PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Among the many issues the left takes up, one often finds a philosophical stance where romantic idealism is poised against something many of them have called “linear thinking.” To many with leftist sympathies, “linear” thought represents the entire world of ideas and lifestyles they despise; science, technology, capitalism, patriarchy, logic, individualism, and of course, “the West” in general. In this fanciful take on things, virtually anything that is not the aforementioned is noble, caring, “natural”…and good. Of course, those who know the rudiments of Western philosophy will recognize such sentiment as Rousseau’s Romantic rebellion against the values of The Age of Reason.

While the romantic’s ideals make for some splendid art and sensitive reverie, their sentiments fail to really demonstrate why humankind should shun the advances of science, technology, and other products of the “linear” worldview.

I don't know what world some glooms-dayers are living in, but I’m rather glad to be living in an era and philosophical template where common citizens are afforded long life spans and leisure indulgence in music, art, and lifestyles choices gleaned from around the globe. Some may praise the imaginary greatness of “natural” societies wrought with disease, conformity, and early death, but "linear thought" and its blessings suits me just fine.

I’m really not so concerned that there are many who share romantic notions. My concern is that, all too often, they want the magic kingdoms in their heads to be imposed on those of us who don’t share their vision – often with considerable loss of life and stifling of decent living standards. For those who choose the path back to the cave, the option is open to them but, to them, this is a “we” thing, and some would like to see the rest of us in that cave with them.

Some romantic idealists will occasionally accept the convenience or benefit of contemporary technology and lifestyle but will then cry the oft repeated mantra that we are somehow alienated by modernity. Of course, “we” isn't me, and may not be you, and one person's "alienation" may be another’s blissful adventure through life (with the products of linear thinking adding considerably to the adventure).

While the same disenchanted and alienated intellectuals bemoan their miserable existence, the rest of us simple folks can continue to enjoy our modern indulgences and pursue our life’s course under our own direction. Sometimes they will of course bow to half of modernity’s advances and selectively choose the conceptual devils which they feel should be rejected (i.e. they can occasionally give approval to medical advances yet decry automobiles) but, the truth is, modernity is a package deal. The suburban subdivision may not have the same charm as the open plains or jungle but in the end, a family has a better chance of survival in those linear constructs. If you’re raising a family, I’d go with the two car garage, but that’s just me.

The romantic idealist typically perceives the developed world’s "linear" (scientific, practical, and logical?) perspective as a misguided path to destruction when contrasted with the idealized lives of those in non-developing countries which, to some, seem to embody an organic New-Age style wisdom and purity (anti-perfection?). I beg to differ. Many of the simple tribal folks of nature-land are often very conformist, not so flexible, and downright oppressive in holding individuals to a collective template of failure and destitution.

Romantic idealists can of course continue to espouse the virtues of leaving their "linear" world of cell phones and high-tech music systems for the blessing and enchantments of disease laden caves and jungles. Aside from occasional -- expensive -- back-packing trips, I don’t see most from the anti-modernity crowd actually moving to live in their admired enclaves of natural purity. Most romantics find it more logical (linear?) to stay put in the lands of technology and food at your fingertips.

A world of witch doctors and rain dances may impress some alienated suburbanites and intellectuals, but living standards and crop yields are ultimately better served by a more advanced – and “linear” – template. How exactly did all that food in the neighborhood grocery store get there, from a commune of hunter-gatherers, or mere faith in natures – automatic -- bounty?

Centuries from now, the advances made in the last few centuries will not be seen as acts of “the West” vs. non-West, or linear vs. non-linear. They’ll simply be seen as the common heritage of humanity – which is what they essentially are. We can thank many cultures from around the globe for their contributions to present advances and we can thank the West in particular for bringing disparate ideas together through the scientific/rational worldview that will ultimately free all of humanity from forty year life spans of toil in the local cave or jungle.

There are no doubt many who fancy a world without science and "linear thought," where they could romp blissfully with the butterflies – actually, in such a world, most of them would be dead already.

****************
The aforementioned idealists' stance of anti-reasoning was articulated in a brief essay last year (Sustainable Development, a Contradiction in Terms) by the Guardian’s George Monbiot (I'm sorry to say that I can't find a link to the essay, from August of last year, on the web). In the essay, Monbiot referenced the new euphemism for restraining the developed world's wealth and power -- "sustainable development." Monbiot began his polemic as a rant against the recent –- rare -- voice given to critics of environmental hysteria. Contrary to his caricature, few, if any, have claimed that there are no environmental problems or that we should do nothing to address such problems.

Like many who address environmental issues (the left in general has realized they can get a lot of mileage from this issue), Monbiot moved quickly from such controversies, to the usual obsession of socialist intellectuals, the evil institutions of the free market and unregulated society. He reminded us that “we” bourgeoisie materialists are isolated, depressed, and alienated because of our freedom and wealth. I can’t speak for “we,” but I’m pretty psyched about my petty bourgeoisie existence. As a lowly plebian, my financial status is probably less than the average “progressive” academic’s (or socialist journalist’s), but I have access to a renaissance of music, art, literature, information, and travel – not to mention an occasional beer and coffee. I don’t think it was a ministry of fun and leisure that put me in this historically unusual position either. While I may not have gleaned the noble spiritual depth of the “happier” people Monbiot describes in poorer parts of the world, I don’t think I’m quite the selfish and greedy wretch that he sees amongst those of us who have benefited from a liberal economic system.

Monbiot went on to echo recent excitement over the "income gap," but failed to notice that the poorest countries tend to be the least free economically or socially. It seems that an entire world of millionaires would be offensive to those who’d notice an “income gap” created by a few billionaires. The left's concern is not that there are poor people but that there are rich ones. Their hope is not to lift people from poverty but to pull people down from wealth – an equal and well-controlled distribution of poverty (yet, a society where bureaucrats and party boot-lickers will always manage to be more equal than others).

If we could all be so “selfless and compassionate” as the average authoritarian leftist or their romantic idealist comrades.

Being a “selfish materialist,” I prefer the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith to the visible fist of socialist planning, control and coercion. I also wish that those who see the life of a savage as noble would relinquish their own wealth and possessions and show some consistency between what they really believe vs. their phony espoused philosophy of romantic idealism.