Pomocon ponderings continued:
1. On one end you have a profound way of life , rooted and grounded in a robust and declarative embodiment of the whole . On the other end you have a superficial lifestyle , one option among many chosen for no more and no less than idiosyncratic, contingent, partial ‘reasons’. In the middle you have real life . . .
2. An anecdote . My family likes making the effort to find and activate green alternatives for contemporary living. But we also like the rewards and benefits of making other kinds of efforts, which make a ‘full blown’ green way of life impracticable. We find contemporary life to be, on the whole, good; but we find much of it rotten. We hate much of what is on TV, yet we own a TV (basic cable) and watch it from time to time. We like country life, but all we can manage at the moment is a small rented cottage. We really wouldn’t want to live full-time at that cottage right now at all. But we love staying there at stretches. Although our enjoyment of the country is, by our lights, in no way superficial, we certainly regret not being able to draw indefinitely the sorts of goods associated with extended country living. We also regret not living on a tropical island, though we don’t really want to live on one.
3. On what basis are we to judge whether our arrangements, compromises, and efforts are part of Larger Problems (the ubiquity of consumerism and a la carte-ism, the commodification of experience, the inauthenticity of performance, etc.)? And then what is to be done as a result?
4. Are we better able to address those problems by inculcating an ethic of honesty for individuals, on the basis of their family character, when applicable, than by formulating a comprehensive critique of something called modernity?
5. Or is the issue that the ethic-of-honesty route is too aristocratic in outlook, i.e. too far out of solidarity with our fellows, present and future, whose lives will be adversely impacted by our choice to take the slower and more uncertain road?
6. On the one hand, a longing to reconcile oneself both honestly and well to the world, natural and social; on the other, a duty to treat the possibility of the good life for certain others as no more or less important than that of one’s own. Which prevails? Which certain others are meant, and why? Point of departure for debates on relevance of nation-state to justice (Manent), conservative tribalism (paging Helen), ethnonationalist-yet-universalist solidarity (Rorty). Or should we be speaking as a duty to oneself versus a longing for others? Can we ever not be stuck with both — amid liberty worthy of the name?
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
