Thursday, December 20, 2007
On The Road
or:
How do you reason with a hedonist?
Recently an acquaintance told me that his favorite book of all time was On The Road, by Jack Kerouac. This was an inspiring novel, one that changed his life. I had a notion of what it was about, but I felt it important to educate myself further on the book and the movement of which it was a part.
This research led me to the beat generation, of course, and later to how the beatnik movement evolved into the hippie movement. The more I read, the angrier I got, so I stopped at that point.
From what I can tell, this is the movement that began the modern erosion of traditional morality and culture. It brought deviant sub-culture out into full view, where as time passed, it began to militantly demand acceptance from society at large. Anti-conformity, irresponsibility, ignorance, and dangerous behavior seemed to be the order of the day, for no reason other than that there was nothing else to do.
I’ve spoken with modern followers of this movement, trying to understand where they are coming from. Mostly they seem to identify themselves as libertarians, though I don’t think all libertarians fall into this camp. I am told that they have a right to be irresponsible, a right to live their lives as they see fit. But what of the consequences of their actions? The broken homes? The destroyed childhoods? The wasted lives? The complete lack of beauty and culture?
The response usually is - we value different things, and to force one’s values on another is wrong.
What can you say to that? I haven’t figured it out yet. All I can do is shake my head and walk away.
It seems to me that with no hardship in life, no struggle to overcome, no work to be done, no higher purpose to strive for, man seems to degenerate into a hedonistic worthless mess. I suspect this is the source of the moral decay in aristocracies throughout history, as well as the cultural decay of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
For millenia, food and shelter were a daily struggle. Beauty was rare and appreciated, high achievement was sought and celebrated. Around the middle of the twentieth century, man finally succeeded in pulling himself out of the gutter. Wealth became widespread in society, people were healthier and had easier lives than ever.
Now, instead of survival being the main point of life… there was no point. Man looks in the mirror and sees a creature that has conquered all nature has to offer. He then resorts to needling mainstream culture, indulging base animal instincts, and doing drugs, because there is nothing else to do. In the mean time, he manufactures a moral code that allows himself to at the very least make excuses, and at most be self-congratulatory about the nobility and justness of his actions.
Not everyone has pushed themselves to the extreme, but the mood has permeated our culture. Entertainment is now top priority. Many people can’t even be bothered to breed, lest it interfere with their hedonistic lifestyles. Europe is dying, one day at a time.
How does one stand up and argue against such sentiments? I beg you all to understand and appreciate the beauty that man has created! Your life can have meaning if you choose it, there is no reason to throw it away on sex, drugs, and American Idol! There is so much to learn, so much knowledge to glean, so much value in what has come before, and it is our duty to understand this and pass it on to future generations!
But no one is listening. Even to bring up such things is to invite accusations of puritanism, authoritarianism, and a grossly misguided view of the past.
What should one suggest, anyway? A destruction of all of the good that society has achieved, all of the wealth and comfort, so that we can go back to a time when man struggled to acquire what little he had?
No, that would be ludicrous, foolish, and dangerous. And yet, a little voice reminds me that when man had little, man valued and respected what little man had. Now, when man has everything, and sacrifice means charging the Wii to the credit card and paying some interest instead of waiting a month to pay cash, man respects nothing, including himself and his surroundings. It is good to live in a world of abundance, but with time, that very same abundance destroys man’s soul.
This, I think, is a major driver of the cycles of history. It is a self-limiter on the progress of man - man’s general inability to appreciate and use abundance without destroying one’s self, mentally, physically, and emotionally. When a culture reaches a point of leisure being primary in the lives of it’s citizens, one can be assured that it’s soul is dying.
I haven’t read On The Road, and I’m not sure I ever intend to. From what I understand, it is a true story of sex, drugs, and aimless wandering. The point seems to be to glorify hedonism, which resonated with a generation that had no struggle, and apparently, it continues to resonate today. It was one of the first calls to the growing hedonist masses, whose ranks have only continued to grow.
It is nice to live in a time of prosperity, abundance, and leisure. It is very possible to live in that time, taking advantage of all it has to offer, without losing one’s self to it. What is hard is to watch a culture self-destruct around you, threatening to take your family and your kids with it. It is up to us to both preserve what is being forgotten by society, and to do our best to train our children to carry on that tradition.
Comments
-
Remember, there’s is not a philosophy, it is a faith.
I say this, because there is no reasoning, logic, or evidence which can disprove their “philosophy”. In fact all disproof is reversed and used as “proof” of their so called philosophy.
Something which can be neither proved, nor disproved, but which one “believes” in; must be by definition a faith.
Of course the core of this faith is that nothing can be right or wrong, because right and wrong simply do not exist. Everything is subjective and relative.
If right and wrong don’t exist than it follows that neither does beauty, or evil, or good, or morals, or really anything for that matter.
If nothing can be right or wrong, then of course you telling them they are wrong is nothing.
It boils down to a particularly nasty strain of nihilism.
Chris Byrne | 12/21/2007 12:07 AM CDT -
When Allen Ginsberg’s death was wailed from the rooftops, I read his “poem” Howl for the first time. It was the song of that generation, and it was enough for me. I turned away in disgust.
It reminds me of Thomas Paine’s quote, “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly. It is dearness only that gives everything its value.”
When you don’t have to work for all your stuff/advantages/comfort you don’t value it.
Make life hard for your kids.
Weetabix | 12/21/2007 06:07 PM CDT -
All right, I’m genuinely confused. Who is that poem supposed to appeal to?
It is incoherent, rambling, and seems to wallow in self-pity. And I’d be happy to loan the guy a period if he is all out.
If that is iconic, we’ve fallen a long, long way.
American Farmer | 12/21/2007 08:28 PM CDT -
That’s why I never felt a need to read “On The Road.”
Everyone lamenting Ginsberg’s passing seemed to love that poem. I try not to act unfeeling, but good riddance, I say.
But the fact that it was iconic to those people spoke volumes to me. I understand the confusion, frustration, irritation you express in your post. The hippies and beats are all consumed in their own selfish wants and needs. There’s no talking to them.
Here’s another bit of a poem to describe them:
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.by Sir Walter Scott, though I must admit I found it via Groundhog Day
Weetabix | 12/22/2007 01:39 PM CDT -
My father taught me, and I have observed, that self respect is a product of doing something that someone else finds useful. I suspect that the people you are describing are sadly lacking in self respect, with all the problems that come along with that.
Tony Muhlenkamp | 12/27/2007 11:52 AM CDT -
I wrote an essay for a friend in the early 80’s entitled “Me No Think.”
It addressed his desire for me to accept his stance on issues because he held them. Of course he did not realize that, but when he made assertions, I demanded proof, evidence, even statistics , anything solid. He was alarmed that I was calling him a liar. No, I wanted to understand his reasoning.
There is no reason in much of what passes for thought today. It all hangs on who the prime opinionator is. Even the stock market is stuck with it, “My broker is Meryl Lynch...” (sp?)
Content free thought is not thought. At best it is baseless assertion.
This is where the beat people wandered off to.
“He’s a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.”
That about sums it up…
This is probably why this sort of folk choke on Fred Thompson’s simple straightforward answers.
Rob | 1/9/2008 07:05 PM CDT
