j_b, thanks for the response.
It is certainly true that a lot of idealism (some of it misguided, some not) has departed from the political scene.
I am not sure I would quite agree that in today's politics, "everyone has positions on every subject, but there is no underlying philosophy to weigh them against..."
I would say that certain groups (e.g., professed Libertarians, some on the Religious Right) do have across-the-board philosophies, or world-views, against which they weigh everything. What I will call (facetiously) the "knee-jerk liberals" often do, too (although their Weltanschauung tends to be more instinctual than consciously constructed). And so on. It is just that there is no single, universally accepted philosophy, and some of the better ones have been put on the defensive.
What I do find troubling, I guess, is that some of the finer ideals I personally was brought up with (as a New Deal baby), are so widely laughed at these days. For example, the notions that one should place the greater good above one's own; that the more fortunate should feel an obligation towards those less so ("noblesse oblige"); that empathy is the cardinal social virtue, & etc. Selfishness is now in vogue...<sigh>..In fact, I suspect that the adherents of some current "philosophies" regard selfishness as their civic duty...<gg>
At the same time, people who do profess the ideals I still cherish often irritate me. For example, I used to attend a Unitarian Society in Connecticut. The members commemorated what they called World Hunger Day by holding potluck vegetarian suppers. Excuse me - how am I going to lessen World Hunger by eating beans???!!!
Symbolic action is not for me. I would rather confront injustice and suffering directly! Yet here's the rub: where injustice lies is not always that easy to determine. In my experience, things always are much more complicated, looked at up close, than viewed from the lofty perch of pre-set principles. (Hamlet to Horatio: "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.")
Where is this leading me? I guess I would say that if you are going to weigh your positions against a philosophy, that philosophy should be mixed with a little astringent realism. How does that sound?
jbe
|
