Why Both Counterculturs Failed
Systematic eternalism depends on a foundation: some eternal ordering principle. On that, it builds a structure of justification, which gives everything meaning. By the mid-twentieth-century, this had clearly failed. Nihilism seemed the only possible alternative.
Both countercultures recognized that the 1950s American mainstream was an empty shell, based on collective pretense, with mere materialism at its core. It might as well be outright nihilism, they thought.
But… there is a more generous way of interpreting the “hypocrisy” of the 1950s. Everyone understood, at some level, that the structure of justification no longer worked. However, everyone also understood, at some level, that just pretending was enough to keep the system working. This was actually right, because there never was a genuine foundation for systematic eternalism. In reality, it had always largely run on ritual: everyone acting as if the system was justified. This is a good thing! The ritual “as if” is the only way functional societies can work.
“Meaningness” is a pretty fun site, even if it’s overwrought in some places. In any case, I call myself a “moral nihilist who practices virtue ethics cuz it happens to run well on my wetware.”
(I shouldn’t have to explain what I mean by that to this crowd.)
In any case, yeah. This all seems to boil down to “dialectics 101.”Report
Wut?
1950s America was peak Armed and Armored Eternalism in American history – and a good chunk of that was literal.Report
Interesting site. Thanks for posting this. I can tell that the author likes sweeping generalizations, but then again who doesn’t?Report
Everyone does. The people who claim not to are all sexual deviants.Report
I found Meaningness through Scott Alexander’s blog and it’s another example of how people writing for free, for their own edification are routinely putting out content many times more thoughtful and well-researched than the median paid internet journalist.
There is also on the blog (here: https://meaningness.com/metablog/stem-fluidity-bridge) a really interesting analysis of the stages of human development and why it’s so difficult for people to evolve past certain stages in our contemporary culture.Report
A definition of the two counter cultures would have helpedReport
Three lines in there is a link to this post: https://meaningness.com/monism-dualism-countercultures, which starts off with:
Report
a lack of spellcheck?Report
Yeah, that annoys me every time I see it. I can’t get past it.Report
This is some very high academic gibberish that proves nothing.Report
Analysis isn’t meant to prove.Report
I find that statement highly ironic.Report
My principal criticism is the author’s sweeping generalizations, especially about the 1950s. The author does probably capture what at least one of the countercultures–the hippy version–thought of the 1950s. The evangelicals, for however much they might have romanticized the 1950s in retrospect, were probably as a group none too pleased with developments on the national level during the decade while it was happening.
Otherwise, though, I do find article interesting, and it “rings” true to me. I don’t think I’d read this site before.Report