Someone sent me this: http://www.onbeing.org/program/alain-de-botton-school-life-atheists/4821
I listened to about a fourth of the interview, but to be honest, I really had to stop because it got my blood too hot. There is so much about De Botton that really just rubs me the wrong way. I reminds me of E O Wilson when he talks about his evangelical upbringing and how he likes to listen to evangelists and explore the value of zeal. These things come off, from Wilson, as nothing more than matters of taste. Aesthetic enterprises, rather than spiritual. There is so much arrogance, and yet such a lack of the full depth of life, for me, from these people.
The constant referral to these phenomenon as human products seems, to me, to be terribly arrogant. It is so up humanity's butt to think that the sublime comes from within us. Sublime feelings are divine in nature. They make one feel like the presence of God is near. If this is not what De Botton feels, then what he feels is something less than the sublime. If it is what he feels, and he attributes this to humanity's own feelings and cultural activity, then he feels humanity itself is inherently divine. So either he misleads or he leads into egotism.
He may not realize the degree to which he sounds arrogant, but he really does. De Botton's dismissal of the question of whether religion is true as being the lesser interesting question is exactly the problem. De Botton's problem is one of unreflective parasitism. It isn't enough to ask whether De Botton or his ilk 'wonder' at things, one must ask whether they are, truly, 'wonderful'. If they are just expressing attitudes, they will be quick to find out there are plenty who don't share their attitude.
What is beautiful? What is 'good'? What is 'sublime'? Is it just what they like? If so, then who cares what they like? Their judgments lack foundation, and as such carry little weight. Yet they act like they are weighty. It is as if it is 'obvious' that people left to their own devices will enjoy, like, and find beautiful the things they do. It is De Botton's wealthy upbringing that is the problem. He doesn't realize the depths of evil in the human heart, and as such doesn't realize that what is 'right' and 'wrong' and 'sublime' and 'beautiful' are not universally assented to. As such, appealing to human opinion alone leads one down a road to nowhere.
They are, in truth, not denying God but making themselves their own god. They just do it in a way that is rather non-threatening. But the process is reversible. What they like a monster may not like, and the god I make myself may be apt to destroy the god that they have created of themselves.]
The truth is that these people, for all the pretenses of rationality, don't grapple with the only question that does matter, which is whether their judgments are, in fact, grounded in something outside themselves. That question, that quest, is the only mystery that really is worth caring about. Yet it is the one mystery they have forgone. "Yes but it is it true" is the only question that really matters. For if you bracket off that question, you pull the rug out from under yourself about anything else that could possibly matter.
One of the most frustrating things for me is to watch people walk around with their underlying assumptions unquestioned. I'm too much of a philosopher. In the end I'm glad Alain de Botton and people like him have made the choices they have. But the processes underlying their choices are not likely to lead to the world they think it will. Arrogance morally directed is fine enough to be around, but arrogance in and of itself is not likely to be often directed as such.
See Also:
From MavPhil: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/09/idolatry-and-atheism.html
From Mind and Cosmos: http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/mind-and-cosmos.php
I listened to about a fourth of the interview, but to be honest, I really had to stop because it got my blood too hot. There is so much about De Botton that really just rubs me the wrong way. I reminds me of E O Wilson when he talks about his evangelical upbringing and how he likes to listen to evangelists and explore the value of zeal. These things come off, from Wilson, as nothing more than matters of taste. Aesthetic enterprises, rather than spiritual. There is so much arrogance, and yet such a lack of the full depth of life, for me, from these people.
The constant referral to these phenomenon as human products seems, to me, to be terribly arrogant. It is so up humanity's butt to think that the sublime comes from within us. Sublime feelings are divine in nature. They make one feel like the presence of God is near. If this is not what De Botton feels, then what he feels is something less than the sublime. If it is what he feels, and he attributes this to humanity's own feelings and cultural activity, then he feels humanity itself is inherently divine. So either he misleads or he leads into egotism.
He may not realize the degree to which he sounds arrogant, but he really does. De Botton's dismissal of the question of whether religion is true as being the lesser interesting question is exactly the problem. De Botton's problem is one of unreflective parasitism. It isn't enough to ask whether De Botton or his ilk 'wonder' at things, one must ask whether they are, truly, 'wonderful'. If they are just expressing attitudes, they will be quick to find out there are plenty who don't share their attitude.
What is beautiful? What is 'good'? What is 'sublime'? Is it just what they like? If so, then who cares what they like? Their judgments lack foundation, and as such carry little weight. Yet they act like they are weighty. It is as if it is 'obvious' that people left to their own devices will enjoy, like, and find beautiful the things they do. It is De Botton's wealthy upbringing that is the problem. He doesn't realize the depths of evil in the human heart, and as such doesn't realize that what is 'right' and 'wrong' and 'sublime' and 'beautiful' are not universally assented to. As such, appealing to human opinion alone leads one down a road to nowhere.
They are, in truth, not denying God but making themselves their own god. They just do it in a way that is rather non-threatening. But the process is reversible. What they like a monster may not like, and the god I make myself may be apt to destroy the god that they have created of themselves.]
The truth is that these people, for all the pretenses of rationality, don't grapple with the only question that does matter, which is whether their judgments are, in fact, grounded in something outside themselves. That question, that quest, is the only mystery that really is worth caring about. Yet it is the one mystery they have forgone. "Yes but it is it true" is the only question that really matters. For if you bracket off that question, you pull the rug out from under yourself about anything else that could possibly matter.
One of the most frustrating things for me is to watch people walk around with their underlying assumptions unquestioned. I'm too much of a philosopher. In the end I'm glad Alain de Botton and people like him have made the choices they have. But the processes underlying their choices are not likely to lead to the world they think it will. Arrogance morally directed is fine enough to be around, but arrogance in and of itself is not likely to be often directed as such.
See Also:
From MavPhil: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/09/idolatry-and-atheism.html
From Mind and Cosmos: http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/mind-and-cosmos.php
No comments:
Post a Comment