth, I think, to the notion.
Whipping the strawman of "elites" (remember the doctor's point about what happened to them under a dictator) is an almost universally used pseudo-intellectualized preamble to the march of fascism and totalitarianism. It would behoove us, intellectually, to look elsewhere for our solutions. I think to say these changes in society were driven by "elites" is such an over-simplification to make that an unrewarding direction of inquiry in which to go. I think it is more in the direction of our notion of frivolity of evil.
Consider the point that maybe a whole lot of shopkeepers decided, independently, that they could make lots of money selling beaded headbands and bellbottoms to these hippies. Cynically, of course, I think something along that economic line and the drive of a large demographic of young people trying to have sex were far more decisive driving factors than any "elites".
And, finally, I always try to find the simplest answers to these questions. Point one: Any notion that tries to limit the range of human potential and experience is suspect on the face of it. Secondly: wrap all the factors that the doctor thinks bears on this into one society and then ask yourself why the Scandinavian countries aren't overrun with his tawdry hooliganism. ¶ 4/15/2005 08:41:00 PM
Any attempt to try to fully refute, rebut and broaden his thesis would consume far more time than either of us has. I think we can stipulate on a couple of points. Sometimes in a weird, ironic kind of way I blame some of our current problems on those goofy hippies of yore (the notion that freedom of action brings responsibility for choice wasn't really brought home philosophically). The notion of the frivolity of evil has been touched upon a number of times before in far more literate and expansive ways. There is considerable truth, I think, to the notion.
Whipping the strawman of "elites" (remember the doctor's point about what happened to them under a dictator) is an almost universally used pseudo-intellectualized preamble to the march of fascism and totalitarianism. It would behoove us, intellectually, to look elsewhere for our solutions. I think to say these changes in society were driven by "elites" is such an over-simplification to make that an unrewarding direction of inquiry in which to go. I think it is more in the direction of our notion of frivolity of evil.
Consider the point that maybe a whole lot of shopkeepers decided, independently, that they could make lots of money selling beaded headbands and bellbottoms to these hippies. Cynically, of course, I think something along that economic line and the drive of a large demographic of young people trying to have sex were far more decisive driving factors than any "elites".
And, finally, I always try to find the simplest answers to these questions. Point one: Any notion that tries to limit the range of human potential and experience is suspect on the face of it. Secondly: wrap all the factors that the doctor thinks bears on this into one society and then ask yourself why the Scandinavian countries aren't overrun with his tawdry hooliganism. ¶ 4/15/2005 08:41:00 PM
