THE ONGOING FACTORS AFFECTING NIHILISM
To date, this blog has been presenting the argument, through a historical lens, that American culture has evolved to promote a highly individualistic view with little concern for communal interests and demands. This has led, as compared to other societies, for Americans to engage in deviant behaviors. That is, they are more likely to behave in ways that go contrary to more communal norms and laws.
Upon reviewing that history, one can detect adherence to a set of constructs which encouraged this progression toward deviance. The constructs are transcendentalism, pragmatism, and perceptual psychology, with an assistance from the effects of TV. The reader is encouraged to review the last four postings of this blog which describe this development.[1]
The claim here is that what has resulted from this development among many is a general sense of illegitimacy, mostly revolving around political issues, and even encouraging a strong dose of nihilism. Individualism has gone a long way to render asunder meaningful community living from contemporary American life. Instead, a growing sense of societal conflict seems to have perforated the nation’s social landscape.[2]
The concept of individualism, used freely in this series of postings, needs more substance than what has been given it up to this point. Individualism does not make itself known similarly in all situations. Robert Bellah, et al., looked at individualism in the American social make-up. They wrote, in Habits of the Heart, “[i]ndividualism is more moderate and orderly than egoism”[3] and go on to quote Alexi Tocqueville:
Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with the little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself.[4]
They describe individualism as a habit of thought well ingrained in America’s historical psyche.
While the mass phenomena to find true self, ala perceptual psychology, and the extravagance attached to that quest is recent, Americans are basically a people who look to themselves as individuals, as opposed to members of society or community, and they rely on their personal resources for social and personal goals and the source of meaning for those goals. These resources include those derived from personal characteristics as well as material assets.
Those writers, Bellah, et al., cite Ralph Waldo Emerson (who wrote an essay entitled “Self-Reliance”), the Puritans, John Winthrop, and Thomas Jefferson as repeating the same theme. Among the middle class, individualism is highly tied to work ethic, something still strongly felt in America.
“The problem is not so much the presence or absence of a ‘work ethic’ as the meaning of work and ways it links, or fails to link, individuals to one another.”[5] And this invites one to question how work affects Americans. Work, which forces the individual to have a public life, has become, due to a large-scale industrial/service society, segmental and a self-interested activity.[6] With that, individualism can express itself in two modes: utilitarian individualism and expressive individualism.
Utilitarian individualism tends to be single-minded, and goal driven toward advancing careers. Expressive individualism values relationships, forms of art, and even social improvement goals. In either form, Bellah, et al. are concerned that goodness is defined by one feeling good. “Acts, then, are not right or wrong in themselves, but only because of the results they produce, the good feelings they engender or express.”[7]
They continue that this forms a basis of morality and ethics which is highly subjective; therefore, the distinguishing character of individualism remains ineffable.
The touchstone of individualistic self-knowledge turns out to be shaky in the end, and its guide to action proves elusive … [T]o what or whom do our ethical and moral standards commit us if they are “quite independent of other people’s standards and agenda”?[8]
From the American experience, one can surmise that without external standards of morality, either of a secular or religious nature, a sense of nihilism pervades among many. Is there proof of this nihilism?
When this blogger first worked on these ideas, by doing research for a paper, the Waco tragedy unfolded. Since then, other tragedies have hit the American society to varying degrees of human suffering – school shootings, shootings in theaters, town centers, places of worship, etc. Why were these people in the Waco case so willing to be led to their deaths by a religious fanatic? Why are others willing to engage in disastrous events that often end in violent death often to themselves?
Is meaning for life so hard to find in this nation’s common lot? Or perhaps the report by various writers on the detrimental and accumulative effects of trends, e.g., the divorce rate, on the children of this country can provide further insight.[9] A bit of literature among the press and published articles and books have documented how popular it has become to encourage adults to take on more self-centered goals which then manifests in irresponsible behaviors on the part of adults who are often parents.
American society, over the last number of decades, has experienced several disruptive events and trends. Along with the divorce rate, there have been riots, increasing crime rates (currently going down), suicide rates, drug use, etc. And with that disruptive setting, this posting will end and promise that the next one in this series will address the implications of the above challenges to those charged with developing curriculum for American schools. Surely, these societal challenges should influence what schools plan for their students.
[1] The series of postings begins with “Early On,” and can be accessed on the URL, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/. Readers can use the archive feature to see this posting and the three that follow.
[2] Aidan Connaughton, “Americans See Stronger Societal Conflicts Than People in Other Advanced Economies,” Pew Research Center, October 13, 2021, accessed February 23, 2024, URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/10/13/americans-see-stronger-societal-conflicts-than-people-in-other-advanced-economies/.
[3] Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, A. Swindler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism in American Life (New York, NY: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985).
[4] Ibid., 37.
[5] Ibid., 55-56.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 78.
[8] Ibid., 78-79.
[9] For example, see Daniel Siegel, “Generation Doomer: How Nihilism on Social Media Is Creating a New Generation of Extremists,” Global Network on Extremism and Technology, December 16, 2022, accessed February 24, 2024, URL: https://gnet-research.org/2022/12/16/generation-doomer-how-nihilism-on-social-media-is-creating-a-new-generation-of-extremists/#:~:text=Because%20of%20digital%20echo%20chambers,and%20humanity%20is%20inevitably%20doomed. To illustrate how long this concern has been addressed, see Barbara Dafoe, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic Monthly, 274, 4 (1993), 47-84.
0 notes
Real talk, to you think Daemon would have questioned the legitimacy of the Jace, Luke and Joff or had them killed in order to pave the way for his his sons to become heirs? Or do you think he was fine with Jace inherenting and Baela becoming queen?
hi. i don't think he would publicly or privately question rhaenyra's kids' legitimacy because it's already obvious they are not laenor's. but the thing is, even if daemon is outraged or angry about rhanyra putting jace on the throne after her, he's not going to the king and complain about it. daemon is a man of action, if he's discontent with something, he's going to go and do something about it. vaemond velaryon calls rhaenyra a whore > daemon doesn't like it and won't stand for it > daemon kills vaemond. it is that simple for him.
which brings the case of would daemon kill jace, luke and joff so his son inherits after rhaenyra? the answer is no. if he had wanted to do it, he would've done it in those ten years they spend in dragonstone together. an accident is easy to stage, and more when rhaenyra is busy ruling and dragonstone the island seems to be a place with a lot of cliffs and a lot of wild dragons. why wait if his goal was to put aegon as heir? it doesn't make sense unless he was okay with jace inheriting. and again, it's pretty inconvenient, because it's not only jace, it's luke and joff, the two kids small enough to think of him as their only father figure. that he in some way helped raised too.
in ep 10 while he doesn't respect jace as a person (he is still a young adult without proper war experience wanting to make daemon heel), he threatens the kingsguard and makes them swear oaths, not to rhaenyra and him as her consort, which he might be in his right to do, but to rhaenyra AND jace:
Swear anew your oath to Rhaenyra as your queen... to Prince Jacaerys as the heir to the Iron Throne.
he acknowledges him as rhaenyra's heir, and while we might say "oh it's just words" but they aren't. daemon is showing jace he supports his claim the only way he knows. this is the same thing he did for viserys back in 101 AC. he became his commander, he amassed an army, he did everything in his power to put him on the throne. 30 years later he's doing the same.
it's simple, at least to me: daemon loves rhaenyra. rhaenyra loves her children. daemon would never hurt rhaenyra in this way. that jace and co ARE rhaenyra's blood also goes a long way for him btw
the logic some people have that daemon would want a son of his own blood on the throne doesn't hold when it's with his tacit agreement that baela is to marry and rule alongside jace. baela who is more daemon than anyone else. and who for sure is his favorite child. that's daemon's blood on the throne.
5 notes
·
View notes