I’ve always been at a loss understanding the modern mainstream philosophy. It’s what you would call modern ‘liberalism’. Moderate political correctness, moderate environmentalism.
The case against extreme interpreations of various philosophies has been made extensively. The cases against the New Left of the 70’s, against Weimar culture, against Progressivism, pragmatism, fascism, Marxism have all been made.
But what of the modern intellectual of 1990-20XX? The sort that is ‘liberal’, ‘open’, ‘agnostic’, ‘Clintonian’, ‘democratic’, the sort that likes ‘limited’ free markets, the sort that is against ‘extremism’? I haven’t classified this sort of philosophy. I think I have finally done so.
I call my conclusion, perhaps terribly inaccurately, ‘rational romanticism’. The philosophy of these people I would describe by: emotional whim as the standard of value. Their epistemology is based on reason, but their conclusions abandon it. Their ‘rational’ approach to the study of ethics and human conciousness have led them to conclude, like many before, that values are subjective. Unlike others, they refuse to abandon reason. As they understand it, for emotions that give life meaning, there is no mystical explanation that gives particular cosmic significance to them. There is also no objective standard into which these emotions can properly fit. But rather than reject these whims, or attempt to contextualize them in reality, they uphold them as the ultimate value. Happiness just is, and it’s pursual is paramount. Love is the highest value, whatever it is. They do not believe in God, and often ridicule faith. They consider themselves enlightened, educated, rational. Although arbitrary, they consider whim to be a consistent standard of value that is more or less universally understood. There is some truth to this. This is different than the brute. They have rejected faith, but whim defines their ethics.
They despise Objectivism. For the sake of love and happiness, their standards, human life is valuable just because it is. Because that is what our emotions tell us. It’s as if the argument is, by the standard of arbitrary whims a clear objective standard is arbitrary. That’s techinally true.
But of course their error is clear. These subjective arbitrary values are still the product of reality, and are still understood and contextualized by reason. Reason and reality come first. They, for their exaltation of the arbitrary, have chosen to ignore this fact. In fact, it is shocking how accepting these ‘men of science’ are of sheer unadulterated mysticism in the form of Platonism. See Roger Penrose and Neal Stephenson.
If you look at San Francisco, it’s a city long in decline, California is on the brink of collapse. New York City is being abandoned by its patrons. Europe is in crisis, and is collapsing along tribal lines. And America isn’t too far behind. ‘Rational Romanticism’ doesn’t work, by any means. Although, it is understandable why people accept it. Coddling, modern society, provide strong incentives to live in an emotional bubble.
But it is a poison, sucking the virtue out of the best and brightest. Do you know what is painful to watch? The TED conference. Here, there are so many unique and inspiring ideas. But they are linked with the worst altruism and moral confusion. How can this happen? How do the minds that move our economy forward become so entrenched in useless moralizing and misguided smug? It drives me crazy!
I never have understood it, or categorized it before. But I think ‘Rational Romanticism’ makes more sense to me than anything else. What do you think? Is their philosophy something from the past, or is this a new development? Where did it come from, Kant? What will it lead to? Please, discuss.