From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: "What went wrong":Aiken and Powers enlighten the world
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:36:25 GMT

In <1992Aug13.183801.9040@nmsu.edu> epowers@dewey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:

>	Okay, the title is a joke.  We'll see how the rest goes.  Here's the  
>conversation so far:



[earlier comments deleted]


>	Thank you for the challenge.  I'll take your statement "I do not mean  
>here to insult you" at face value, although your use of fifty-cent phrases like  
>"it excoriates romanticism as being insufficiently tractable to inflexible  
>abstract theories" maikes me wunder if yore tryin' to confooz a pore backerds  
>New Mexan.  I consider brevity and simplicity to be the soul of wit, but I do  
>understand the temptations of academia.


	I meant what I said.  Forgive me for my wordiness (or is it
prolixity) - seventeen straight years of school have left me addled.


>	If I understand you correctly, your major points are something like  
>this:
>	1.  Nothing has "gone wrong," things are the same as they have always  
>been.
>	2.  You have no reason to believe that things have "gone wrong".
>	3.  Seeking after utopia has only brought tyranny, genocide, the  
>debasement of civilization, violent excesses, mindless hero-worship, and  
>intolerance.

>	My idea that we have gone wrong somewhere is not a premise of my  
>philosophy, but one of its conclusions.  In the 70's, I would have been  
>labelled a Jesus Freak.  So if you wish to attack my idea that somewhere we  
>have gone wrong you must also attack my Christian beliefs.  Please don't  
>hesitate to do so, either!  I'm not unused to criticism, or discussion, and I  
>consider Christianity to be like any other philosophy.  It has certain premises  
>and follows these to their conclusions, and they are not above attack. 

	 
>	I agree with you that seeking after utopia requires "Total Revolution".   
>The imagery used in the Bible to describe what's usually called the second  
>coming are images of total revolution that few modern revolutionaries would  
>dare dream of.  So naturally, I don't think total revolution to be necessarily  
>bad.
>	This does, however, bring up something in your post I do find  
>confusing.  On what basis do you call things "evils or degredations there are  
>in modern society"?  "Degredations" seems to me to imply that things were  
>different once.  Even your use of the word "evils" implies that there is, or  
>has been, something different to which it can be compared.  If everything is as  
>it has always been, then I must agree with Alexander Pope:  "Whatever is, is  
>right."
>	Would things be better if "the longing for Utopia that, sadly enough,  
>is human nature" did not exist?  Would rape, murder, stealing, and so forth,  
>vanish if people did not long for things do be better?  Or are you saying that  
>a longing for Utopia is what originally caused those things to appear?  If so,  
>Utopia was lost by longing for something that already existed.  Would you  
>please elaborate?  I have no idea why you would call anything "evil" or even  
>"bad".  Why do you think genocide is bad?  Violent excesses?  Intolerance?   
>They are poor evolutionary strategies, but why are they "evils"?
>	I also think that actions reveal attitudes, and I would say the  
>examples you used of leaders who brought about Utopia (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot)  
>are examples of leaders who wanted power, not utopia.  They bandied the idea  
>about in much the same way our leaders talk about balanced budgets and  
>responsible government spending.  "Their lips are as smooth as honey, but in  
>their hearts lies deceit."

	The difference betwwen the Second Coming and Total Revolution is 
this:  Total Revolution is conducted by men, and men are prone to violence 
sin.  Any human endeavor will have some flaw.  The idea of Utopia supposes
that if man is remade, then he will no longer be subject to temptation.  That
is, his interests will fit exactly the interests of society as a whole. 
Utopianism proposes that man is perfectible, and that human powers are
without limit, once we are set free from our social mores.  The language of
the revolutionary is apocalyptic, but since he is just a man, he can only
make vague promises of "a better life to come."  Traditional religions
tell us that Paradise is not to be found in this world, and the revolutionary
shouts in reply that our religions are a sham.  He believes fanatically 
that if the world is torn apart, then it will reorganize itself into the
perfect society.  
	For every age, there are evils and degredations that are particularly
prevelant.  This is not to say that there was once a time which was better
on the whole.  What I mean is that this age is no more or less virtuous
than any other.  Our leaders may be more incompetent or prurient, and we
may live in greater material comfort, but we are no better off in the
spiritual sense than we were a thousand years ago.  
	The Utopian desire can be tamed by social and economic pressures.
That is, a prosperous people is not likely to dream of an absolute
Utopia.  They enact reforms.  It is not the Utopian desire -- the desire
for a better world -- that I abhor.  I condemn the actions that a people
undertake when all restraints are removed from this desire.  Stalin and
Lenin may not have been utopians themselves, but they were able to 
manipulate this desire, which goes unchecked in Communist ideology, into a 
justification for the slaughter of forty million people.

Comments?

Andrew Aiken

 
  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh