What follows is some useless advice, because most advice is useless. It's worth exactly what you paid for it:
Yes everything is easy in the abstract. Loving everybody sounds good, but means nothing. Humanity is great in the abstract, it's human beings who are problematic. Hell is other people according to an old depressed French man. It's more difficult to love somebody with imperfections and human frailty. You can't love everybody, but try to hate as few people as you can. Not necessarily because they don't deserve it, but because it will make you unhappy.
What gives life meaning may vary somewhat from person to person. I find I'm happiest when I do something useful for somebody else. If fulfills my sense of purpose. I don't think that's particularly unique. I don't find personally that there are entirely satisfactory solutions to most of life's problems. There are a series of challenges and dilemmas to be confronted and dealt with as best we can. When you successfully navigate a rough patch, that feels good. Sometimes it's enough to be standing after the storm. . But I think there are small answers that can be functional and enriching. It usually means getting back to basics. Having a lot of stuff past a certain point won't make you that happy. Everything past that point is of marginal utility. Billionaires aren't particularly contented people. They never have enough. Learn to understand what enough is for you. You can't take it with you and you are leaving. Try and find a few people you like and a few people you love and hang on to them. Easier said than done. Learn to forgive yourself and then you can forgive others. Easier said than done. Try to make your way forward without shoving other people out of the way. Stand up for yourself, but don't beat other people down. Easier said than done. Be persistent and concerned about quality - quality of work, quality of life, quality of relationships. Don't invest in one way relationships. It's a bad idea. On the other hand, don't get frustrated and toss things aside easily. There is satisfaction in taking care of people and other things. You have to put up with a certain amount of crap, but not more. You decide what your tolerance is. If it's making you miserable, it's too much crap. Evade toxic people. Evade emotional vampires and narcissists. Evade boredom. It's up to you to make your life interesting. If you have extra - extra money, extra love, extra time or skills, give it to somebody who needs it. It can be somebody you already know. It can be a new person or cause. You will get more back than you put into it often.
As far as strangers and "victims", some people are going to have a bad time of it and you aren't going to save them. A lot of these people don't want to be saved. If they wanted to be saved, they'd save themselves. Be kind, be generous, but don't be stupid. You can't take care of other people until you take care of yourself. Don't do stuff for extrinsic reasons, for acclaim or social acceptance. Do stuff that means something to you.
Do difficult things. Struggle is growth. Once you learn how to struggle, it's easier to get through the struggle to the other side regardless of the struggle. Emulate people who have successfully surmounted difficulty. Courage and persistence will go a long way as you build your skill set.
I have something of what used to be called a "First World Problem" related to this essay. I have lots of money, no children and I'm at that age where this stuff starts to matter. I have five nieces/nephews who are currently the beneficiaries, but really I barely know them. So I should really move the inheritance away from them and towards something I genuinely care about. If I don't it's testament to how important blood relations are over everyone else, even if it's diluted blood. The next logical place is charities, but which ones? My colleges and the local cultural institutions are flush with cash. I'm sure I can get something named after me (I don't live in a city where that costs a fortune) but I always thought of that as pretentious. Local human-centric charities are the second option. But, probably obnoxiously, they are overwhelmingly focused on opioids, drugs and alcohol abuse and I have a bad picture in my head when I think of pouring cash there. And at this stage giving money to addicts living around me vs my relations feels really weird. So go for a national charity like United Way but that feels like I couldn't be bothered thinking so here's my money.
I'm leaning towards historical preservation. I live in New England where every town is dominated by a white steepled Congregational church. Most of them are running out of cash and members and have huge expenses trying to prop up their steeples. I know that makes me out as a snob or religious freak (I'm not religious) but I can't come up with anything else that makes me feel like I'm making a difference.
wow, I've really deviated from my original related contribution and it's too long to edit or read. So never mind.
If it would make you feel better, you could send me a several thousand dollars. I promise it would go to a good cause; remaining alive, and paying my bills.
Arrow, do you personally know any poor people? If not, get to know some and personally leave the money to them - not to charities or organizations. To people. Who need it.
We donated to a college, specifically the classics department and the debate club, hoping this will help our society. Historic preservation is a worthy cause and related to the study of the classics. Then there's the trades and the Mike Rowe Foundation, offering scholarships to those willing to train for a skilled trade. Only you can choose what's important to you.
thanks, those were helpful ideas. The immediate issue I was grappling with was how to treat my relatives vs charitable contributions. I think social and historical norms, coupled with family soft pressure and hard expectations, have led me into leaving everything to my second order relatives. But this article has made me question whether that makes sense, and has led me further along the path of not really having good ideas as to where it should go. And along the way I've picked up some good suggestions including yours. There's a fairly small college next town over that has little or no endowment and focuses on more practical degrees like nursing. That seems a lot more worthwhile than my glamorous/prestigious and overfunded alma maters. I'll take a look at that.
I don't know who you are obviously. There are real people with real needs that can benefit from money. There are people in need of lifesaving medical care or infrastructure of various kinds. Right here in the USA, probably in your area. There are entities which grade charities on the quality of their financial stewardship, and if you are talking about really significant sums, you can hire a consulting firm to assist in making sure your funds aren't squandered. You probably know all this. As far as your current beneficiaries go, perhaps getting to know them might help you as well. Historical preservation is great, but making some connections, so the cause isn't abstract, may inspire you to feel that your money is being put to its best use.
Thanks. First I want to explain/apologize for my weird post. I really started it because I'm in the middle of my estate planning process and it's partially related to Graham's post. Specifically my feelings about leaving everything to my second order relatives rather than the broader community. So I meant to focus on whether that distinction really makes any difference. But I then digressed into lots of other things I'm thinking about during this process, none of which are relevant. And I think I did that because I'm anonymous. Online anonymity is usually used to abuse other people, but today it was actually helpful (for me). I couldn't possibly talk like this to anyone I know except my lawyer, but anonymity allowed me to pour out the current issues I'm grappling with during the estate planning. The downside of course is everyone else has to read my nonsense. So again a very long ramble, but just wanted to thank you for your constructive suggestions. I know I came across as something of a jerk, so I'm particularly thankful you still gave me constructive feedback despite that.
I object to the characterization that anonymity is usually used to bully. It’s usually used by people like you and me who want to speak freely without worry that unorthodox views with land is in social jail. Your problem is interesting because I have wondered what one would do in such a situation. My best answer, somewhat lame maybe, is to create something local and real. A basketball court? A theater? A skate park? A library? My personal preference is of the teach them to fish variety: I think there are entrepreneurial types out there who can’t get started because they need cash up front. That would be a bigger deal than just giving money away, because you’d have to have structure and philosophy to do it right. Because you’d have a variety of outcomes, not all success. There are no doubt other things out there worth doing. I’d suggest you approach it from that angle rather than start with the money. Your money is just the tool to do something great. What great thing could you do? What do you want to see more of in this world?
thanks. Lots to think about. Oh, and the anonymity comment was made mostly about Twitter, where people behave abominably. I also think anonymity is used for nasty Amazon and Yelp reviews. Substack is quite subdued and constructive, case in point.
Sorry just one more addendum so you don't think I'm a total weirdo. I do make quite a lot of donations on an ongoing basis to all sorts of causes. So my first post was really just focused on what happens when I'm dead.
I was not trying to be judgmental. Maybe I came across that way, as it is one of my superpowers. Your post suggested to me that perhaps you needed some ideas about options, which are plentiful. Utility is in the eye of the beholder. Let’s say I was quite wealthy, which I’m not. I would concentrate philanthropy on non- woke education, maybe start a school. Maybe start a hospital that challenges conventional economic models, but is still economically viable without sacrificing quality. But everybody has different interests. No need to apologize.
I think, as a society, we are failing to realize, much less come to grips with, what is happening with regard to the religious void developing in the West. The crazy times* are here because many of us have turned our backs on religion, which to most of us was the primary source of “right & wrong”.
Good essay; I liked the point about outsourcing our actual care for others to strangers particularly.
I do think you need to define what you mean by "liberalism" a bit better, both for your audience and, I suspect, your own thinking. It seems like you are perhaps conflating a bit of the American usage of "liberalism" which is late 19th/early 20th century in origin and the British use which starts in 1785 or so, and which mean very different things. It is especially relevant as the originator of the word "liberal" as used in the political context, Adam Smith, absolutely saw the impossibility of a universal love. The most he thought people could strive towards was "universal benevolence". In fact your arguments are fairly similar to his, both in the notion that you just don't have time to know everyone and so care about them properly, and in the sense that some people are just ass holes and do not deserve your love.
I bring all that up because you are drawing a line from Enlightenment to current liberalism, but that isn't a single straight line. One passed through Hume and Smith and brought the liberal system, the other passed through the likes of Rousseau and brought us... well death, poverty and misery mostly. You are currently tarring both with the same brush, it seems.
You are right that "liberalism" has become a rather imprecise term (and I've a notion that we've had this conversation before on another comment thread!) In my defence, the term has, rightly or wrongly, become the standard shorthand in conservative discourse, for the hated Social Justice riddled and 'Woke' aspects of late 20th/early 21st c. West. It gets used in this sense probably millions of times every day and that's why I use it too (because it has (again rightly or wrongly) become the shorthand currency word for the things that I am interrogating in this essay. I often also use the term hyper-liberalism. What would be a better shorthand term?
Leftism comes immediately to mind as a better term. Marxism works as well, considering that the notions of "social justice" go back to the early 20th century from the lips of socialists and Marxists.
The problem with using liberalism is that you are attacking the very tradition that you want to support. There is a reason that the left started calling themselves liberals, claiming to be the ones who really care about freedom, all while destroying individual freedom all over. Complaining about Enlightenment Liberalism as you do is akin to complaining about Christianity because tons of churches fly rainbow flags, and so clearly Christians are all about Woke Transgender ideology. At some point you aren't talking about the same things at all, and are merely contributing to the confusion. Common use is often quite mistaken, and correcting them on their errors in these cases is valuable. Otherwise people have no idea what they are talking about.
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here DH. Neither Leftism nor Marxism will do for what I'm talking about. Not at all. There is a large and growing body of conservative thought that sees liberalism (all the way from the Enlightenment onwards) as having been marvellous but nevertheless carrying within it the seeds of its eventual demise. A tragic view of it as having a trajectory that would rise higher and higher before eventually over reaching itself (Icarus-like) and starting on a downward degradation. That in a nutshell is my view of our current condition in the West. There are many thinkers who have written on this at length...Michael Oakshott, John Gray, Patrick Deneen to give just three examples. You are, I'm guessing, more optimistic about the future of liberalism.
That may be, but I think that is exactly why you ought to take some time to define exactly what you mean. Every philosophy "holds the seeds to its eventual demise", how could anything created by man not? One has to recognize where the weaknesses are and avoid them; I doubt anyone would claim that one can just grab onto a philosophy or religion and just click the old brain on autopilot. (Well, some would, but not the kind of people one would recommend.) I am fairly familiar with Oakshott and frankly I think he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater because he can't tell the difference between the two. Or, at the very least, he expects to be the one deciding what is baby and what is bathwater.
Or, look at it another way, that trajectory could just as easily be applied to Christianity. It had a good run, but then it fell apart, so it is time to give it up as too flawed. If that seems wrong while the other is right, it might be worth considering what makes it different.
We are at crossed purposes here DH. My essay is not intended primarily to be about any political philosophy or ideology, it is primarily about human psychology.....I'm going to be forthright here and say that: No I do not need to "take some time to define exactly what I mean"..... In terms of what I INTENDED to say in this essay - it could not have been said more clearly or lucidly.
Fair enough, but as a final thought I would point out that if your last sentence was true we wouldn't be having this conversation. What you are intending to say and what you are saying is what is in question here.
I think both liberalism and leftism serve as a handy-dandy catch-all for "people on the other side we don't like". But I think there's a useful distinction between liberals, lefties and progressives.
Liberals support freedoms that social conservatives might wrinkle their nose at and promote equal opportunity for all.
Lefties are particularly concerned about the accumulation of wealth and power by the better off — what we used to call "the elite" until the term was hijacked for people who spent three years at university. They (we) are also concerned at the outrageous levels of poverty in rich countries.
I think of progressives as the DEI & TQIA+s that Graham rails against. The ones who want to control our language and impose mandates on our relationships. I rail against them too.
I'm a leftie and a liberal but I am not progressive.
Unfortunately, the world seems to be comprised of approximately 75% extroverts (I will intrude upon your life whether you like it or not) vs 25% introverts (I want to be left alone). In my opinion, this seems to be an area in which greater equality would be of benefit.
This is not really true. Mathematically and statistically speaking, it’s a pretty even divide. Just depends where you look, Myers-Briggs, Psychology Today etc. Most of us are ambivert and simply choose to identify more with one. A better and much more comprehensive guide to personality is the Enneagram.
My information was out of date and you are correct in the relatively equal distribution of introvert/extrovert. However, some of us are highly introvert (or extrovert), not ambivert. I have looked into the Enneagram a number of times over the years and find that, while it answers some questions, it fails on others, as do most systems. I have been studying Astrology for more than 4 decades and consider it to be one of the best maps for interpreting a human psyche. The one question it cannot answer though is that of attitude, there being both an introverted and extroverted expression of the various signs, planets, houses, aspects, etc. The most accurate test I ever took (for me) was the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality which measures the attitudinal expression of each of the four functions (Intuition, Sensation, Thinking, Feeling). I must admit to some bias in this field as my brother is a practicing Jungian Analyst:)
My searches for statistics pretty much came up nil, no definitive data, on the numbers. I do think the uses for our introversion or extroversion are very different based on personality type. I’ve studied the Enneagram for as long as you studied astrology and prefer the Enneagram because of its complexity. We all have our preferred modalities and I do enjoy them all. I agree very much with your point that we use our introversion/extroversion to influence and persuade. I’m just not convinced extroverts do it more. It may just seem that way because one is overt and the other covert. All interesting anyway, to say the least! I enjoyed our exchange and learning a bit about you, thank you, Gwyneth! Rock on. ❤️
Perhaps you’ve also noticed how readily that love of the eight billion turns into a desire to kill off about one-third of these cherished objects of affection. That’s for the good of the planet of course. So the Gates - Schwab - Fauci - Soros agenda slots right into the warmist belief system. How convenient. Virtue-signaled love of the entire species of humankind is thus revealed as genocidal rage. Coming soon to a friendly neighborhood war zone.
In the Australian Aboriginal culture, their foundational principal is that all are family. They are familial with every thing in existence. There is no 'other'; they are intimately connected to all things the creator has made. Reverently. This creates an indelible inescapable circular link for which no language to express it is needed.
I am going to presume you are not someone embedded in Australian Aboriginal culture yourself,
so that 1) you had to get outside of your culture a little to observe and remark on that alternative culture - which is a positive that your culture (also presumably Westernized in some way) can allow you to do that.
And 2) this viewpoint sounds to me to be something akin to Spinoza's ideas about "God being the substance of the universe" (???). Some describe that as pantheistic.
But 3) I am not quite sure I understand how you can describe something using language when "no language to express it is needed"??? [although perhaps I am able to glom unto the reverential and "inescapable circular link" aspect of your comment. ]
Separately, I had heard the Australian Aborigines used different descriptions of things (of at least a geographical nature), depending on which direction they were facing at the time they spoke. Thus their listeners had to also translate that language into one appropriate to the direction the listener happened to be facing at that time. [I hope I have described this properly :-) ]
Firstly, you presume wrongly. Even though you seem to compliment me for the ability to step outside my culture and my self, when you open with that as your first sentence, you give away some of your mindset and possible point of view. While I do observe the Australian Aboriginal culture from a different culture, as I do all other cultures that are not American as I am, I do have firsthand observance and close knowledge of the Australian culture. Secondly, we are all able to understand other cultures to a degree, if we care and try, without being them. Thirdly, that is really not even the point. The point is that the foundational principle of Aboriginal Australians is that God is the All, everything is related, everything is a relation, everything was created by the creator having sung the universe into existence. Unlike Western cultures whose foundational principle is that we are separate from our creator and born into sin as a consequence of a fall from Grace. The former doesn’t need to explain itself. The latter does and cannot.
I use the word presume to avoid using the word assume; but unfortunately that does not always protect me from being an ass, none the less. My apology.
A description "that God is the All, everything is related, everything is a relation, everything was created by the creator ... " sounds pretty close to my understanding of Spinoza's ideas as well.
As a Westernized encultured person, I will have to work at thinking about a view where we are not "separate from our creator", even though I reject the ideas of being "born into sin" or subject to "a fall from Grace". In some way it would seem that means we are self-created??
I suspect I will also struggle to understand a concept that "doesn't need to explain itself."
Ok, Spinoza. I did not study him, though I’m sure I have been influenced. No, we are not self-created. We are of the Creator. A creator doesn’t have to be separate from us. We have very self-limiting minds. While we may be able to reject or distance ourselves from the Judeo-Christian biblical canon of original sin, the concept is deeply embedded into all of our teachings and structures. They are the roots of the tree that grows. If one believes we originate from the same source and are related- related, inter-dependent beings, we would not act in a way that would need explanation of that understanding. It is simply understood because we are acting in accordance with that nature, that wholeness, that oneness. When we separate from that, we need to explain the separation because we simply do not understand it.
Ever since Plato's Republic we've had idealistic attempts to create Utopian states. As long as they remain literary exercises, they do little harm. But when they're weaponized into blueprints for society at large, or are used by splinter groups to go off and form their own private Utopias, then the trouble starts. I live in a region that was a locus for 1960s and '70s era hippie communes. There were dozens of them; now only one or two survive, in modified form as "land co-ops." Applied Utopias have a mostly unbroken record of failure when applied to the real world. Humans are just too complex and too ornery.
Couple that with the psyops weaponized against the domestic public of the West since World War II that cultivate a constant state of fear, a constant (though shifting) enemy a la Orwell, and you have a recipe for social chaos and Deep State control such as we're seeing today.
I'm embarrassed to admit that as an author I helped organize a social justice writing seminar in my community for 7 years. As horrific as the global Covid psyop and herd culling was, it opened my eyes to the ways "social justice" can be weaponized against peoples' own interests. Yes, absolutely, I still believe writers need to write poems and stories that are relevant to the times, that reflect upon and contemplate real world problems and don't just remain adrift in fantasyland. But no, I no longer see the need for writers to be evangelists. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
In case we've forgotten, even Plato called for censorship of the arts in his ideal State. Just as we're now seeing with "woke" checklists applied to arts granting and awards, right from our local arts councils all the way up to Hollywood. Poets should remain poets. Yes, they definitely have a role to play in social critique. But they should STAY poets. They have no business being in politics. They are idealists, dreamers, ill-suited to the task. We should no more ask them to design society than we would ask them to design a rocket.
Though, these days, one might ask: Who is suited to the task?
"Then there are those individuals who gladden your heart and fill you with admiration even though you may never have known them personally." There it is! I do love you Graham, but I apologize for no funds forthcoming. Please keep gladdening my heart.
I love your breakdown of who is likeable. My stats are probably a lot like yours despite my status as a Western lefty liberal.
> And the remaining 30%?...somewhere on a scale from mildly dislike... to despise... to dread.
Beyond the dislike/despise/dread contingent, I would call out a smaller number (5-10% maybe?) who really don't belong in society at all. Given the opportunity, they would break it. We should pre-empt that somehow. I especially dislike terrorists.
I probably disagree with you on urban environments. After 20 years in suburbia, I live in a city (Bristol). I go out to the pub quite often — a variety of pubs — and every single time, I meet an old friend or a stranger to talk to. Villages are nice for making friends but cities beat suburbia hands down. I talk to more strangers here in a week than I did in 20 years in California suburbs.
Thank you Ragged. I'll take a look in the coming days. I didn't intentionally mean to juxtapose urban vs rural in the way you have picked up on....just in a macro-global-historical sense; ie how urbanisation relates to the main theme of this essay. I love cities - at least the ones I have some knowledge of (London, Manchester, New York.)
Out of interest Substack house-keeping-wise...did you get this essay when it posted (on March 14) or did it go to spam maybe?
Great post and seems so true about the religious assumptions that underlie social justice. It is my observation that many people care little about others but need to have others think they do. Actual caring is difficult and messy, and going to charity balls is much more fun!
Just a quick correction you might want to make. While Josh Barro undoubtedly feels this way, he's a bit too cautious to actually publish that last excerpt. It's Josh Slocum.
If I understand the photo correctly [Equality March Kraków 2022 (Creative Commons)] of the young woman with the pride colored LOVE sign, that is the first time I recall seeing the pride color pallet with seven ROY-G-BIV colors, rather than the more typical six colors (where it seems indigo is ignored?).
Good for her, I suppose, for being even more inclusive than many others, who may often just be poseurs. Or she was just paying better attention during her HS physics class?
And I agree with you on "[Confession: I haven’t even looked up what the IA bit of the LGBTQIA acronym stands for.]" It would bring a lot more focus back to reality if we clarified that the real issue is LGB = H = homosexuality, a particular abnormality in regard to sexual orientation apparently experience by about 3% of the population; while T = transgenderism, a different abnormality in regard to gender identification or preference, possibly evidenced by up to 0.6% of the population. However, evidence is growing that some people (usually children!) with gender dysphoria do end up recognizing they are in fact of a homosexual orientation and then make peace with that realization, to their betterment and that of the rest of society. Hopefully before they have been subjected to chemical or surgical alternations of a devastating form.
But of course then the SJW's would find some other factor/ feature to claim needed social justice action and that they are the true and best supportive activists for that cause.
Well spotted.... the young woman's fastidiousness about the colour spectrum. In truth my choice of illustrations is a pretty basic business. I like to add colour to the text in this way but am limited to what is available copyright free etc.
It's true that we can't love everybody, but in my own little sphere I tend to 'like' everyone I come across unless they give me reason to dislike them. It makes life easier. We are all decent human beings, I tell myself, and of course this isn't true, but I'd rather not know about your dark, murky, nasty side or nature if I don't have a reason to engage with you.
Social media stirs us up.
We can dislike whole swathes of people because we encounter them on our phones; they behave badly, they're stupid, thick as mince, crude, uncouth, violent, lazy, evil, believe in strange ideologies, do things differently, lack gratitude, seem entitled, arrogant, vain, sickly-sweet, deluded, blinkered....
I could go on.
They've entered my life if only for a few moments and I have formed an opinion, felt an emotion, decided they're not my sort of person. I can leave negative feedback if I want to.
Where is the love?
Time maybe to move away from the phone, which on some days might have me believe the world and the people in it are vile, we're doomed and fairness, decency, civilisation is no more. I cannot love people. Then I reflect that being judgemental doesn't bring out the milk of human kindness in us, does it?
And, (squirm) I want to violently throttle the simpering idiots online who urge us to "be nice". What a modern gagging order that is. Occasionally, when we encounter something just plain stupid or wrong we have a duty to be scathing, or at least offer constructive criticism. Sorry, I'll be honest, That trait will serve us better, but am I being nasty by refusing to play nice regarding everything I encounter? Conundrum. Again..where is the love?
That's when I remember the phrase 'Hail fellow, well met' which has served me well for decades.
It's the code by which I tend to live. Makes life much simpler.
I'll take you as I find you, smile and go about my business. That's about the best I can do.
What follows is some useless advice, because most advice is useless. It's worth exactly what you paid for it:
Yes everything is easy in the abstract. Loving everybody sounds good, but means nothing. Humanity is great in the abstract, it's human beings who are problematic. Hell is other people according to an old depressed French man. It's more difficult to love somebody with imperfections and human frailty. You can't love everybody, but try to hate as few people as you can. Not necessarily because they don't deserve it, but because it will make you unhappy.
What gives life meaning may vary somewhat from person to person. I find I'm happiest when I do something useful for somebody else. If fulfills my sense of purpose. I don't think that's particularly unique. I don't find personally that there are entirely satisfactory solutions to most of life's problems. There are a series of challenges and dilemmas to be confronted and dealt with as best we can. When you successfully navigate a rough patch, that feels good. Sometimes it's enough to be standing after the storm. . But I think there are small answers that can be functional and enriching. It usually means getting back to basics. Having a lot of stuff past a certain point won't make you that happy. Everything past that point is of marginal utility. Billionaires aren't particularly contented people. They never have enough. Learn to understand what enough is for you. You can't take it with you and you are leaving. Try and find a few people you like and a few people you love and hang on to them. Easier said than done. Learn to forgive yourself and then you can forgive others. Easier said than done. Try to make your way forward without shoving other people out of the way. Stand up for yourself, but don't beat other people down. Easier said than done. Be persistent and concerned about quality - quality of work, quality of life, quality of relationships. Don't invest in one way relationships. It's a bad idea. On the other hand, don't get frustrated and toss things aside easily. There is satisfaction in taking care of people and other things. You have to put up with a certain amount of crap, but not more. You decide what your tolerance is. If it's making you miserable, it's too much crap. Evade toxic people. Evade emotional vampires and narcissists. Evade boredom. It's up to you to make your life interesting. If you have extra - extra money, extra love, extra time or skills, give it to somebody who needs it. It can be somebody you already know. It can be a new person or cause. You will get more back than you put into it often.
As far as strangers and "victims", some people are going to have a bad time of it and you aren't going to save them. A lot of these people don't want to be saved. If they wanted to be saved, they'd save themselves. Be kind, be generous, but don't be stupid. You can't take care of other people until you take care of yourself. Don't do stuff for extrinsic reasons, for acclaim or social acceptance. Do stuff that means something to you.
Do difficult things. Struggle is growth. Once you learn how to struggle, it's easier to get through the struggle to the other side regardless of the struggle. Emulate people who have successfully surmounted difficulty. Courage and persistence will go a long way as you build your skill set.
Well done. Thank you.
An excellent take on the matter, and a good/sensible guide to living. Thank you.
I have something of what used to be called a "First World Problem" related to this essay. I have lots of money, no children and I'm at that age where this stuff starts to matter. I have five nieces/nephews who are currently the beneficiaries, but really I barely know them. So I should really move the inheritance away from them and towards something I genuinely care about. If I don't it's testament to how important blood relations are over everyone else, even if it's diluted blood. The next logical place is charities, but which ones? My colleges and the local cultural institutions are flush with cash. I'm sure I can get something named after me (I don't live in a city where that costs a fortune) but I always thought of that as pretentious. Local human-centric charities are the second option. But, probably obnoxiously, they are overwhelmingly focused on opioids, drugs and alcohol abuse and I have a bad picture in my head when I think of pouring cash there. And at this stage giving money to addicts living around me vs my relations feels really weird. So go for a national charity like United Way but that feels like I couldn't be bothered thinking so here's my money.
I'm leaning towards historical preservation. I live in New England where every town is dominated by a white steepled Congregational church. Most of them are running out of cash and members and have huge expenses trying to prop up their steeples. I know that makes me out as a snob or religious freak (I'm not religious) but I can't come up with anything else that makes me feel like I'm making a difference.
wow, I've really deviated from my original related contribution and it's too long to edit or read. So never mind.
If it would make you feel better, you could send me a several thousand dollars. I promise it would go to a good cause; remaining alive, and paying my bills.
You come cheap!
I don't want to burden anyone. However, I am open to receiving unlimited funds.
Funny that, I was thinking the same thing. Long lost twin or just great minds think alike?
Great minds, I have no siblings, lost or found, but I'm adoptable.
Arrow, do you personally know any poor people? If not, get to know some and personally leave the money to them - not to charities or organizations. To people. Who need it.
We donated to a college, specifically the classics department and the debate club, hoping this will help our society. Historic preservation is a worthy cause and related to the study of the classics. Then there's the trades and the Mike Rowe Foundation, offering scholarships to those willing to train for a skilled trade. Only you can choose what's important to you.
thanks, those were helpful ideas. The immediate issue I was grappling with was how to treat my relatives vs charitable contributions. I think social and historical norms, coupled with family soft pressure and hard expectations, have led me into leaving everything to my second order relatives. But this article has made me question whether that makes sense, and has led me further along the path of not really having good ideas as to where it should go. And along the way I've picked up some good suggestions including yours. There's a fairly small college next town over that has little or no endowment and focuses on more practical degrees like nursing. That seems a lot more worthwhile than my glamorous/prestigious and overfunded alma maters. I'll take a look at that.
You can always leave a little sum to the relatives who are contributing to society and still donate the majority to the nearby college.
I don't know who you are obviously. There are real people with real needs that can benefit from money. There are people in need of lifesaving medical care or infrastructure of various kinds. Right here in the USA, probably in your area. There are entities which grade charities on the quality of their financial stewardship, and if you are talking about really significant sums, you can hire a consulting firm to assist in making sure your funds aren't squandered. You probably know all this. As far as your current beneficiaries go, perhaps getting to know them might help you as well. Historical preservation is great, but making some connections, so the cause isn't abstract, may inspire you to feel that your money is being put to its best use.
Thanks. First I want to explain/apologize for my weird post. I really started it because I'm in the middle of my estate planning process and it's partially related to Graham's post. Specifically my feelings about leaving everything to my second order relatives rather than the broader community. So I meant to focus on whether that distinction really makes any difference. But I then digressed into lots of other things I'm thinking about during this process, none of which are relevant. And I think I did that because I'm anonymous. Online anonymity is usually used to abuse other people, but today it was actually helpful (for me). I couldn't possibly talk like this to anyone I know except my lawyer, but anonymity allowed me to pour out the current issues I'm grappling with during the estate planning. The downside of course is everyone else has to read my nonsense. So again a very long ramble, but just wanted to thank you for your constructive suggestions. I know I came across as something of a jerk, so I'm particularly thankful you still gave me constructive feedback despite that.
You did not come across as a jerk.... not at all.
I object to the characterization that anonymity is usually used to bully. It’s usually used by people like you and me who want to speak freely without worry that unorthodox views with land is in social jail. Your problem is interesting because I have wondered what one would do in such a situation. My best answer, somewhat lame maybe, is to create something local and real. A basketball court? A theater? A skate park? A library? My personal preference is of the teach them to fish variety: I think there are entrepreneurial types out there who can’t get started because they need cash up front. That would be a bigger deal than just giving money away, because you’d have to have structure and philosophy to do it right. Because you’d have a variety of outcomes, not all success. There are no doubt other things out there worth doing. I’d suggest you approach it from that angle rather than start with the money. Your money is just the tool to do something great. What great thing could you do? What do you want to see more of in this world?
thanks. Lots to think about. Oh, and the anonymity comment was made mostly about Twitter, where people behave abominably. I also think anonymity is used for nasty Amazon and Yelp reviews. Substack is quite subdued and constructive, case in point.
Sorry just one more addendum so you don't think I'm a total weirdo. I do make quite a lot of donations on an ongoing basis to all sorts of causes. So my first post was really just focused on what happens when I'm dead.
I was not trying to be judgmental. Maybe I came across that way, as it is one of my superpowers. Your post suggested to me that perhaps you needed some ideas about options, which are plentiful. Utility is in the eye of the beholder. Let’s say I was quite wealthy, which I’m not. I would concentrate philanthropy on non- woke education, maybe start a school. Maybe start a hospital that challenges conventional economic models, but is still economically viable without sacrificing quality. But everybody has different interests. No need to apologize.
Good post.
I think, as a society, we are failing to realize, much less come to grips with, what is happening with regard to the religious void developing in the West. The crazy times* are here because many of us have turned our backs on religion, which to most of us was the primary source of “right & wrong”.
Good essay; I liked the point about outsourcing our actual care for others to strangers particularly.
I do think you need to define what you mean by "liberalism" a bit better, both for your audience and, I suspect, your own thinking. It seems like you are perhaps conflating a bit of the American usage of "liberalism" which is late 19th/early 20th century in origin and the British use which starts in 1785 or so, and which mean very different things. It is especially relevant as the originator of the word "liberal" as used in the political context, Adam Smith, absolutely saw the impossibility of a universal love. The most he thought people could strive towards was "universal benevolence". In fact your arguments are fairly similar to his, both in the notion that you just don't have time to know everyone and so care about them properly, and in the sense that some people are just ass holes and do not deserve your love.
I bring all that up because you are drawing a line from Enlightenment to current liberalism, but that isn't a single straight line. One passed through Hume and Smith and brought the liberal system, the other passed through the likes of Rousseau and brought us... well death, poverty and misery mostly. You are currently tarring both with the same brush, it seems.
You are right that "liberalism" has become a rather imprecise term (and I've a notion that we've had this conversation before on another comment thread!) In my defence, the term has, rightly or wrongly, become the standard shorthand in conservative discourse, for the hated Social Justice riddled and 'Woke' aspects of late 20th/early 21st c. West. It gets used in this sense probably millions of times every day and that's why I use it too (because it has (again rightly or wrongly) become the shorthand currency word for the things that I am interrogating in this essay. I often also use the term hyper-liberalism. What would be a better shorthand term?
Leftism comes immediately to mind as a better term. Marxism works as well, considering that the notions of "social justice" go back to the early 20th century from the lips of socialists and Marxists.
The problem with using liberalism is that you are attacking the very tradition that you want to support. There is a reason that the left started calling themselves liberals, claiming to be the ones who really care about freedom, all while destroying individual freedom all over. Complaining about Enlightenment Liberalism as you do is akin to complaining about Christianity because tons of churches fly rainbow flags, and so clearly Christians are all about Woke Transgender ideology. At some point you aren't talking about the same things at all, and are merely contributing to the confusion. Common use is often quite mistaken, and correcting them on their errors in these cases is valuable. Otherwise people have no idea what they are talking about.
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here DH. Neither Leftism nor Marxism will do for what I'm talking about. Not at all. There is a large and growing body of conservative thought that sees liberalism (all the way from the Enlightenment onwards) as having been marvellous but nevertheless carrying within it the seeds of its eventual demise. A tragic view of it as having a trajectory that would rise higher and higher before eventually over reaching itself (Icarus-like) and starting on a downward degradation. That in a nutshell is my view of our current condition in the West. There are many thinkers who have written on this at length...Michael Oakshott, John Gray, Patrick Deneen to give just three examples. You are, I'm guessing, more optimistic about the future of liberalism.
That may be, but I think that is exactly why you ought to take some time to define exactly what you mean. Every philosophy "holds the seeds to its eventual demise", how could anything created by man not? One has to recognize where the weaknesses are and avoid them; I doubt anyone would claim that one can just grab onto a philosophy or religion and just click the old brain on autopilot. (Well, some would, but not the kind of people one would recommend.) I am fairly familiar with Oakshott and frankly I think he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater because he can't tell the difference between the two. Or, at the very least, he expects to be the one deciding what is baby and what is bathwater.
Or, look at it another way, that trajectory could just as easily be applied to Christianity. It had a good run, but then it fell apart, so it is time to give it up as too flawed. If that seems wrong while the other is right, it might be worth considering what makes it different.
We are at crossed purposes here DH. My essay is not intended primarily to be about any political philosophy or ideology, it is primarily about human psychology.....I'm going to be forthright here and say that: No I do not need to "take some time to define exactly what I mean"..... In terms of what I INTENDED to say in this essay - it could not have been said more clearly or lucidly.
Fair enough, but as a final thought I would point out that if your last sentence was true we wouldn't be having this conversation. What you are intending to say and what you are saying is what is in question here.
I think both liberalism and leftism serve as a handy-dandy catch-all for "people on the other side we don't like". But I think there's a useful distinction between liberals, lefties and progressives.
Liberals support freedoms that social conservatives might wrinkle their nose at and promote equal opportunity for all.
Lefties are particularly concerned about the accumulation of wealth and power by the better off — what we used to call "the elite" until the term was hijacked for people who spent three years at university. They (we) are also concerned at the outrageous levels of poverty in rich countries.
I think of progressives as the DEI & TQIA+s that Graham rails against. The ones who want to control our language and impose mandates on our relationships. I rail against them too.
I'm a leftie and a liberal but I am not progressive.
Unfortunately, the world seems to be comprised of approximately 75% extroverts (I will intrude upon your life whether you like it or not) vs 25% introverts (I want to be left alone). In my opinion, this seems to be an area in which greater equality would be of benefit.
This is not really true. Mathematically and statistically speaking, it’s a pretty even divide. Just depends where you look, Myers-Briggs, Psychology Today etc. Most of us are ambivert and simply choose to identify more with one. A better and much more comprehensive guide to personality is the Enneagram.
My information was out of date and you are correct in the relatively equal distribution of introvert/extrovert. However, some of us are highly introvert (or extrovert), not ambivert. I have looked into the Enneagram a number of times over the years and find that, while it answers some questions, it fails on others, as do most systems. I have been studying Astrology for more than 4 decades and consider it to be one of the best maps for interpreting a human psyche. The one question it cannot answer though is that of attitude, there being both an introverted and extroverted expression of the various signs, planets, houses, aspects, etc. The most accurate test I ever took (for me) was the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality which measures the attitudinal expression of each of the four functions (Intuition, Sensation, Thinking, Feeling). I must admit to some bias in this field as my brother is a practicing Jungian Analyst:)
My searches for statistics pretty much came up nil, no definitive data, on the numbers. I do think the uses for our introversion or extroversion are very different based on personality type. I’ve studied the Enneagram for as long as you studied astrology and prefer the Enneagram because of its complexity. We all have our preferred modalities and I do enjoy them all. I agree very much with your point that we use our introversion/extroversion to influence and persuade. I’m just not convinced extroverts do it more. It may just seem that way because one is overt and the other covert. All interesting anyway, to say the least! I enjoyed our exchange and learning a bit about you, thank you, Gwyneth! Rock on. ❤️
And I thank you, Rmac for an interesting exchange. We may meet again in the future.
I hope so!
Perhaps you’ve also noticed how readily that love of the eight billion turns into a desire to kill off about one-third of these cherished objects of affection. That’s for the good of the planet of course. So the Gates - Schwab - Fauci - Soros agenda slots right into the warmist belief system. How convenient. Virtue-signaled love of the entire species of humankind is thus revealed as genocidal rage. Coming soon to a friendly neighborhood war zone.
Ah, the ecstasy of the vacuous, generalized "Mrs. Jellyby" love, and the agony of real, local embodied love.....
Yes indeed!
In the Australian Aboriginal culture, their foundational principal is that all are family. They are familial with every thing in existence. There is no 'other'; they are intimately connected to all things the creator has made. Reverently. This creates an indelible inescapable circular link for which no language to express it is needed.
I am going to presume you are not someone embedded in Australian Aboriginal culture yourself,
so that 1) you had to get outside of your culture a little to observe and remark on that alternative culture - which is a positive that your culture (also presumably Westernized in some way) can allow you to do that.
And 2) this viewpoint sounds to me to be something akin to Spinoza's ideas about "God being the substance of the universe" (???). Some describe that as pantheistic.
But 3) I am not quite sure I understand how you can describe something using language when "no language to express it is needed"??? [although perhaps I am able to glom unto the reverential and "inescapable circular link" aspect of your comment. ]
Separately, I had heard the Australian Aborigines used different descriptions of things (of at least a geographical nature), depending on which direction they were facing at the time they spoke. Thus their listeners had to also translate that language into one appropriate to the direction the listener happened to be facing at that time. [I hope I have described this properly :-) ]
Firstly, you presume wrongly. Even though you seem to compliment me for the ability to step outside my culture and my self, when you open with that as your first sentence, you give away some of your mindset and possible point of view. While I do observe the Australian Aboriginal culture from a different culture, as I do all other cultures that are not American as I am, I do have firsthand observance and close knowledge of the Australian culture. Secondly, we are all able to understand other cultures to a degree, if we care and try, without being them. Thirdly, that is really not even the point. The point is that the foundational principle of Aboriginal Australians is that God is the All, everything is related, everything is a relation, everything was created by the creator having sung the universe into existence. Unlike Western cultures whose foundational principle is that we are separate from our creator and born into sin as a consequence of a fall from Grace. The former doesn’t need to explain itself. The latter does and cannot.
Thank you for your reply.
I use the word presume to avoid using the word assume; but unfortunately that does not always protect me from being an ass, none the less. My apology.
A description "that God is the All, everything is related, everything is a relation, everything was created by the creator ... " sounds pretty close to my understanding of Spinoza's ideas as well.
As a Westernized encultured person, I will have to work at thinking about a view where we are not "separate from our creator", even though I reject the ideas of being "born into sin" or subject to "a fall from Grace". In some way it would seem that means we are self-created??
I suspect I will also struggle to understand a concept that "doesn't need to explain itself."
Ok, Spinoza. I did not study him, though I’m sure I have been influenced. No, we are not self-created. We are of the Creator. A creator doesn’t have to be separate from us. We have very self-limiting minds. While we may be able to reject or distance ourselves from the Judeo-Christian biblical canon of original sin, the concept is deeply embedded into all of our teachings and structures. They are the roots of the tree that grows. If one believes we originate from the same source and are related- related, inter-dependent beings, we would not act in a way that would need explanation of that understanding. It is simply understood because we are acting in accordance with that nature, that wholeness, that oneness. When we separate from that, we need to explain the separation because we simply do not understand it.
Ever since Plato's Republic we've had idealistic attempts to create Utopian states. As long as they remain literary exercises, they do little harm. But when they're weaponized into blueprints for society at large, or are used by splinter groups to go off and form their own private Utopias, then the trouble starts. I live in a region that was a locus for 1960s and '70s era hippie communes. There were dozens of them; now only one or two survive, in modified form as "land co-ops." Applied Utopias have a mostly unbroken record of failure when applied to the real world. Humans are just too complex and too ornery.
Couple that with the psyops weaponized against the domestic public of the West since World War II that cultivate a constant state of fear, a constant (though shifting) enemy a la Orwell, and you have a recipe for social chaos and Deep State control such as we're seeing today.
I'm embarrassed to admit that as an author I helped organize a social justice writing seminar in my community for 7 years. As horrific as the global Covid psyop and herd culling was, it opened my eyes to the ways "social justice" can be weaponized against peoples' own interests. Yes, absolutely, I still believe writers need to write poems and stories that are relevant to the times, that reflect upon and contemplate real world problems and don't just remain adrift in fantasyland. But no, I no longer see the need for writers to be evangelists. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
In case we've forgotten, even Plato called for censorship of the arts in his ideal State. Just as we're now seeing with "woke" checklists applied to arts granting and awards, right from our local arts councils all the way up to Hollywood. Poets should remain poets. Yes, they definitely have a role to play in social critique. But they should STAY poets. They have no business being in politics. They are idealists, dreamers, ill-suited to the task. We should no more ask them to design society than we would ask them to design a rocket.
Though, these days, one might ask: Who is suited to the task?
"Then there are those individuals who gladden your heart and fill you with admiration even though you may never have known them personally." There it is! I do love you Graham, but I apologize for no funds forthcoming. Please keep gladdening my heart.
Great essay, Graham!
I love your breakdown of who is likeable. My stats are probably a lot like yours despite my status as a Western lefty liberal.
> And the remaining 30%?...somewhere on a scale from mildly dislike... to despise... to dread.
Beyond the dislike/despise/dread contingent, I would call out a smaller number (5-10% maybe?) who really don't belong in society at all. Given the opportunity, they would break it. We should pre-empt that somehow. I especially dislike terrorists.
I probably disagree with you on urban environments. After 20 years in suburbia, I live in a city (Bristol). I go out to the pub quite often — a variety of pubs — and every single time, I meet an old friend or a stranger to talk to. Villages are nice for making friends but cities beat suburbia hands down. I talk to more strangers here in a week than I did in 20 years in California suburbs.
More about this here:
https://www.raggedclown.com/2020/06/15/urbs-vs-suburbs/
I don't disagree with you about the impact of DEI and TQIA+ and resent the role of social justice warriors as much as you do.
Thank you Ragged. I'll take a look in the coming days. I didn't intentionally mean to juxtapose urban vs rural in the way you have picked up on....just in a macro-global-historical sense; ie how urbanisation relates to the main theme of this essay. I love cities - at least the ones I have some knowledge of (London, Manchester, New York.)
Out of interest Substack house-keeping-wise...did you get this essay when it posted (on March 14) or did it go to spam maybe?
I didn't see it until you posted it in the comments at LSO. I don't know why I didn't see it before. I usually see your stuff.
I dont receive emails from any stacks I follow. Maybe they are all in spam. I'll check.
You won't get them from 'Follows' but you should from Subscribes.
If you don't get any of them I would guess that might be to do with your Substack settings.
Great post and seems so true about the religious assumptions that underlie social justice. It is my observation that many people care little about others but need to have others think they do. Actual caring is difficult and messy, and going to charity balls is much more fun!
Thank you. And I love the phrase 'social jail' by the way.....might borrow it sometime.
Just a quick correction you might want to make. While Josh Barro undoubtedly feels this way, he's a bit too cautious to actually publish that last excerpt. It's Josh Slocum.
Thank you for noticing this slip.....I have amended it now.
If I understand the photo correctly [Equality March Kraków 2022 (Creative Commons)] of the young woman with the pride colored LOVE sign, that is the first time I recall seeing the pride color pallet with seven ROY-G-BIV colors, rather than the more typical six colors (where it seems indigo is ignored?).
Good for her, I suppose, for being even more inclusive than many others, who may often just be poseurs. Or she was just paying better attention during her HS physics class?
And I agree with you on "[Confession: I haven’t even looked up what the IA bit of the LGBTQIA acronym stands for.]" It would bring a lot more focus back to reality if we clarified that the real issue is LGB = H = homosexuality, a particular abnormality in regard to sexual orientation apparently experience by about 3% of the population; while T = transgenderism, a different abnormality in regard to gender identification or preference, possibly evidenced by up to 0.6% of the population. However, evidence is growing that some people (usually children!) with gender dysphoria do end up recognizing they are in fact of a homosexual orientation and then make peace with that realization, to their betterment and that of the rest of society. Hopefully before they have been subjected to chemical or surgical alternations of a devastating form.
But of course then the SJW's would find some other factor/ feature to claim needed social justice action and that they are the true and best supportive activists for that cause.
Well spotted.... the young woman's fastidiousness about the colour spectrum. In truth my choice of illustrations is a pretty basic business. I like to add colour to the text in this way but am limited to what is available copyright free etc.
Really interesting post. Thank you.
It's true that we can't love everybody, but in my own little sphere I tend to 'like' everyone I come across unless they give me reason to dislike them. It makes life easier. We are all decent human beings, I tell myself, and of course this isn't true, but I'd rather not know about your dark, murky, nasty side or nature if I don't have a reason to engage with you.
Social media stirs us up.
We can dislike whole swathes of people because we encounter them on our phones; they behave badly, they're stupid, thick as mince, crude, uncouth, violent, lazy, evil, believe in strange ideologies, do things differently, lack gratitude, seem entitled, arrogant, vain, sickly-sweet, deluded, blinkered....
I could go on.
They've entered my life if only for a few moments and I have formed an opinion, felt an emotion, decided they're not my sort of person. I can leave negative feedback if I want to.
Where is the love?
Time maybe to move away from the phone, which on some days might have me believe the world and the people in it are vile, we're doomed and fairness, decency, civilisation is no more. I cannot love people. Then I reflect that being judgemental doesn't bring out the milk of human kindness in us, does it?
And, (squirm) I want to violently throttle the simpering idiots online who urge us to "be nice". What a modern gagging order that is. Occasionally, when we encounter something just plain stupid or wrong we have a duty to be scathing, or at least offer constructive criticism. Sorry, I'll be honest, That trait will serve us better, but am I being nasty by refusing to play nice regarding everything I encounter? Conundrum. Again..where is the love?
That's when I remember the phrase 'Hail fellow, well met' which has served me well for decades.
It's the code by which I tend to live. Makes life much simpler.
I'll take you as I find you, smile and go about my business. That's about the best I can do.
"Which is to argue that mass urban society - with its illusion of a quasi-relationship with billions of our fellow man..."
How does urban society give an illusion of such?