Cuenco writes with such graceful non-specificity that one can only speculate about his ambitious abstract planning.
It could be some kind of Hegelian alchemy or “Aufheben” where opposing categories like Communal Sharing and Self-Interest are both transcended and dissolved into each other. Or it could be pure sophistry. Either way, whatever our problems are; they won’t be solved by abstract philosophy.
Indeed. I suspect Mandeville has sunk into obscurity for precisely for the same reason.
John Riordan
12 days ago
The insanity of modern politics is ultimately predicated upon old-fashioned Marxism in my opinion, so there can be no rational return towards the promotion of self-interest. This would involve surrendering the core attraction of Marxist principles for its devotees: the arbitrary power to interfere with the lives of others. The notion that people attracted to this idea would happily stand aside and just let people get on with their lives is anathema to devotees of such an ideology.
But that’s actually the amazing Doublethink of Marxist doctrine. It’s 1) The idea that shared Communalism is in everyone’s self-interest and 2) The Vanguard of Experts implementing the vision are acting in their own self-interest. They get influence, social status and ironically by doing so…they get more benefits from the “Capitalist System” that they condemn as unjust.
Isn’t the ideology just the cover that is used by people whose natural inclination is to be curtain twitching busybodies anyway?
UnHerd Reader
12 days ago
There is never a light so bright as somebody minding their own business? I lived for a long time on a tiny island that was blessed with being overlooked, until it wasn’t. Suddenly the ‘ends of the earth’ became ‘the place to be seen’, and it was clear that people would go much further out of their way to acquire something they didn’t want themselves than they would for something that they did, or might. Selfishness was a socially contrived value, defined less by what one had than by what others didn’t. None of the normal status symbols mattered, anything expensive, a watch, a car, simply made one ridiculous. The only way to achieve a social distinction was to take things away that were common to all, like access to beaches. All sorts of justifications for the behavior accompanied this, along the lines of merit and dis-merit. Selfishness is a social construct, rampant even in the absence of any self. A commoner motive than selfishness was spite.
I should add this was no less evident a characteristic of the do gooder social justice activists and environmentalists who followed, or even proceeded the other interests in the island.
Katharine Eyre
12 days ago
I’m definitely going to return to this article when I’m not nursing a hangover, as it seems like an interesting subject.
But first, I need to regain that comforting sense that reading sentences like “Mandeville’s vision accepted impulse-driven self-interest as its sole premise and in so doing, radically affirmed the imperatives of the emerging liberal-capitalist system” won’t cause my head to explode messily over my keyboard.
Saul D
12 days ago
We have both self-interest and social-interest motivations – it’s not one or the other. Our lives are spent balancing between the two. We don’t just take for ourselves, instead we’ll put our lives on the line for someone we love, and take joy from the happiness of others. Core questions in morality involve implicit inner trade-offs between our self and our social sides.
Cuenco writes with such graceful non-specificity that one can only speculate about his ambitious abstract planning.
It could be some kind of Hegelian alchemy or “Aufheben” where opposing categories like Communal Sharing and Self-Interest are both transcended and dissolved into each other. Or it could be pure sophistry. Either way, whatever our problems are; they won’t be solved by abstract philosophy.
Indeed. I suspect Mandeville has sunk into obscurity for precisely for the same reason.
The insanity of modern politics is ultimately predicated upon old-fashioned Marxism in my opinion, so there can be no rational return towards the promotion of self-interest. This would involve surrendering the core attraction of Marxist principles for its devotees: the arbitrary power to interfere with the lives of others. The notion that people attracted to this idea would happily stand aside and just let people get on with their lives is anathema to devotees of such an ideology.
But that’s actually the amazing Doublethink of Marxist doctrine. It’s 1) The idea that shared Communalism is in everyone’s self-interest and 2) The Vanguard of Experts implementing the vision are acting in their own self-interest. They get influence, social status and ironically by doing so…they get more benefits from the “Capitalist System” that they condemn as unjust.
Isn’t the ideology just the cover that is used by people whose natural inclination is to be curtain twitching busybodies anyway?
There is never a light so bright as somebody minding their own business? I lived for a long time on a tiny island that was blessed with being overlooked, until it wasn’t. Suddenly the ‘ends of the earth’ became ‘the place to be seen’, and it was clear that people would go much further out of their way to acquire something they didn’t want themselves than they would for something that they did, or might. Selfishness was a socially contrived value, defined less by what one had than by what others didn’t. None of the normal status symbols mattered, anything expensive, a watch, a car, simply made one ridiculous. The only way to achieve a social distinction was to take things away that were common to all, like access to beaches. All sorts of justifications for the behavior accompanied this, along the lines of merit and dis-merit. Selfishness is a social construct, rampant even in the absence of any self. A commoner motive than selfishness was spite.
I should add this was no less evident a characteristic of the do gooder social justice activists and environmentalists who followed, or even proceeded the other interests in the island.
I’m definitely going to return to this article when I’m not nursing a hangover, as it seems like an interesting subject.
But first, I need to regain that comforting sense that reading sentences like “Mandeville’s vision accepted impulse-driven self-interest as its sole premise and in so doing, radically affirmed the imperatives of the emerging liberal-capitalist system” won’t cause my head to explode messily over my keyboard.
We have both self-interest and social-interest motivations – it’s not one or the other. Our lives are spent balancing between the two. We don’t just take for ourselves, instead we’ll put our lives on the line for someone we love, and take joy from the happiness of others. Core questions in morality involve implicit inner trade-offs between our self and our social sides.