What explains the recent, alarmingly broad and rapid capture of cultural, political, and economic institutions by neo-Marxist identity politics and liberation ideologies? Writing in Tablet, Russell Jacoby argues that the end of the rapid expansion of universities in the late Nineties meant that PhDs in subjects such as âcritical pedagogy, insurgent sociology, gender studies, [and] radical anthropologyâ could no longer find employment in the professoriate. Ideas that for years were confined to the halls of academe spilled forth like seeds from a bursting pod and are now bearing noxious fruit in the larger culture.
In the United States, the results of this process (which, after more than two decades, is still ongoing) have been both ridiculous and tragic. Itâs laughable that someone celebrated as âhistory-makingâ for being âthe first openly genderfluid senior government officialâ steals ladiesâ luggage to supplement his wardrobe. Itâs disgraceful that high schools are abandoning advanced placement courses in the name of equity. Itâs horrific that violent crimes in minority communities have spiked in the wake of the nationwide push to defund police departments and eliminate cash bail for felonies.
Yet in a deep sense, this is old news. None of these developments would have surprised the ancient Athenian playwright Aristophanes, a brilliant cultural critic who, with the ideologically-driven cancellation of classics, is little studied today and even less understood. Law-breaking, cross-dressing men? Check out his Thesmophoriazusae. Levelling to achieve equality? Read his Assemblywomen, where communistic female rulers infantilise male citizens, and young men must first satisfy the oldest and ugliest women before they are allowed to have sex with their girlfriends. Utopian ideologues who cannibalise the populations they are supposed to serve? Welcome to The Birdsâ Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Written during the Peloponnesian War, Aristophanesâs make-love-not-war comedies enjoyed a broad resurgence in the era of Vietnam, not least because they resonated with the womenâs liberation movement. In Lysistrata â named for its heroine, Dissolver of Armies â the wives and mothers of Athens and Sparta conspire to stop the war by going on a sex strike. Sometime in the late Sixties, my mother took me and my brother to a performance of the play by students at the University of Chicago. The male characters were all walking around with broomsticks poking up under their togas. One of the women announced: âIf he wonât come by the hand, take him by the handleâ, and then proceeded to drag some hapless fellow off the stage in just this manner. I was about ten years old, and the scene made a great impression on me.
Aristophanes anticipated not only the rebellious and carnivalesque ethos of the Sixties, but the nihilistic cultural repudiation of the 2020s, a nihilism in which the romantic fantasies of late modernity seem inevitably to issue. Turgenevâs Fathers and Sons and Dostoevskyâs Demons observe this phenomenon by showing how the old Russian liberals of the 1840s, who celebrated âthe beautiful and loftyâ, spawned the young radicals of the 1860s, who regarded their fathers as decadents and hypocrites and excoriated their ideas as sentimental bourgeois slop. (A related example is the transition, in little over a decade, from Star Trekâs utopian future to the cynicism of gritty sci-fi films like Blade Runner and Outland in the early Eighties.)
Aristophanesâ understanding of the relationship between gauzy utopianism and nihilism is grounded in his deep insight into human nature. He saw that our erotic and aggressive instincts are separated by a hairâs breadth, and that indiscriminate compassion is apt to decay, like some radioactive element, into tyranny. He would have regarded the cult of Charles Manson as a predictable consequence of the psychological and political anarchy of the Sixties. He doubtless appreciated Euripidesâs characterisation of Dionysus, the theatrical god of intoxication whom the tragedian portrays in the Bacchae as a psychopath, as âmost terrible, and yet most gentle to human beingsâ.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeLovely article – and very illuminating. However, I suspect the explanation for the ills affecting our universities is rather more prosaic than suggested.
I studied politics at a provincial university in the late seventies. Most of the academics who taught me were barely older than I was. None had any experience of life outside the education system. I was bemused even then by their unquestioning acceptance of absurdities that anyone with an adult’s experience of the wider world would find laughable. The Labour Theory of Value, for example, which was almost an article of faith amongst my teachers.
The dogmatism and hostility to debate that we see now was present then too.
That was forty years ago, before the great New Labour expansion of higher education and the dumbing down that came with it. So I’ suggest that it’s not so much that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, but that the children have.
Problem is that it is impossible to have challenging university education for 50% of the population.
I recall reading that proper university courses and then many professions requires IQ of at least 115.
Which means it is statistically impossible to create university level education for 50% of population without dumbing down.
Hence proliferation of courses in “soft” subjects.
More like 80% of the population. 60% is within one standard deviation and 115 is around the upper bound of that. 40% left and half of that would be below. 60% + 40%/2 = 80%.
And the real tragedy is that there are many fairly and often quite well paying professions in the skilled trades that don’t require nearly as much in the way of IQ, but kids have been taught that working with your hands is somehow demeaning. No more shop classes in high school. Few vocational schools left, and most of those are making or repairing circuit boards. We need carpenters and plumbers and electricians and welders and machinists and mechanics. We need people to repair our refrigerators and stoves and air conditioners. We need those who do Mike Rowe’s “Dirty Jobs”.
One requirement I’d put in even further down is a final test to get a high school diploma. The GED, which is an equivalence alternate for those who didn’t graduate but need to prove that they could have if whatever life threw at them made them quit early hadn’t happened and that they learned in the real world what they would have had to learn to graduate “properly”. It’s only a 10th grade equivalent, so a 12th grader who has learned what they should have learned should have no trouble passing it. But I’d almost guarantee that almost 50% of those getting that piece of paper saying they graduated high school wouldn’t be able to pass it.
They are getting a high school diploma while being functionally illiterate and innumerate. But they *think* they actually know what that piece of paper says they do and find it doesn’t get what it used to get in the way of jobs out in the real world. Then they think that the world is against them somehow because look, I graduated high school just like everyone else, so why can’t I get the same jobs as everyone else?
Most colleges will admit (if you ask the right person), that the first year (or sometimes two) of college is mostly spent learning things that they should have learned in high school. Then add the dumbing down on top of all that.
Slightly disappointed no-one has referenced George Carlin’s observation on ‘the average American’. Amusing (as ever) and observably true…
More like 80% of the population. 60% is within one standard deviation and 115 is around the upper bound of that. 40% left and half of that would be below. 60% + 40%/2 = 80%.
And the real tragedy is that there are many fairly and often quite well paying professions in the skilled trades that don’t require nearly as much in the way of IQ, but kids have been taught that working with your hands is somehow demeaning. No more shop classes in high school. Few vocational schools left, and most of those are making or repairing circuit boards. We need carpenters and plumbers and electricians and welders and machinists and mechanics. We need people to repair our refrigerators and stoves and air conditioners. We need those who do Mike Rowe’s “Dirty Jobs”.
One requirement I’d put in even further down is a final test to get a high school diploma. The GED, which is an equivalence alternate for those who didn’t graduate but need to prove that they could have if whatever life threw at them made them quit early hadn’t happened and that they learned in the real world what they would have had to learn to graduate “properly”. It’s only a 10th grade equivalent, so a 12th grader who has learned what they should have learned should have no trouble passing it. But I’d almost guarantee that almost 50% of those getting that piece of paper saying they graduated high school wouldn’t be able to pass it.
They are getting a high school diploma while being functionally illiterate and innumerate. But they *think* they actually know what that piece of paper says they do and find it doesn’t get what it used to get in the way of jobs out in the real world. Then they think that the world is against them somehow because look, I graduated high school just like everyone else, so why can’t I get the same jobs as everyone else?
Most colleges will admit (if you ask the right person), that the first year (or sometimes two) of college is mostly spent learning things that they should have learned in high school. Then add the dumbing down on top of all that.
Slightly disappointed no-one has referenced George Carlin’s observation on ‘the average American’. Amusing (as ever) and observably true…
Indeed. Heinlein demolished the “Labour Theory of Value” in a couple of lines ……
Heinlein demolished almost the entire progressive ideology with a few well placed lines here and there. Often repeated in different words, over and over again. The Notebooks of Lazarus Long should be required reading. đ
Heinlein demolished almost the entire progressive ideology with a few well placed lines here and there. Often repeated in different words, over and over again. The Notebooks of Lazarus Long should be required reading. đ
Problem is that it is impossible to have challenging university education for 50% of the population.
I recall reading that proper university courses and then many professions requires IQ of at least 115.
Which means it is statistically impossible to create university level education for 50% of population without dumbing down.
Hence proliferation of courses in “soft” subjects.
Indeed. Heinlein demolished the “Labour Theory of Value” in a couple of lines ……
Lovely article – and very illuminating. However, I suspect the explanation for the ills affecting our universities is rather more prosaic than suggested.
I studied politics at a provincial university in the late seventies. Most of the academics who taught me were barely older than I was. None had any experience of life outside the education system. I was bemused even then by their unquestioning acceptance of absurdities that anyone with an adult’s experience of the wider world would find laughable. The Labour Theory of Value, for example, which was almost an article of faith amongst my teachers.
The dogmatism and hostility to debate that we see now was present then too.
That was forty years ago, before the great New Labour expansion of higher education and the dumbing down that came with it. So I’ suggest that it’s not so much that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, but that the children have.
Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat which has roots in ancient Greece ‘Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad’
But better, and more appropriate to today, post-modernism, Neo-Marxism, and hard left liberalism is
‘An early version of the phrase Whom the gods would destroy… appears in verses 620â623 of Sophoclesâ play Antigone: “Ï᜞ ÎșαÎș᜞Μ ÎŽÎżÎșΔáżÎœ ÏÎżÏៜ áŒÏΞλ᜞Μ Ïáż·ÎŽáŸœ áŒÎŒÎŒÎ”Îœ’ ᜠÏáżł ÏÏÎÎœÎ±Ï ÎžÎ”áœžÏ áŒÎłÎ”Îč ÏÏáœžÏ áŒÏαΜ” to mean that “evil appears as good in the minds of those whom god leads to destruction”.’
And this is exactly the problem. This is not foolishness – it is evil which is destroying the West. It comes from situational ethics, relative morality, flexible codes of honour, Utilitarianism, and atheism, and mostly from not accepting an Ultimate Exists, thus nothing can be Good and Evil, merely correct and incorrect, and those are subjective. In a word, postmodernism and critical theory.
Classic Liberalism – like the ones who brought us the USA Constitution, and thus freedom and rule of law, they are gone, dying out… maybe the collapse of the global economy, which is likely coming fast, will bring back strength that fat times have eroded away.
Military history is a great interest of mine. It is all about Politics, And real life horrors, War; but as light can only exist in the presence of dark, everything needs contrast to show (pardon my Manichaeist analogy) War is the thing which brings us Self Sacrifice, Honor, Duty, Nobility, Charity, Courage, it brings out the best; as adversity does, best and worst…. Fat times bring out self centered decadence, as one’s better instincts are not called for. Everyone has what they need – you need not worry about others, just your own interests.
There is no good, or happiness, in that. As we have no need to do good, we look for things to tear down, because we are just not made for self interest in fat times. Idle Hand are the Devils Workshop. Coming hard times may be vital for our young – these fat times are not bringing out their best.
A phrase made famous more recently by another classicist, Enoch Powell, in a rather well-known speech.
War is the father of all things (Îż ÏÏÎ»Î”ÎŒÎżÏ Î”ÎŻÎœÎ±Îč ÏÎż ÏÏÏÏÎż ÏλÏÎœ ÏÏÎœ ÏÏÎ±ÎłÎŒÎŹÏÏÎœ) as âyou know whoâ put it so perfectly.
There have been some — German, I believe, but I can’t track down any quotes — who considered war a healthy cleansing of destructive, negative preoccupations in a society that had lost its moral compass. There may be something to that — as in America’s WWII mobilization of a people battered by the Great Depression — but I suspect it won’t apply to all wars.
Did I get this correctly? If you don’t believe in a God (an Ultimate) then you can’t distinguish between good and evil, and therefore evil will win over. And War is good because it brings out the best in people.
What a sick person you are!
The point is not that war is good. The point is that war tends to remind us what life essentially is in all its joy and terror. The virtues discussed come as a response to war but also the threat of war. There is always the threat of war, of evil taking charge, no matter who you are or where you live. The cultivation of those virtues is necessary and good, not because war is ‘good’ but because life is what it is. Those who say it doesn’t have to be that way, that we can reach human perfection at a societal or species level, are rebelling against reality, the truth of who we are. This, of course, is a politically conservative view. Progressives would definitely not agree.
The point is not that war is good. The point is that war tends to remind us what life essentially is in all its joy and terror. The virtues discussed come as a response to war but also the threat of war. There is always the threat of war, of evil taking charge, no matter who you are or where you live. The cultivation of those virtues is necessary and good, not because war is ‘good’ but because life is what it is. Those who say it doesn’t have to be that way, that we can reach human perfection at a societal or species level, are rebelling against reality, the truth of who we are. This, of course, is a politically conservative view. Progressives would definitely not agree.
On that basis I presume youâd view the desperation of the Ukraine war as forging benefits for that nation? I certainly do. But then youâd have expected the same outcome for âblitz spiritâ postwar Britain, and we turned out to be quite weak in that period.
Yes I lived in Ukraine and it was culturally divided between a ‘soviet’ and ‘western’ mindset, a ‘big brother – little brother’ relationship with Russia and a partial obsession (which is dominant in Russia) of constantly replaying the big USSR victory – WW2. These divisions were a source of conflict within Ukraine and allowed for/gave an excuse for Russian interference. The war, horrific and regrettable though it is, has also been a forge for a united Ukrainian consciousness and given them a shared story of national birth. Long term, on a psychological rather than material level, Ukraine will benefit and win; while Russia will fall deeper into darkness and pessimism.
Yes I lived in Ukraine and it was culturally divided between a ‘soviet’ and ‘western’ mindset, a ‘big brother – little brother’ relationship with Russia and a partial obsession (which is dominant in Russia) of constantly replaying the big USSR victory – WW2. These divisions were a source of conflict within Ukraine and allowed for/gave an excuse for Russian interference. The war, horrific and regrettable though it is, has also been a forge for a united Ukrainian consciousness and given them a shared story of national birth. Long term, on a psychological rather than material level, Ukraine will benefit and win; while Russia will fall deeper into darkness and pessimism.
Why was my post removed? Did I say something wrong?
Tell the former residents of Bucha and Mariupol and Izium and Kherson and many other cities and towns about how war brings out the best in man. Tell the victims of the Nazis. Tell the villagers of My Lai. Tell those who lived through almost any war. Yes, it can bring you closer to those you share a trench with, and it makes for great propaganda to “unify” a people to “sacrifice” for our men under arms. But it doesn’t take long for anyone under fire to want to do back what was done to them, even those ostensibly on the side of the angels.
A phrase made famous more recently by another classicist, Enoch Powell, in a rather well-known speech.
War is the father of all things (Îż ÏÏÎ»Î”ÎŒÎżÏ Î”ÎŻÎœÎ±Îč ÏÎż ÏÏÏÏÎż ÏλÏÎœ ÏÏÎœ ÏÏÎ±ÎłÎŒÎŹÏÏÎœ) as âyou know whoâ put it so perfectly.
There have been some — German, I believe, but I can’t track down any quotes — who considered war a healthy cleansing of destructive, negative preoccupations in a society that had lost its moral compass. There may be something to that — as in America’s WWII mobilization of a people battered by the Great Depression — but I suspect it won’t apply to all wars.
Did I get this correctly? If you don’t believe in a God (an Ultimate) then you can’t distinguish between good and evil, and therefore evil will win over. And War is good because it brings out the best in people.
What a sick person you are!
On that basis I presume youâd view the desperation of the Ukraine war as forging benefits for that nation? I certainly do. But then youâd have expected the same outcome for âblitz spiritâ postwar Britain, and we turned out to be quite weak in that period.
Why was my post removed? Did I say something wrong?
Tell the former residents of Bucha and Mariupol and Izium and Kherson and many other cities and towns about how war brings out the best in man. Tell the victims of the Nazis. Tell the villagers of My Lai. Tell those who lived through almost any war. Yes, it can bring you closer to those you share a trench with, and it makes for great propaganda to “unify” a people to “sacrifice” for our men under arms. But it doesn’t take long for anyone under fire to want to do back what was done to them, even those ostensibly on the side of the angels.
Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat which has roots in ancient Greece ‘Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad’
But better, and more appropriate to today, post-modernism, Neo-Marxism, and hard left liberalism is
‘An early version of the phrase Whom the gods would destroy… appears in verses 620â623 of Sophoclesâ play Antigone: “Ï᜞ ÎșαÎș᜞Μ ÎŽÎżÎșΔáżÎœ ÏÎżÏៜ áŒÏΞλ᜞Μ Ïáż·ÎŽáŸœ áŒÎŒÎŒÎ”Îœ’ ᜠÏáżł ÏÏÎÎœÎ±Ï ÎžÎ”áœžÏ áŒÎłÎ”Îč ÏÏáœžÏ áŒÏαΜ” to mean that “evil appears as good in the minds of those whom god leads to destruction”.’
And this is exactly the problem. This is not foolishness – it is evil which is destroying the West. It comes from situational ethics, relative morality, flexible codes of honour, Utilitarianism, and atheism, and mostly from not accepting an Ultimate Exists, thus nothing can be Good and Evil, merely correct and incorrect, and those are subjective. In a word, postmodernism and critical theory.
Classic Liberalism – like the ones who brought us the USA Constitution, and thus freedom and rule of law, they are gone, dying out… maybe the collapse of the global economy, which is likely coming fast, will bring back strength that fat times have eroded away.
Military history is a great interest of mine. It is all about Politics, And real life horrors, War; but as light can only exist in the presence of dark, everything needs contrast to show (pardon my Manichaeist analogy) War is the thing which brings us Self Sacrifice, Honor, Duty, Nobility, Charity, Courage, it brings out the best; as adversity does, best and worst…. Fat times bring out self centered decadence, as one’s better instincts are not called for. Everyone has what they need – you need not worry about others, just your own interests.
There is no good, or happiness, in that. As we have no need to do good, we look for things to tear down, because we are just not made for self interest in fat times. Idle Hand are the Devils Workshop. Coming hard times may be vital for our young – these fat times are not bringing out their best.
Isn’t the problem rather more prosaic? Too many stupid people at universities? See my old blog from 2012:
https://universityswindle.blogspot.com/
I’ve long thought that religious instincts are as much biological as theological; and when, for reasons for cultural fashion, established religions fall out of favour, that instinct will manifest itself in secular religions. These days, that’s mainly in the new churches of sectional anti-sexism and sectional anti-racism and transgender. In the 60s and 70s, with the likes of King and Greer in the ascendancy, combatting racism and sexism was done via argument .
Nowadays, in either, instead of rationality and calls for concrete (i.e., legislative) change, there is the mass reprising of the religious doctrine of original (congenital) sin; or blood guilt.
It’s standard stuff nowadays to assert that men are ineluctably sexist and that whites are intrinsically racist; and that an individual bloke or white person is sexist or racist *even when they individually might not be so*. To preserve the purity of the ideology that “all whites / all men are bad”, there are 3 standard ways to deem you as racist or sexist even when such epithets might reasonably be news to you:
1. Even if you’ve never had a racist thought or carried out a racist deed, you’re still racist because you personally haven’t done enough to prevent other people from being racist or sexist.
2. In any event, your view that you are not racist or sexist is a conceit deriving from your ignorance. You’re being sexist and racist all the time, because no man can empathise with women’s experiences and no white can empathise with black people’s experience. Meaningful empathy is an impossibility; and youâre in reality pretty sexist and racist; and, to boot, are too dumb to realise the true extent of your various iniquities.
It’s that well-known quote from the late MA film maker, Albert Maysles â ‘Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance’. Itâs not in my view possible to engage constructively with modern feminists in 2023. Nuance, accommodation, doubt â all off the agenda, permanently. They shelter behind a mental construct which admits no doubt or nuance. Youâre in or out. Weâre right and theyâre wrong. We alone have the truth. Anyone who disagrees with us hasnât seen the light; false consciousness, privilege etc.
Such minds are ill-suited to college.
I disagree that colleges were always as hysterically intolerant of divergent opinions as they are now.
They were not.
I read English and law at college 1984 – 1989, and I recall frequently writing head-wreck essays with alternative and contradictory endings, in both subjects.
Throughout school and uni, my teachers and tutors, people of wildly varying approaches and philosophies (God rest them), nonetheless had one shared lodestone, namely a constant belittling of didacticism, which was viewed, correctly, as the hallmark of a f***ing idiot.
*You were rated on how well you argued. Your conclusion was secondary.*
Nowadays, itâs the opposite. There is no debate. Just weak-minded bores, high on their own priggish rectitude-cum-identity, shouting other peoples’ slogans at each other, fingers permanently in their ears.
Reality is that there now are many weak minds at colleges. Theyâre not intellectuals, like e.g. Greer. I disagree deeply with Greer about lots of stuff; but I still always warmed to her as a human being, regardless. I felt she liked men and disliked sexism and was a woman of principle. The modern lot, I feel they just dislike men (and chant vapid slogans as if they were rosaries).
Iâm not quite as pessimistic about race. There are plenty of idiots arguing, for instance, that black people cannot be racist, even if they donât like whites. Straight out of the 4th wave feminism mental playbook. However, class alone will ensure a far greater diversity of black voices. Modern feminism is largely young, educated white westerners.
The notion of collective guilt is just the old original sin stuff wearing secular clothes. It was mental tyranny from churches then, and mind-games it remains; and, aging as I am, I still spit on such secular superstitions.
Incidentally, I’m not entirely convinced that the modern mania for certainty aka anti-intellectualism can be laid at the feet of Marxism. Wokeism often seems like a middle-class scam by well-heeled thickos to distract attention away from class, and to demonise working class people for not knowing the approved middle-class terminology. Social class, that old refugee from real politics, is the elephant in the hip atomised identity politics room. God forbid that, for instance, a poor bloke would ever have anything in common with a poor woman.
Class discrimination is rampant nowadays, worse than ever; but, because its inclusive implications sit uneasily inside the ânarcissism of small differencesâ that afflicts modern crackpot identity politics, class politics nowadays never gets a mention.
Your dates are interesting. The mid 1980s is when any academics with experience of combat in WW2 would have retired. By the early 90s those who had undertaken National Service in Palestine, Malaya, Kenya or Oman would have retired A don at Durham said the advanatge of NS was that someone had experienceand were worth listening to. They had experience of working with people from different backgrounds in dangerous if not deadly, arduous conditions. They had been tempered and tested by adversity . The Cultural Marxist Middle Class are dogmatic because they are brittle, frail, rigid and fragile because their minds and bodies have not been first tempered then tested by adversity. Tempering turns the cast iron pot which breaks when falls on a stone floor to a sword which is brittle so it cuts but ductile so it does not break.
When Clakson made his documentary on the St Nazaire Raid he interviewed some of the Commando survivors. Maj Gen Corran Purdon said “They came from all walks of life Oxford dons and criminals, wealthy and poor.” Dr Tiger Watson said ” We were a band of brothers ” Micky Burn said ” Discipline was not important , self-discipline was and the success of mission may depend upon the actions of single man, perhaps a private ”
The Cultural Marxists are largely affluent effete impractical types from comfortable suburban backgrounds who have never mixed with disimilar people, let alone earned the respect of tough practical types on the rugby field or undertaking dangerous work in arduous conditions.
Feminists are correct ” The personal is the political”. It is the character of the personnel which determines politcs.
Well said by a man from the city that built the âTitanicâ, (amongst other things.)
Your dates are interesting. The mid 1980s is when any academics with experience of combat in WW2 would have retired. By the early 90s those who had undertaken National Service in Palestine, Malaya, Kenya or Oman would have retired A don at Durham said the advanatge of NS was that someone had experienceand were worth listening to. They had experience of working with people from different backgrounds in dangerous if not deadly, arduous conditions. They had been tempered and tested by adversity . The Cultural Marxist Middle Class are dogmatic because they are brittle, frail, rigid and fragile because their minds and bodies have not been first tempered then tested by adversity. Tempering turns the cast iron pot which breaks when falls on a stone floor to a sword which is brittle so it cuts but ductile so it does not break.
When Clakson made his documentary on the St Nazaire Raid he interviewed some of the Commando survivors. Maj Gen Corran Purdon said “They came from all walks of life Oxford dons and criminals, wealthy and poor.” Dr Tiger Watson said ” We were a band of brothers ” Micky Burn said ” Discipline was not important , self-discipline was and the success of mission may depend upon the actions of single man, perhaps a private ”
The Cultural Marxists are largely affluent effete impractical types from comfortable suburban backgrounds who have never mixed with disimilar people, let alone earned the respect of tough practical types on the rugby field or undertaking dangerous work in arduous conditions.
Feminists are correct ” The personal is the political”. It is the character of the personnel which determines politcs.
Well said by a man from the city that built the âTitanicâ, (amongst other things.)
Isn’t the problem rather more prosaic? Too many stupid people at universities? See my old blog from 2012:
https://universityswindle.blogspot.com/
I’ve long thought that religious instincts are as much biological as theological; and when, for reasons for cultural fashion, established religions fall out of favour, that instinct will manifest itself in secular religions. These days, that’s mainly in the new churches of sectional anti-sexism and sectional anti-racism and transgender. In the 60s and 70s, with the likes of King and Greer in the ascendancy, combatting racism and sexism was done via argument .
Nowadays, in either, instead of rationality and calls for concrete (i.e., legislative) change, there is the mass reprising of the religious doctrine of original (congenital) sin; or blood guilt.
It’s standard stuff nowadays to assert that men are ineluctably sexist and that whites are intrinsically racist; and that an individual bloke or white person is sexist or racist *even when they individually might not be so*. To preserve the purity of the ideology that “all whites / all men are bad”, there are 3 standard ways to deem you as racist or sexist even when such epithets might reasonably be news to you:
1. Even if you’ve never had a racist thought or carried out a racist deed, you’re still racist because you personally haven’t done enough to prevent other people from being racist or sexist.
2. In any event, your view that you are not racist or sexist is a conceit deriving from your ignorance. You’re being sexist and racist all the time, because no man can empathise with women’s experiences and no white can empathise with black people’s experience. Meaningful empathy is an impossibility; and youâre in reality pretty sexist and racist; and, to boot, are too dumb to realise the true extent of your various iniquities.
It’s that well-known quote from the late MA film maker, Albert Maysles â ‘Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance’. Itâs not in my view possible to engage constructively with modern feminists in 2023. Nuance, accommodation, doubt â all off the agenda, permanently. They shelter behind a mental construct which admits no doubt or nuance. Youâre in or out. Weâre right and theyâre wrong. We alone have the truth. Anyone who disagrees with us hasnât seen the light; false consciousness, privilege etc.
Such minds are ill-suited to college.
I disagree that colleges were always as hysterically intolerant of divergent opinions as they are now.
They were not.
I read English and law at college 1984 – 1989, and I recall frequently writing head-wreck essays with alternative and contradictory endings, in both subjects.
Throughout school and uni, my teachers and tutors, people of wildly varying approaches and philosophies (God rest them), nonetheless had one shared lodestone, namely a constant belittling of didacticism, which was viewed, correctly, as the hallmark of a f***ing idiot.
*You were rated on how well you argued. Your conclusion was secondary.*
Nowadays, itâs the opposite. There is no debate. Just weak-minded bores, high on their own priggish rectitude-cum-identity, shouting other peoples’ slogans at each other, fingers permanently in their ears.
Reality is that there now are many weak minds at colleges. Theyâre not intellectuals, like e.g. Greer. I disagree deeply with Greer about lots of stuff; but I still always warmed to her as a human being, regardless. I felt she liked men and disliked sexism and was a woman of principle. The modern lot, I feel they just dislike men (and chant vapid slogans as if they were rosaries).
Iâm not quite as pessimistic about race. There are plenty of idiots arguing, for instance, that black people cannot be racist, even if they donât like whites. Straight out of the 4th wave feminism mental playbook. However, class alone will ensure a far greater diversity of black voices. Modern feminism is largely young, educated white westerners.
The notion of collective guilt is just the old original sin stuff wearing secular clothes. It was mental tyranny from churches then, and mind-games it remains; and, aging as I am, I still spit on such secular superstitions.
Incidentally, I’m not entirely convinced that the modern mania for certainty aka anti-intellectualism can be laid at the feet of Marxism. Wokeism often seems like a middle-class scam by well-heeled thickos to distract attention away from class, and to demonise working class people for not knowing the approved middle-class terminology. Social class, that old refugee from real politics, is the elephant in the hip atomised identity politics room. God forbid that, for instance, a poor bloke would ever have anything in common with a poor woman.
Class discrimination is rampant nowadays, worse than ever; but, because its inclusive implications sit uneasily inside the ânarcissism of small differencesâ that afflicts modern crackpot identity politics, class politics nowadays never gets a mention.
An interesting article. No wonder the study of Classics is shunned in modern universities; could the progressives bear to read a play such as The Clouds (assuming there are still scholars left who understand it)?
I wonder what, if anything, the Classics teach us about how to combat the lunacy in modern universities? Would Aristophanes tell us we’re in the end-stage of our civilization? Would he offer hope?
A good writer, should be used again…
I wonder if combating the lunacy requires no more than mulish resistance as the lunacy will collapse or reverse under its own weight.
The difficulty is that the collapse will still take some time… a substantial proportion of a lifetime perhaps? And yet we have been groomed to expect ‘change’ to be nearly instantaneous rather than the long drawn out process history shows us.
I agree. As history repeats itself over and over again, we sometimes fail to understand that it happens over centuries and not just during our meager lifetimes.
I agree. As history repeats itself over and over again, we sometimes fail to understand that it happens over centuries and not just during our meager lifetimes.
The aim of life is not to be in the majority but to avoid joining the ranks of the insane.
Marcus Aurelius
He would tell us the barbarians (foreigners) are coming.
Indeed, whilst commanding at the most cosmopolitan point in the Empire’s history
Indeed, whilst commanding at the most cosmopolitan point in the Empire’s history
A good writer, should be used again…
I wonder if combating the lunacy requires no more than mulish resistance as the lunacy will collapse or reverse under its own weight.
The difficulty is that the collapse will still take some time… a substantial proportion of a lifetime perhaps? And yet we have been groomed to expect ‘change’ to be nearly instantaneous rather than the long drawn out process history shows us.
The aim of life is not to be in the majority but to avoid joining the ranks of the insane.
Marcus Aurelius
He would tell us the barbarians (foreigners) are coming.
An interesting article. No wonder the study of Classics is shunned in modern universities; could the progressives bear to read a play such as The Clouds (assuming there are still scholars left who understand it)?
I wonder what, if anything, the Classics teach us about how to combat the lunacy in modern universities? Would Aristophanes tell us we’re in the end-stage of our civilization? Would he offer hope?
I read somewhere yesterday this apt characterization: It used to be that we wondered if we were smart enough to go to college. Now we wonder if weâre stupid enough to go to college.
I read somewhere yesterday this apt characterization: It used to be that we wondered if we were smart enough to go to college. Now we wonder if weâre stupid enough to go to college.
And the truly horrifying thing is that we all know it’s happening. It’s playing out in real time right in front of us and has been for years, but we’re only now admitting (some of us, others are taking their kids to drag queen strip shows) the need to put a stop to this toxic nonsense. It may well be too late.
And the truly horrifying thing is that we all know it’s happening. It’s playing out in real time right in front of us and has been for years, but we’re only now admitting (some of us, others are taking their kids to drag queen strip shows) the need to put a stop to this toxic nonsense. It may well be too late.
Fascinating article. Thankyou.
Fascinating article. Thankyou.
Strictly speaking the need to attend a university is relevant for a very few professions and for advanced level transfer of knowledge for experienced people to enhance their capacity to perform to a higher standard in more senior roles. For many graduates in the more general disciplines the experience is a waste of time as the same personal development is learnt whilst living a productive life. I speak from having the experience of the latter element. I don’t know what the appropriate percentages (of total populations) are and these may be debated at length (by others). Having said that I think the real determinate should be about the need for specific skills within society, rather than concepts of fairness and equity which are not readily measurable. Need more engineers? Then train more, and so on.
Far too many jobs state a university degree is required. If they said four years work experience was required- they would get the same results.
Which is why the requirement. It’s more than high school, but for too many, not all that much more. It does prove that a person can at least finish what they started.
STEM subjects pretty much require college, although one of the first practical engineers I worked with made the point that college at least taught us where to look for the answers if we didn’t know them. I looked at my collection of various handbooks and had to agree.
When it comes to the “soft” sciences, you can find someone saying anything that you want to find someone saying. Arts and Crafts is advanced playing with lots of practice.
Which is why the requirement. It’s more than high school, but for too many, not all that much more. It does prove that a person can at least finish what they started.
STEM subjects pretty much require college, although one of the first practical engineers I worked with made the point that college at least taught us where to look for the answers if we didn’t know them. I looked at my collection of various handbooks and had to agree.
When it comes to the “soft” sciences, you can find someone saying anything that you want to find someone saying. Arts and Crafts is advanced playing with lots of practice.
Far too many jobs state a university degree is required. If they said four years work experience was required- they would get the same results.
Strictly speaking the need to attend a university is relevant for a very few professions and for advanced level transfer of knowledge for experienced people to enhance their capacity to perform to a higher standard in more senior roles. For many graduates in the more general disciplines the experience is a waste of time as the same personal development is learnt whilst living a productive life. I speak from having the experience of the latter element. I don’t know what the appropriate percentages (of total populations) are and these may be debated at length (by others). Having said that I think the real determinate should be about the need for specific skills within society, rather than concepts of fairness and equity which are not readily measurable. Need more engineers? Then train more, and so on.
Thank you Mr Howland for the article/essay and in particular for taking us back a couple of thousand years for examples eerily familiar to what I read is happening in so-called ‘acadaemia’ these days.
Thank you Mr Howland for the article/essay and in particular for taking us back a couple of thousand years for examples eerily familiar to what I read is happening in so-called ‘acadaemia’ these days.
The author seems to accept the playwright’s mocking characterization of Socrates. In my non-specialist reading of Plato (in the Benjamin Jowett and other translations) Socrates reveals great skepticism concerning human ability to know truth, but not a denial of objective truth itself. His greatest student surely ascribes a belief in ideal or transcendent realities to him, or at least expresses his own such views through the “central character” of The Dialogues.
Well it did at least aspire to it, unlike Christianity which was nonsense from Day 1.
A select few aspired to it. So did a select few Christian from earlier centuries, like Isaac Newton, one of the chief architects of the Age of Reason.
When Gibbon quipped that Antiquity descended into “Christianity, stupidity, and ignorance” he could very well have implicated the Roman Patheon too. Or maybe Julius Caesar should have just listened to better Augurs.
âWhen Gibbon quipped that Antiquity descended into âChristianity, stupidity, and ignoranceâ he could very well have implicated the Roman Pa(n)theon tooâ
But he didnât, surely that is the point?
Aye, because he idealized and romanticized (groaner pun intended) the Antique world. That’s my point.
And to ponder where we would be today without Christianity! Who would have built the great universities and hospitals? And who would have shown the world a life where love mattered most?
A different religion would have arisen anyway. Most people seem to need one and if they can’t find one, they invent it themselves, even if on ostensibly secular terms.
A different religion would have arisen anyway. Most people seem to need one and if they can’t find one, they invent it themselves, even if on ostensibly secular terms.
Early Christian theology reviled the physical which undermined the competence required to run any organisation. Many Christians became hermits in the desert.
Also many of the Equites who ran the Empire were keen to become bishops and bureaucrats and not officers defending the borders.
Gibbon may have been partly correct but it was one of many factors.
However, it was the Irish Celtic monks living in isolated communities which kept Christianity and Latin alive after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 410 AD. They then introduced Christianity and Latin literacy back into Western Europe post 450 AD through missionary work.
It was the clergy who kept literacy and communication going in Western Europe post 410 AD.
Aye, because he idealized and romanticized (groaner pun intended) the Antique world. That’s my point.
And to ponder where we would be today without Christianity! Who would have built the great universities and hospitals? And who would have shown the world a life where love mattered most?
Early Christian theology reviled the physical which undermined the competence required to run any organisation. Many Christians became hermits in the desert.
Also many of the Equites who ran the Empire were keen to become bishops and bureaucrats and not officers defending the borders.
Gibbon may have been partly correct but it was one of many factors.
However, it was the Irish Celtic monks living in isolated communities which kept Christianity and Latin alive after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 410 AD. They then introduced Christianity and Latin literacy back into Western Europe post 450 AD through missionary work.
It was the clergy who kept literacy and communication going in Western Europe post 410 AD.
âWhen Gibbon quipped that Antiquity descended into âChristianity, stupidity, and ignoranceâ he could very well have implicated the Roman Pa(n)theon tooâ
But he didnât, surely that is the point?
That didn’t go down well Charles…… maybe stick to the pretentious comments with which you excel?
Oh dear Valentine have I upset you? Canât you be more constructive or is snide all you do?
Snide impertinence from Mr Valentine. The sign of a man disappointed in the size of his ‘hermetic cudgel’.
Snide impertinence from Mr Valentine. The sign of a man disappointed in the size of his ‘hermetic cudgel’.
Oh dear Valentine have I upset you? Canât you be more constructive or is snide all you do?
A select few aspired to it. So did a select few Christian from earlier centuries, like Isaac Newton, one of the chief architects of the Age of Reason.
When Gibbon quipped that Antiquity descended into “Christianity, stupidity, and ignorance” he could very well have implicated the Roman Patheon too. Or maybe Julius Caesar should have just listened to better Augurs.
That didn’t go down well Charles…… maybe stick to the pretentious comments with which you excel?
Didnât Socrates sum up his lifetimeâs work with the quipâI know nothing â. Only one steeped in âlogosâ could make such a remark.
I agree. But to make Socrates or Marcus Aurelius a stand-in for the average, or even “normal-range extraordinary” Ancient citizen is just absurd to me.
Well I would thought those seven words scratched on Forum floor at Colonia Marciana Traiana Thamugadi,
sum up how the âaverageâ citizen viewed the Pax Romana.
Why don’t you share your Classical learning instead of wielding it like a hermetic cudgel?
O Iâm so sorry, I thought a man of your erudition would have immediately âpicked upâ on it!
Anyway here it is:-
VENARI
LAVARI
LUDERE
RIDERE
OCC EST VIVERE.
To Hunt
To Bathe
To Play
To Laugh
THAT IS TO LIVE!
Thamugadi incidentally is in the AurĂšs/Atlas Mts, in modern day Algeria.
A classic pagan outlook! Thank you, Charles.
Sincerely,
AJ Autodidacticus
âHermetic cudgelâ a great expression! Thank you.
âHermetic cudgelâ a great expression! Thank you.
A classic pagan outlook! Thank you, Charles.
Sincerely,
AJ Autodidacticus
You should know by now that this is Charlesâ standard approach, often accompanied by a snide comment about the knowledge of other commenters. Itâs rather amusing to watch.
Duplication due to slovenly censorship.
Thank you. Praise indeed Mr Stewart!
Duplication due to slovenly censorship.
Thank you. Praise indeed Mr Stewart!
O Iâm so sorry, I thought a man of your erudition would have immediately âpicked upâ on it!
Anyway here it is:-
VENARI
LAVARI
LUDERE
RIDERE
OCC EST VIVERE.
To Hunt
To Bathe
To Play
To Laugh
THAT IS TO LIVE!
Thamugadi incidentally is in the AurĂšs/Atlas Mts, in modern day Algeria.
You should know by now that this is Charlesâ standard approach, often accompanied by a snide comment about the knowledge of other commenters. Itâs rather amusing to watch.
Why don’t you share your Classical learning instead of wielding it like a hermetic cudgel?
Well I would thought those seven words scratched on Forum floor at Colonia Marciana Traiana Thamugadi,
sum up how the âaverageâ citizen viewed the Pax Romana.
Obviously not a captain of a ship as they must understand the capacity of the vessel a and crew to weather storms. As Athens wealth and power depended upon the maritime trade, Socrates was being rather foolish, if not hubristic. Did hubris undo Socrates?
I agree. But to make Socrates or Marcus Aurelius a stand-in for the average, or even “normal-range extraordinary” Ancient citizen is just absurd to me.
Obviously not a captain of a ship as they must understand the capacity of the vessel a and crew to weather storms. As Athens wealth and power depended upon the maritime trade, Socrates was being rather foolish, if not hubristic. Did hubris undo Socrates?
I studied the Clouds at A Level., having studied the Birds at O Level (at a 70’s state school, by the way) so I became something of a fan of a true comic genius, and subsequently read all 11 of his plays at University.
ï»żOn his mocking of Socrates, Aristophanes was I think mocking philosophy in general, and rather gently poking fun at Socrates (whom he knew and I think respected) in order to do so. Plato returned the compliment in his Symposium, which features an inebriated Aristophanes debating the nature of love with Socrates.
Thanks for the perspective. I read the play in translation and found it to contain some satirical incisiveness and some infantile raillery or gross-out humor. I’ll re-read it and see whether I can detect any respect or nuance there.
I must confess that the school-boyish gross-out humour rather put me off Aristophanes, but I still appreciate his incisive depiction of 5th century Athenian society.
I must confess that the school-boyish gross-out humour rather put me off Aristophanes, but I still appreciate his incisive depiction of 5th century Athenian society.
Some maintain that this âmockingâ may have provoked the capital sentence later imposed on Socrates, which was unfortunate.
Thanks for the perspective. I read the play in translation and found it to contain some satirical incisiveness and some infantile raillery or gross-out humor. I’ll re-read it and see whether I can detect any respect or nuance there.
Some maintain that this âmockingâ may have provoked the capital sentence later imposed on Socrates, which was unfortunate.
It’s not necessary to accept Aristophanes portrayal of Socrates to make the comparisons that the author makes, although I do agree with you that the Socrates of Plato’s works is nothing like the man in The Clouds. For a start, Socrates (according to Plato) was absolutely against the Sophists whom he accused of making the wrong seem right, and the Socates in The Clouds is made to be a Sophist, or at least engage in their form of argument.
Excellent points.
Excellent points.
Well it did at least aspire to it, unlike Christianity which was nonsense from Day 1.
Didnât Socrates sum up his lifetimeâs work with the quipâI know nothing â. Only one steeped in âlogosâ could make such a remark.
I studied the Clouds at A Level., having studied the Birds at O Level (at a 70’s state school, by the way) so I became something of a fan of a true comic genius, and subsequently read all 11 of his plays at University.
ï»żOn his mocking of Socrates, Aristophanes was I think mocking philosophy in general, and rather gently poking fun at Socrates (whom he knew and I think respected) in order to do so. Plato returned the compliment in his Symposium, which features an inebriated Aristophanes debating the nature of love with Socrates.
It’s not necessary to accept Aristophanes portrayal of Socrates to make the comparisons that the author makes, although I do agree with you that the Socrates of Plato’s works is nothing like the man in The Clouds. For a start, Socrates (according to Plato) was absolutely against the Sophists whom he accused of making the wrong seem right, and the Socates in The Clouds is made to be a Sophist, or at least engage in their form of argument.
The author seems to accept the playwright’s mocking characterization of Socrates. In my non-specialist reading of Plato (in the Benjamin Jowett and other translations) Socrates reveals great skepticism concerning human ability to know truth, but not a denial of objective truth itself. His greatest student surely ascribes a belief in ideal or transcendent realities to him, or at least expresses his own such views through the “central character” of The Dialogues.
What is missing in todays society is that people are not being tempered and tested by adversity such as provided by nature. Shackleton’s expeditopn to South Georgia, T E Lawrencess march on Aquaba Freddie Spencer Chapman’s survival in the jungle ” The Jungle is Neutral “are where people pit themselves against naturor working on an upland farm in winter.
Since the Industrial Revolution there has been an increasing number of affluent, effete and impractical people. Modern arts degrees at universities are just a sign of 150 year decline in the physical and mental toughness of the West.The days when a upper midle class mind received an Athenian education and the body a Spartan one, are long gone. Much of modern universities art departments are populatesd with people similar to those in Aesthetic Movement of the late 19th century ; affluent, effete, impractical, conceited and contemptuous of the tough, practical and technically skilled people who create and maintain the infrastructure of modern civilisation.
One can see the decline in university arts departments once they no longer required Greek and Latin for entry; intellectual rigour was lost. By reducing rigour it increased employment of inferior academics. It is said that if one takes from Peter to give to Paul, one will get Paul’s vote. If only Peter passed selection but after lowering standards, Paul passed, you will get his vote.
Anthony Sampson in ” Anatomy of Britin in 1982* reports how many Vice Chancellors at new universities realised by the late 1970s many academics recruited in the late 1960s were not good enough.
What is missing in todays society is that people are not being tempered and tested by adversity such as provided by nature. Shackleton’s expeditopn to South Georgia, T E Lawrencess march on Aquaba Freddie Spencer Chapman’s survival in the jungle ” The Jungle is Neutral “are where people pit themselves against naturor working on an upland farm in winter.
Since the Industrial Revolution there has been an increasing number of affluent, effete and impractical people. Modern arts degrees at universities are just a sign of 150 year decline in the physical and mental toughness of the West.The days when a upper midle class mind received an Athenian education and the body a Spartan one, are long gone. Much of modern universities art departments are populatesd with people similar to those in Aesthetic Movement of the late 19th century ; affluent, effete, impractical, conceited and contemptuous of the tough, practical and technically skilled people who create and maintain the infrastructure of modern civilisation.
One can see the decline in university arts departments once they no longer required Greek and Latin for entry; intellectual rigour was lost. By reducing rigour it increased employment of inferior academics. It is said that if one takes from Peter to give to Paul, one will get Paul’s vote. If only Peter passed selection but after lowering standards, Paul passed, you will get his vote.
Anthony Sampson in ” Anatomy of Britin in 1982* reports how many Vice Chancellors at new universities realised by the late 1970s many academics recruited in the late 1960s were not good enough.
So interesting and well told. Many thanks; and for the quality of scholarship going on at UATX.
That’s what i found refreshing about this essay. I’d no idea such depth of interest and erudition with regard to the Ancient World still existed in such places.
Might i also suggest though, that we should be wary of drawing too close an analogy between that world and the 21st Century. Human nature will, i suspect, have changed very little if at all, but the conditions within which it either flourishes or falters differs greatly in complexity. I find the essay works in a descriptive way, but not prescriptive. We are, i believe, in completely uncharted territory.
That’s what i found refreshing about this essay. I’d no idea such depth of interest and erudition with regard to the Ancient World still existed in such places.
Might i also suggest though, that we should be wary of drawing too close an analogy between that world and the 21st Century. Human nature will, i suspect, have changed very little if at all, but the conditions within which it either flourishes or falters differs greatly in complexity. I find the essay works in a descriptive way, but not prescriptive. We are, i believe, in completely uncharted territory.
So interesting and well told. Many thanks; and for the quality of scholarship going on at UATX.
I ordered a copy of Aristophanes’ plays after reading this article, and, in the meantime, began reading The Clouds in an online version. Whenever we wonder how best to combat the idiocy of today’s anti-historical academy, it’s clear we need look no further than the classics themselves. The answers are already out there.
Oh, and Aristophanes’ humor is wickedly funny and exceptionally contemporary.
I ordered a copy of Aristophanes’ plays after reading this article, and, in the meantime, began reading The Clouds in an online version. Whenever we wonder how best to combat the idiocy of today’s anti-historical academy, it’s clear we need look no further than the classics themselves. The answers are already out there.
Oh, and Aristophanes’ humor is wickedly funny and exceptionally contemporary.
Intellectual buggery is the best description of the abuse being inflicted by universities & their disciples. Thank you for introducing me to this particular play. In times past it might have been explored & performed by a university drama group but no chance of that in these times. Iâd love to see it. A satirical tv series based on it set in contemporary times would be incredibly successful Iâm sure, if only there were a media company brave enough to do it.
Intellectual buggery is the best description of the abuse being inflicted by universities & their disciples. Thank you for introducing me to this particular play. In times past it might have been explored & performed by a university drama group but no chance of that in these times. Iâd love to see it. A satirical tv series based on it set in contemporary times would be incredibly successful Iâm sure, if only there were a media company brave enough to do it.
Very, very good essay. Congratulations.
Very, very good essay. Congratulations.
I would question whether the comparison with Socrates is apt. I thought that Socrates encouraged people to question ideas and to think rationally. That seems desirable to me. ‘Woke’ culture in contemporary universities seems to be trying to supress those very same things.
I would question whether the comparison with Socrates is apt. I thought that Socrates encouraged people to question ideas and to think rationally. That seems desirable to me. ‘Woke’ culture in contemporary universities seems to be trying to supress those very same things.
I’m sceptical
Just in general?
Just in general?
I’m sceptical
“Aristophanes, a brilliant cultural critic who, with the ideologically-driven cancellation of classics, is little studied today and even less understood.”
He wrote a very funny diIdo play
“Aristophanes, a brilliant cultural critic who, with the ideologically-driven cancellation of classics, is little studied today and even less understood.”
He wrote a very funny diIdo play
A key aspect of Blair’s expansion of Higher Education was the complete absence of control exerted over it. People who could secure the necessary favour were permitted to promote themselves as far as they could manage, and pay themselves as much as they could vote themselves in the process.
We know about Blair’s attitudes to ideology from his requirents for conformity from those seeking promotion to the Bench and judiciary.
The Blairite expansion of Higher Education also allowed the erosion of security of tenure and pay, leading to a strict stifling of dissent and freedom of speech or opinion amongst an under-paid, casualised academic workforce
A key aspect of Blair’s expansion of Higher Education was the complete absence of control exerted over it. People who could secure the necessary favour were permitted to promote themselves as far as they could manage, and pay themselves as much as they could vote themselves in the process.
We know about Blair’s attitudes to ideology from his requirents for conformity from those seeking promotion to the Bench and judiciary.
The Blairite expansion of Higher Education also allowed the erosion of security of tenure and pay, leading to a strict stifling of dissent and freedom of speech or opinion amongst an under-paid, casualised academic workforce
The bathroom humor in Aristophanes was obviously popular at the time – as it clearly is in a certain stratum of Hollywood output in modern times. His genius strikes me in his way of using it as a tool to keep an audience engaged while going far beyond it thematically. A pity Hollywood missed that part and remains bound up in the bathroom.
The bathroom humor in Aristophanes was obviously popular at the time – as it clearly is in a certain stratum of Hollywood output in modern times. His genius strikes me in his way of using it as a tool to keep an audience engaged while going far beyond it thematically. A pity Hollywood missed that part and remains bound up in the bathroom.
Still, plenty of people exercise their free will and manage to become educated at university, yes even in humanities. We do need to weed out the woke though. Its grip is far disproportionate to the number of its actual adherents.
In an anti-kingdom long, long ago and far, far away I was a General Studies baccalaureate who, long story short, turned to the profession of carpentry to feed our children.
My next degree was awarded by the School of Hard Knocks, but I got through it.
My wife, a developmental psych major, went back to school and acquired a VID (very important degree) in Nursing, when our youngest-of-three started in middle school.
So our life testimony is that, if you are smart enough to imbibe the education that pop culture assigns to you, you can eventually tack on the education that will assure that your status is not pauperish.
Furthermore, this worthless English major did manage to write four novels, after the infamous mid-life crisis.
No regrets. The benefits of Education are that I can be sufficiently educated enough to enjoy reading UNHERD because when I was younger I managed to jump through all the hoops of acadame and then when real-life wrote me a reality check I was smart enough to cash it.
Thank God.
âFor almost a millennium, universities served society by preserving, extending, and transmitting hard-won knowledgeâ.
Yes, but sadly always through the miasma of Christianity.
The Classical World based on REASON (logos) is completely incompatible with the Christian World based on FAITH.*
(* Belief in the unbelievable.)
And often with servile deference to the monarch or potentate of the moment. Learnedness notwithstanding, your idealization of the Classical World as a realm of REASON is quite over the top, as if pathos and superstition were absent from Athens, let alone Rome. I think even Edward Gibbon would say to tone it down a bit.
The whole problem is people thinking they are purely guided by reason, when irrationality is an essential and inescapable part of the human condition. It’s unlikely a coincidence that distain for the classical world has been on the rise at the same time as distain for traditional religion.
And when emotions or passions are regarded as totally inimical to good sense, the orphaned rational faculty may go in a cruel direction, rather than a balanced or Enlightened one.
Perhaps Bertrand Russell put it best when he said:
âMost people would rather die than think and MOST do.â
And when emotions or passions are regarded as totally inimical to good sense, the orphaned rational faculty may go in a cruel direction, rather than a balanced or Enlightened one.
Perhaps Bertrand Russell put it best when he said:
âMost people would rather die than think and MOST do.â
Ouch. Lots of over zealous Christian down votes for you Mr Stanhope. I thought it a good point.
Thank you.
âOne can but tryâ, as they say!
Yes quite, good effort đ ironically I think the number of down votes well demonstrates how far we have moved away from reason perhaps?
The university situation seems pretty bad too, a lot worse than I understood it to be.
Yes, the Universities are beyond redemption in my humble opinion.
Think I’m actually glad I stuck to electrics in hindsight.
Well your opinion is much better informed than mine, this is the cheapest classics tution I’ve ever had đ Seems we do rather need something major. Education is broken. The government is broken. The world order is breaking. What a time to be alive!
It could be worse!
Imagine living in Britannia (UK) twenty years after the Fall of the Roman Empire!
Oh yes I quite agree. I consider my little outpost in rural England positively the best place to be to ride out the turbulence. That perhaps came across a bit fatalistic.
I’m thinking we need a bit of a kick up the arse in general to be honest. I think it will all be very interesting, change is good at this point, in my humble opinion. Many things seem to have the reaced the point they need a big old shake up.
A Labour government could be a big old shake up – or do you mean something bigger – maybe the Chinese takeover?
I mean stuff like this
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/2023-Expect-A-Financial-Crash-And-Major-Changes-In-Global-Energy-Markets.html
Any government is going to have its hands tied to an extent for at least the next few years.
Ah maybe the article in Unherd today on nuclear power addresses this risk?
Yes, certainly, it needs building up a bit more first though, hydrogen is on the way fast too from what I have read anyway. Hopefully the government will get its arse in gear and start building nuclear plants, we were supposed to be having eight new stations in eight years. That sounds rather optimistic but who knows. Its perhaps a possibility there might be a lag between reduced fossil fuels and those things being ready to replace them. I make no assertions though, it’s a pretty complex business and I’m an amateur đ
Yes, certainly, it needs building up a bit more first though, hydrogen is on the way fast too from what I have read anyway. Hopefully the government will get its arse in gear and start building nuclear plants, we were supposed to be having eight new stations in eight years. That sounds rather optimistic but who knows. Its perhaps a possibility there might be a lag between reduced fossil fuels and those things being ready to replace them. I make no assertions though, it’s a pretty complex business and I’m an amateur đ
Ah maybe the article in Unherd today on nuclear power addresses this risk?
I mean stuff like this
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/2023-Expect-A-Financial-Crash-And-Major-Changes-In-Global-Energy-Markets.html
Any government is going to have its hands tied to an extent for at least the next few years.
A Labour government could be a big old shake up – or do you mean something bigger – maybe the Chinese takeover?
Oh yes I quite agree. I consider my little outpost in rural England positively the best place to be to ride out the turbulence. That perhaps came across a bit fatalistic.
I’m thinking we need a bit of a kick up the arse in general to be honest. I think it will all be very interesting, change is good at this point, in my humble opinion. Many things seem to have the reaced the point they need a big old shake up.
“The world order is broken” presumes current state is against nature/history and has arisen out of nowhere, a “nothing to do with me, mate’ assertion. As with decline in institutional Christianity is it not claims to monopoly and hypocritical application of its core teachings that are being challenged by using the very same values as weapons?
No I’m talking about the china/russia/us axis. The east is pretty pissed off atm..
No I’m talking about the china/russia/us axis. The east is pretty pissed off atm..
It could be worse!
Imagine living in Britannia (UK) twenty years after the Fall of the Roman Empire!
“The world order is broken” presumes current state is against nature/history and has arisen out of nowhere, a “nothing to do with me, mate’ assertion. As with decline in institutional Christianity is it not claims to monopoly and hypocritical application of its core teachings that are being challenged by using the very same values as weapons?
Think I’m actually glad I stuck to electrics in hindsight.
Well your opinion is much better informed than mine, this is the cheapest classics tution I’ve ever had đ Seems we do rather need something major. Education is broken. The government is broken. The world order is breaking. What a time to be alive!
Yes, the Universities are beyond redemption in my humble opinion.
Yes quite, good effort đ ironically I think the number of down votes well demonstrates how far we have moved away from reason perhaps?
The university situation seems pretty bad too, a lot worse than I understood it to be.
They are dime a dozen on these pages.
Please translate.
Is monica referring to “Christian downvotes”?
Iâve no idea. I donât speak Swahili!
Iâve no idea. I donât speak Swahili!
Is monica referring to “Christian downvotes”?
Please translate.
Same here.
Thank you.
âOne can but tryâ, as they say!
They are dime a dozen on these pages.
Same here.
Perhaps Charles you could run for us a short exercise in counter-factual history: an alternative time-line in which modernity developed from the foundation of Greco-Roman paganism? The ‘miasma’ you speak of made it possible to think of individuals as sacred, with intrinsic dignity qua humanity; generated many of the taken for granted civic impulses regarding the care of the poor and infirm; invented what became central institutions of modern life – schools, hospitals. Christianity had an enormous hand in the emergence of modern science. And what you rather naively ascribe to logos, doesn’t eliminate the religious impulse or the need for meaning. Militant secularism killed 100million people in the 20th century; and it is the same hubris at work in our woke universities today. I’m not confronted with reason or logos at work, but a cultish religion. The choice is not between faith and reason but between good and bad religion. Choose well
Thank you for that kind suggestion but I am too old!
What you naively ascribe to Christianity, schools, hospitals and even science were in fact all well established in the Classical World, as I am convinced you must know?
If not try looking up Hero*of Alexandria. Had Vespasian wished it, the Industrial Revolution would have started in the first century of the Christian Era. Fortunately he didnât.
(* Sometimes referred to as Heron).
You refer to steam power. There was not enough wood. For the Industrial Revolution to occur, coal needed to be turned into coke( Darby III) , canals constructed to move coal cheaply( Brindley), precision cutting of steel ( Wilkinson) efficient steam power ( Boulton and Watt ).
It was the mathematics of Newton which underpinned the Industrial Revolution
I’m afraid your knowledge is showing up to be pretty poor, I can’t help but have a go back at you on this, the Greeks, Romans and ancient Chinese (who also utilised natural gas pretty early on) were all aware of coal. So theoretically, on that basis your argument doesn’t stand. In theory they had coal. Quote to save myself waffling:
Some awareness of coal appeared in the western world around 375 BCE. The Greek naturalist philosopher, Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotleâs, wrote about stones found in north Italy, which kindled, burned and were used by smiths. At this time and in this part of the world, however, a demand for coal had not yet arisen; wood was available as a primary fuel and energy source.
Coal, or its residue, has been found among the ruins of ancient Roman sites in Britain near the nationâs coalfields. Following their invasion of Britain after 43 CE, Romans discovered British coal and
gradually began making use of it. As had the ancient Chinese a few thousand years earlier, ancient Romans also integrated coal into their fashion, adorning themselves with coal carved into beguiling jewellery pieces called gagates or jet. Pieces of the exotic coal mineral made their way back to Rome for ornamental purposes.
Upon discovering that coal offered superior heat over wood and charcoal, Roman soldiers began to burn coal to melt and shape iron for weaponry as they advanced and defended the Roman Empire. Coal was also used by some
Romans as a fuel for heating their baths and houses in Britain. Coal acquired religious significance around 100 CE when Roman priests began burning Britainâs coal to honour Minerva, their goddess of wisdom and military success, at her perpetual fire in Bath, west of present-day London, England. As recorded by the ancient Roman writer Solinus, in his third century book Collection of Things Memorable, a distinct material burned in the fires devoted to Minerva in the temple at Bath:
Source: http://history.alberta.ca/energyheritage/coal/early-coal-history-to-1900/unearthing-ancient-mysteries/ancient-romans-in-britain.aspx#page-1
Canals – you might want to look up xerxes canal, fifth century bce, a hell of a feat. As one example. So they could have done canals.
The ancient world was pretty good at metal work and even making metal alloys. That is obvious to anyone with the smallest amount of knowledge on the subject. Mr Stanhope mentions the antikythera mechanism, a very good example of precision engineering.
It might have looked slightly different, but your argument that they had none of the things required for some form of industrial revolution simply doesn’t stand up to much.
I’m afraid your knowledge is showing up to be pretty poor, I can’t help but have a go back at you on this, the Greeks, Romans and ancient Chinese (who also utilised natural gas pretty early on) were all aware of coal. So theoretically, on that basis your argument doesn’t stand. In theory they had coal. Quote to save myself waffling:
Some awareness of coal appeared in the western world around 375 BCE. The Greek naturalist philosopher, Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotleâs, wrote about stones found in north Italy, which kindled, burned and were used by smiths. At this time and in this part of the world, however, a demand for coal had not yet arisen; wood was available as a primary fuel and energy source.
Coal, or its residue, has been found among the ruins of ancient Roman sites in Britain near the nationâs coalfields. Following their invasion of Britain after 43 CE, Romans discovered British coal and
gradually began making use of it. As had the ancient Chinese a few thousand years earlier, ancient Romans also integrated coal into their fashion, adorning themselves with coal carved into beguiling jewellery pieces called gagates or jet. Pieces of the exotic coal mineral made their way back to Rome for ornamental purposes.
Upon discovering that coal offered superior heat over wood and charcoal, Roman soldiers began to burn coal to melt and shape iron for weaponry as they advanced and defended the Roman Empire. Coal was also used by some
Romans as a fuel for heating their baths and houses in Britain. Coal acquired religious significance around 100 CE when Roman priests began burning Britainâs coal to honour Minerva, their goddess of wisdom and military success, at her perpetual fire in Bath, west of present-day London, England. As recorded by the ancient Roman writer Solinus, in his third century book Collection of Things Memorable, a distinct material burned in the fires devoted to Minerva in the temple at Bath:
Source: http://history.alberta.ca/energyheritage/coal/early-coal-history-to-1900/unearthing-ancient-mysteries/ancient-romans-in-britain.aspx#page-1
Canals – you might want to look up xerxes canal, fifth century bce, a hell of a feat. As one example. So they could have done canals.
The ancient world was pretty good at metal work and even making metal alloys. That is obvious to anyone with the smallest amount of knowledge on the subject. Mr Stanhope mentions the antikythera mechanism, a very good example of precision engineering.
It might have looked slightly different, but your argument that they had none of the things required for some form of industrial revolution simply doesn’t stand up to much.
You refer to steam power. There was not enough wood. For the Industrial Revolution to occur, coal needed to be turned into coke( Darby III) , canals constructed to move coal cheaply( Brindley), precision cutting of steel ( Wilkinson) efficient steam power ( Boulton and Watt ).
It was the mathematics of Newton which underpinned the Industrial Revolution
Thank you for that kind suggestion but I am too old!
What you naively ascribe to Christianity, schools, hospitals and even science were in fact all well established in the Classical World, as I am convinced you must know?
If not try looking up Hero*of Alexandria. Had Vespasian wished it, the Industrial Revolution would have started in the first century of the Christian Era. Fortunately he didnât.
(* Sometimes referred to as Heron).
I respectfully disagree here. It was the Mediaeval Church that founded the great universities of Europe, and it was the desire of Churchmen to understand the God-created universe that fired the investigation into the workings of the universe, It was the need for accurate time-keeping to regulate the Divine Offices that spurred the research into developing time-pieces, it was monasteries that preserved much of Latin literature (ok not all). What can be said of the Mediaeval philosophers, generally, was that they were too fixated on Aristotelian causes, thus we get the ludicrous idea of trans-substantiation. As a final thought, is not all learning/knowledge seen through some “miasma” (as you put it)? It’s just a matter of what “miasma” you hold to yourself.
I am sorry but I shall also have to respectfully disagree.
The Medieval Church and its Universities are all part of that tired old calumny that goes something like this :-âChristianity saved the Worldâ! It didnât and this is why.
Universities or shall we call them places of advanced learning, abounded all over the Classical World, but particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean. Not only do we have Platoâs Academy, Aristotleâs Lyceum, and Hadrianâs Athenaeum (two of them), but also the great Museums* at Ephesus, Pergamum, Smyrna, Tarsus, Athens and off course Alexandria. Then there were the great Legal Schools most notably in Berytus.
To attend a Medieval University you had to be a âbelieverâ which was not a good start, and was diametrically opposed to any idea of freedom of thought. Thus âtheirâ ideas about âthe workings of the universeâ were frankly puny compared to those of the Classical World. I take your point about medieval clocks but do they really measure up to something like the Antikythera Mechanism?
Yes we all are see things through a miasma of sorts, but some are much denser than others.
(* As in the original meaning of the word.)
But Ancient World died because of barbarians and not because of Christianity.
Yes, medieval universities were akin to communist ones and you had to follow dogma to be accepted.
But what was the real alternative to early Christianity?
Islam?
Are you suggesting that non Christian Europe would stop Muslim invasion and the retake Iberian peninsula?
But Ancient World died because of barbarians and not because of Christianity.
Yes, medieval universities were akin to communist ones and you had to follow dogma to be accepted.
But what was the real alternative to early Christianity?
Islam?
Are you suggesting that non Christian Europe would stop Muslim invasion and the retake Iberian peninsula?
I largely agree: give the Devil his due.
But the “militant secularism” mentioned further up is a paradoxical coupling in that they
are quite orthogonal – independent variables. That kind of militancy is older than the likes of Genghis Khan, Atilla, or even Empress Wu, not some new feature of secularism. Likewise Christian history is awash with blood and horrors that moderns really have no stomach for any more. Interesting book Just picked up, “The Faber Book of Reportage.” A large collection of eye witness accounts throughout human history. Christian morality didn’t seem in evidence among the Spanish Christians according to Bartolomeo de Las Casas in the early 1500’s, for example. Or during the Spanish sack of Antwerp in 1576 according to George Gascoigne. What should one call these kinds of affairs, really too numerous to enumerate? “militant Christianity”? Better to be more realistic about the range of human nature irregardless of all it’s forms of mass hysteria, group think and magical thinking.
I am sorry but I shall also have to respectfully disagree.
The Medieval Church and its Universities are all part of that tired old calumny that goes something like this :-âChristianity saved the Worldâ! It didnât and this is why.
Universities or shall we call them places of advanced learning, abounded all over the Classical World, but particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean. Not only do we have Platoâs Academy, Aristotleâs Lyceum, and Hadrianâs Athenaeum (two of them), but also the great Museums* at Ephesus, Pergamum, Smyrna, Tarsus, Athens and off course Alexandria. Then there were the great Legal Schools most notably in Berytus.
To attend a Medieval University you had to be a âbelieverâ which was not a good start, and was diametrically opposed to any idea of freedom of thought. Thus âtheirâ ideas about âthe workings of the universeâ were frankly puny compared to those of the Classical World. I take your point about medieval clocks but do they really measure up to something like the Antikythera Mechanism?
Yes we all are see things through a miasma of sorts, but some are much denser than others.
(* As in the original meaning of the word.)
I largely agree: give the Devil his due.
But the “militant secularism” mentioned further up is a paradoxical coupling in that they
are quite orthogonal – independent variables. That kind of militancy is older than the likes of Genghis Khan, Atilla, or even Empress Wu, not some new feature of secularism. Likewise Christian history is awash with blood and horrors that moderns really have no stomach for any more. Interesting book Just picked up, “The Faber Book of Reportage.” A large collection of eye witness accounts throughout human history. Christian morality didn’t seem in evidence among the Spanish Christians according to Bartolomeo de Las Casas in the early 1500’s, for example. Or during the Spanish sack of Antwerp in 1576 according to George Gascoigne. What should one call these kinds of affairs, really too numerous to enumerate? “militant Christianity”? Better to be more realistic about the range of human nature irregardless of all it’s forms of mass hysteria, group think and magical thinking.
Just as all societies discover a depressant to lower anxiety they also discover the soothing effects of a belief system, not reason, that lessens the dismal elements of human life and provides an optimistic outlook for us all. Except for Bertrand Russell as you rightly point out below. You might like to bang your head against a wall over it but Einstein had a suggestion to make about the efficacy of that.
If Christianity was such a dead weight we would be in the Utopia by now. Instead all the atheist have to show, from 1789 to today, is degradation and decline. Now the West finds itself on the edge of death eternal.
And yet you guys refuse to see it or if you do glimpse it darkly you refuse to act, paralysed by your monumental error and the error of your school of thought.
Atheism is cringe Bro.
I am NOT an Atheist but am an AgnosticâŠâŠthere is a difference!
The error lies not in atheism per se, but in the human reaction to the loss of a belief system. In other words, the reaction itself may be misguided but not the need to disabuse ourselves of false beliefs.
Nevermind the impossibility of talking oneself into thinking magically once Mr Wizard’s current has come open.
Nevermind the impossibility of talking oneself into thinking magically once Mr Wizard’s current has come open.
Christianity had a fair chance to save us. You guys can’t even agree if there’s one god or a trinity, how shiney your churches should be, whether you need to fully attempt drowning in holy water or if just a light sprinkling will do, whether you need to actually eat god and drink him in the form of bread and wine or if actually that’s entirely unnecessary, you lot are as confused as the rest of us….. Baptists and Methodists and Quakers and Catholics and protestants etcetc. There was three different versions of church in my village! We had c of e, Methodist and a baptist church. Now the Catholic vs protestant malarkey caused quite a stir didn’t it bro?
I don’t know what I am I’m still investigating, but Christianity as far as I’m aware (corrections welcome) is just a big old muddle of many many other things that came before it utilised by Constantine to create one empire under one god. Like America, One nation under God. How’s that working out for you?
Spot on, well done Ms Emery!
Constantine needed a ânew mission statementâ as we would say today, and opted for Christianity.
Had his nephew Julian lived to a ripe old age, Christianity would be a footnote to history.
Sadly it was NOT to be, hence the present nonsense.
Thank you, a new mission statement, I like that.
I don’t know anything about his nephew Julian to be honest, thanks that’s interesting I will have to have a read!
Nonsense indeed and still it rolls on.
I could have mentioned the serial scandals of the vatican but I’d be here all day…
Be careful about criticising the Vatican. Some months ago I commented on the rumour that there may have been a female Pope in the ninth century, a Mama rather than a Papa!
All hell broke loose and I was expelled!
Holy moly. That’s mental. Thanks for the heads up. I’m not ready for expulsion by Catholic lynch mob đ
Holy moly. That’s mental. Thanks for the heads up. I’m not ready for expulsion by Catholic lynch mob đ