Thoughts during a wine-induced euphoria. A bit too sunny, but decent points.
The weather wasn't good (warm, but rainy), so I didn't want to golf. I didn't feel like hanging out at the Elks. But I didn't necessarily feel like reclusing myself in my study and I felt like drinking a little. What to do?
I decided to sit on the patio and read while drinking wine.
It went well. More wine drinking than reading, but that's alright.
At one point, after a couple of glasses, I put my book down and contemplated American life. Big topic, yes, but the thing that hit me was this: Conservatives complain about the degradation of American culture; liberals complain that we aren't making progress fast enough. Both seem to miss the point: Look where we are, especially when contrasted with where we were. It's good.
That's the point that needs to be recognized. It is good. Right now, right here. Time and place message to the progressives: Don't think about where we might be in a few years or where we could be if this problem could be remedied or those persons annihilated. Quality message to the conservatives: It's good.
It's like we've been climbing a mountain and we've come to a plateau. We sweat and struggled up the rock, and we're lying on a huge plain, miles above the ground but still miles below the top. On the plateau, the conditions are good. The crops are good and there are cows to give milk and meat, but we don't have a few of the crops that were available at ground level and we don't have chickens. The weather is warmer, but often times it's too hot or too cold, when contrasted with the ground level weather. Some people in our group are convinced that all the conditions will get even better if we leave the plateau and go higher. Some in the group want to go back down. Most are happy on the current plateau, but they seem to be rather dull folk–just enjoying the situation, like cows chewing grass, not interested in the the better things that they left on ground level and oblivious to the possibilities of climbing higher.
I want to defend those dull folks.
The advantages of contemporary life range broadly, from dentistry to living comforts. Materially speaking, the situation today is better than every other situation in history. Even the poorest among us have comforts unknown in previous eras. The middle class (of which I am a member) enjoy weeks of vacation every year, two days off every week, only forty hour work weeks, their own homes, two cars, two or three TVs. the list could go on. When you sit back and look at the comforts in the average home, it's astounding. The only reason it doesn't look astounding is that we're constantly comparing our comforts to our neighbors' comforts and, worst, to the comforts of the rich and famous.
Few deny that the material plane is far better, even for the worst-off, in our culture. There are problems, which will be discussed later, but for now, keep hold of this fact: When it comes to material things today, it is good. Perfect? No. Good? Yes.
Now what about intellectually and spiritually? Are we better off?
Material progress, after all, doesn't necessarily entail moral progress. As Eric Voegelin liked to point out, it's possible for a culture to progress and decline at the same time.
I'm not prepared to say whether we're worst or better off in the intellectual, moral, and spiritual spheres. I am inclined to say we're worst off, but look at some of the real progress we've made.
@Religious liberty. Any saint can tell you that the decision to follow God must be one's own decision or it's no decision at all. From this premise, it follows that a person needs to be able to make his own decision about religion. Today, a person can make his own decision about religion and it's honored–not only by the government, but in most institutions and in everyday life. I am a staunch Catholic and hold beliefs that would make many people blush. But, to the best of my knowledge, I have never been discriminated against by anybody or anything. Protestants come to see me for legal advice; secular newspapers publish my articles; agnostics welcome my friendship.
There are problems with today's religious liberty, and I'll address those later, but for purposes of my analysis, hold firm to what I'm saying here: When it is comes to today's religious liberty, it is good. Not perfect, but good.
@Learning. The advantages today abound: *We live in the information age. My study at home contains about 1,500 books. I have access to thousands more at the local public library just one mile away. I have Internet access. I can listen to books on tape. Most people have, or could attain, similar resources. *Education is widespread. Everyone can–and is expected–to get an education. Our society makes sure everyone can read read and do basic math. That accomplishment alone should makes jaws hit the floor. With the education provided free of charge–and an education that we assure, not just through material assistance but by making sure the social conditions allow it–every person can become a scholar, whether by going on to college or by getting a library card and reading until his eyes bug out of his head. *Leisure is available. I believe Aristotle once said that most men cannot philosophize because they have to work every day. That situation no longer holds. People still work, but they don't need to work seven days per week, twelve hours per day, like laborers in Aristotle's day. Most everyone can–if they choose–spend an hour every weekday with a book or a pad of paper and could spend hours and hours on Saturdays and Sundays with heavy tomes on their laps.
Again, there are problems with today's learning. But for now, remember: It is good.
@Tolerance. When it comes to behavior and beliefs, not to mention race and gender, our society is highly tolerant. In the work place, I have heard employers tell their employees on numerous occasions that they could speak out on a particular issue without fear of reprisal; it is, after all, a free country and the employee has the right of free speech. That's great. I defend vehemently the employer's legal right to discharge someone for saying something in public that he disagrees with, but I praise the employer who doesn't do so, rather deferring to the employee's natural right to freedom of speech. This type of tolerance has spread to all levels of our society. And it is good.
(At this point, the notebook text trails into notes and jottings.)
