"meaning of life" as a class society trap

[black magick hustla]

I have this pet hypothesis of mine. I think the reason we ask ourselves about the purpose of our life is that christians, the state, and the whole civilization always preaches about being "useful" to the social order. like dying for the fatherland and voting. Some people start questioning the usefulness of these ideas, and then they come with things like existentialism, where "we assert our own meaning".

In my opinion existentialism is playing inside ruling class ideology by answering a question that was precisely posed by the mouthpieces of order.

I do not believe in the meaning of life, but that is because I think the question is flawed. Is akin to asking how "green is run". The only reason why we think about the meaning of our lives is because other people have asked that question.

"the solution of the problem of life lies in the dissolution of the problem,"

wittgenstein, tractatus

[Meridian]

Green is run by dividing eternity by blue. Or something like that, according to my metaphysics professor.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think people naturally try and make sense of things and wondering about the meaning of life in a societies where alienation separates what people do with their hours (labor) from the quality or enjoyment of their own life sort of causes many people to wonder "what is it all about?".

In catholic feudal Europe, the main concern was why there was evil if god was good - it's kind of the same question. You could also ask the question this way: if the social order is good and natural and designed by a good god, then why is my life of farming rye such shit?

The "meaning of life" question put in a similar way could go like this: if we live in a society that is free and and I am free to peruse my own fufilment in life, why do I feel so aimless and trapped (when I spend 8 hours a day not including commute and preparation doing data-entry/fast-food/other meaningless tasks)?

[scarletghoul]

In my opinion existentialism is playing inside ruling class ideology by answering a question that was precisely posed by the mouthpieces of order.
I dont think this is true, and it doesn't fit in with the rest of your idea (which might be correct, I dunno). If your criticism is that the whole "meaning of life" thing is based on the idea that our lives should be about serving a certian order, our lives being defined by this coercive and imposing order or whateer, then surely existentialism defies the imposition of the order by saying that any meaning of our lives is up to us (unlike the traditional 'meaning of life' idea which is usualy presumed to be up to something greather than us, like society or god or whatever).

The answer to the other question is that green is not run. Similarly existentialists say that life has no pre-existing meaning. (Of course there the similarity in answers ends, as i dont think it would be correct to say something like "green is run however we want it to be" lol but you get my point right.) If existentialists are somehow accomodating and legitimising the order by saying that life has no inherent meaning, then so too am I legitimising the idea the 'green is run' by answering the question, even if in my answer im correcting the presuppositions on which that question was based. In other words you can answer a question without necessarily agreeing to any of the presuppositions of the one asking it

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE=scarletghoul;1667377]I dont think this is true, and it doesn't fit in with the rest of your idea (which might be correct, I dunno). If your criticism is that the whole "meaning of life" thing is based on the idea that our lives should be about serving a certian order, our lives being defined by this coercive and imposing order or whateer, then surely existentialism defies the imposition of the order by saying that any meaning of our lives is up to us (unlike the traditional 'meaning of life' idea which is usualy presumed to be up to something greather than us, like society or god or whatever).
{/QUOTE]
i think existentialism is psychologically hurtful. someone breaks with the content of the logic of class society, but still uses that same logic and fills it with a different context. why not say that there is absolutely no meaning of life? why do you want to continue with that unhealthy attempt to legitimize the question in the first place?

[Belisarius]

i don't think class analysis and existential phenomena are related. maybe the question "the meaning of life" is wrong, but the idea behind the question isn't. this idea is the question "what am i doing here on earth and why?", this changes in "what am i supposed to do?" and here it goes astray. Man isn't supposed to do anything (since there then needs to be a "supposer", in which case class analysis would be interesting), that is what causes such anxiety. this is actually what e.g. Sartre said, there is no purpose or reason why we're here, but we're just thrown into the world. the point however isn't doing what you're supposed to do, but to make of your life what you want it to be.

so, as a conclusion, we can state that the word "meaning" in "the meaning of life" isn't utility (what you're supposed to do), but "what m i going to do with it, now that i'm here".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm inclined to think that questions of meaning and/or purpose, which if you think about them are inherently human questions, make no sense when applied to subjects of greater than human scope, such as life, the universe, and existence.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The definition generally entails the purpose of your existence, I believe. That's a bit of a discovery and changing process. We certainly don't run on know purpose. We have a "purpose" or "blueprint" in the same way a computer processor has objectives it follows. We just change the words to create a human/object distinction.

What a person's "purpose" is arises from their nature and life experiences. John is naturally a good person. His mother is murdered. He becomes a cop. If his mother had survived, he would've been a teacher. Let's pretend cops are an example of a good profession, which is arguable.

If you want a meaning of life, in general, you are making a mistake in my view to view to consider it from the individual up. It's a top-down relation concerning how societies members should organize themselves to maximize their individual "programs" or "purposes."

[Revy]

"Meaning" itself is understanding things as they exist. We exist. Now let's think not only about how and why we exist, but also the how and why of our actions and beliefs and identity.

That's the "meaning of life".

[synthesis]

I'm inclined to think that questions of meaning and/or purpose, which if you think about them are inherently human questions, make no sense when applied to subjects of greater than human scope, such as life, the universe, and existence.

They make sense from a certain perspective. Meaning and purpose are things that we construct ourselves. As has been said before, nothing has any inherent meaning besides that which we lend to it, a fact that some find intimidating and others find liberating.

What's the meaning of life? Of the universe? Of existence? We each have the power to define that for ourselves. In my book, that's the only cure for one consumed by the overwhelming futility of his or her existence.

To me, "the problem of life" is a problem created by a conflict in modern, post-industrial capitalism, but not in some sinister, conspiratorial way. Back in the day, if you were powerless, chances are that your day-to-day life revolved around the pursuit of survival and security.

In our present day and age, you can be materially affluent yet still utterly powerless in the big scheme of things. Your 9-to-5 job, the one that consumes the majority of your waking hours, is redundant and socially worthless, and now you have a whole bunch of time to sit around and think about just that.

In other words, the "problem of life" is only a problem when you stop to think about it, but at the same time, meaning has been unconsciously constructed nonetheless.

[Psy]

The "meaning of life" question put in a similar way could go like this: if we live in a society that is free and and I am free to peruse my own fufilment in life, why do I feel so aimless and trapped (when I spend 8 hours a day not including commute and preparation doing data-entry/fast-food/other meaningless tasks)?
Right especially now that there is growing underemployment without skilled workers working at less skilled jobs. It is kinda funny in a sick way how during the cold war capitalist propaganda said how communism would mean workers talents would be squandered by the state and here we are with peoples talents being squandered by capitalists, in some cases capitalists even spit at the legacy of workers talents like the gutting of the Michigan Theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Theater_%28Detroit,_Michigan%29).

[ckaihatsu]

[w]e can state that the word "meaning" in "the meaning of life" isn't utility (what you're supposed to do), but "what m i going to do with it, now that i'm here".


I created a diagram that represents a humanistic / existential mode as being on a sliding scale with a technical / utilitarian mode. There's a trade-off between being useful and being oneself.


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://i47.tinypic.com/j9269k.jpg


Chris



--

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
tinypic.com/ckaihatsu

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Coming soon through a local area network near you --

[Apeiron]

At the risk of (heretically) giving some sort of agency to ideas here, I want to suggest that you're not taking the problem of nihilism seriously enough. That is, as an historical problem as it emerges in Nietzsche's diagnosis. Nihilism appears precisely with the collapse of those great metaphysical projects of antiquity which granted meaning to human life by locating it elsewhere -- in the immortality of the soul, the redemption to come, the world of ideas, etc. -- the meaning herein granted is vanquished at the moment such metanarratives proved themselves incredulous. The issue here, however, is not utility, but of a value-laden notion of purpose. Utility as you describe it I think comes on the scene in the aftermath of the 'twilight of the idols'....

I think class societies, and particularly advanced capitalism, have a role to play here -- there seems to be a certain existential anxiety animating the desire behind rabid consumption of commodities, and we can get into a whole discussion about 'alienation' and its relation to meaning or existential fulfillment -- but I think it's naive to chalk the entire question up to a sort of bourgeois ideology. Indeed, I would say that capitalism, as one of the prime historical forces of modernity, has been one of the chief culprits in 'killing god' (or traditional metaphysics, if you prefer)... to paraphrase the manifesto, "all that is sacred is profaned; all that is solid melts into air." Marx knew traditional religions (or for that matter, tradition itself) wouldn't survive capitalism. Certainly the logic of capitalist accumulation provides its own answer to the anxiety it produces, unfulfilling as we all know it to be. This is of course because the value-laden notion of purpose provided by traditional metaphysics (christian or platonic, pick your favorite) has been replaced by an instrumental-rationality of endless accumulation with no payoff. This is Weber's 'iron cage'; the value-rationality of Protestantism (which no doubt is another culprit in this scheme) is supplanted by the routinization of labor. This is where utility enters, as all that's left is mere utility, instrumentality with no end. However, capitalism hasn't produced the notion of 'meaning' as such -- we can find this question emerging much much earlier in societies not driven by the same logic of accumulation. It's just reformulated it, stripping it of it's original value form.

Getting to the bottom of this question is tricky though... it seems foundational for what we refer to as modernity, and I think you can draw up a number of culprits here, capitalism being one, but also Protestantism, modern science, epistemology, etc.

[ckaihatsu]

We need to keep considerations of *scale* in mind here. Certainly the profit-making motive driving bourgeois ideology creates the overall cultural framework in which we all grow up in and have to live in, but a society's mode of production *can't* address individual life-living issues like meaning or purpose -- it's merely the building we inhabit (and are coerced to maintain).

[Red Commissar]

The formation of such values, like the "meaning of life", is a component of cultural hegemony. By using such things, transmitted by religion, TV, education, etc, to have the other classes share the values of the ruling class, it sets up a state that will be able to resist revolutionary notions...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They make sense from a certain perspective.

The human perspective, which was exactly my point.


Meaning and purpose are things that we construct ourselves. As has been said before, nothing has any inherent meaning besides that which we lend to it, a fact that some find intimidating and others find liberating.

I would add to your statement the qualifier that humans do not construct meaning in a semiotic vacuum - humans being social creatures and all that. Besides that I agree.


What's the meaning of life? Of the universe? Of existence? We each have the power to define that for ourselves. In my book, that's the only cure for one consumed by the overwhelming futility of his or her existence.

That doesn't seem to me to be finding an answer so much as forming an opinion.

You can have an opinion on the universe - but that adds nothing to the blunt fact that it exists.


To me, "the problem of life" is a problem created by a conflict in modern, post-industrial capitalism, but not in some sinister, conspiratorial way. Back in the day, if you were powerless, chances are that your day-to-day life revolved around the pursuit of survival and security.

In our present day and age, you can be materially affluent yet still utterly powerless in the big scheme of things. Your 9-to-5 job, the one that consumes the majority of your waking hours, is redundant and socially worthless, and now you have a whole bunch of time to sit around and think about just that.

Really? I find that most people aren't even interested in asking such questions. After all, they've been taught almost from birth that intellectuallism is "hard work", can get you into trouble, is too effeminate for most men or not girly enough for most women, and similar.

I think you underestimate how anti-intellectual the current cultural climate is, at least in Anglo-Saxon countries.


In other words, the "problem of life" is only a problem when you stop to think about it, but at the same time, meaning has been unconsciously constructed nonetheless.

I don't think posing a question makes it necessarily meaningful, that it to say, while one can pose a question that is grammatically correct, that does not mean there is a sensible answer to it.

[ZeroNowhere]

I have this pet hypothesis of mine. I think the reason we ask ourselves about the purpose of our life is that christians, the state, and the whole civilization always preaches about being "useful" to the social order. like dying for the fatherland and voting. Some people start questioning the usefulness of these ideas, and then they come with things like existentialism, where "we assert our own meaning".

In my opinion existentialism is playing inside ruling class ideology by answering a question that was precisely posed by the mouthpieces of order.

I do not believe in the meaning of life, but that is because I think the question is flawed. Is akin to asking how "green is run". The only reason why we think about the meaning of our lives is because other people have asked that question.

"the solution of the problem of life lies in the dissolution of the problem,"

wittgenstein, tractatusI think you have a point here, inasmuch as the 'purpose of life' is generally seen as some deep philosophical problem (indeed, it's quite likely that somebody professing an interest in philosophy will be asked facetiously, "What is the meaning of life?"). It could well make sense in contexts, such as somebody suicidal asking about the purpose of living, or somebody reflecting on their main motivation in life.

However, when seen as something universal and mysterious, it tends to display some degree of powerlessness over our own lives, inasmuch as we look for some purpose that is out there and greater than us. This could possibly reflect, in modern times, the rule of things that characterizes capitalism, in which our lives are thrown about, as it were, by external forces. Many have attacked Marx for saying that capitalism has laws of motion, in reality they should be attacking capitalism for having laws of motion. In the current crisis, all pretensions of the economy being under anybody's control are more or less evaporated, or, if you will, the veil is lifted and everything solid has, in fact, melted into air. And people are suffering for it, they're unemployed, etc, and it has nothing to do with them, contrary to talk of a 'meritocracy', it's external forces tripping them up, more or less green poltergeists with the faces of queens.

In this context, it would perhaps be comforting to find some purpose greater than you or the things standing over you which could be striven towards, some a priori 'purpose' of life in general, that we exist for some special reason or some such, indeed that our real lives are independent from the forces that tend to, well, kick our asses indifferently on a daily basis. We have purposes imposed from outside, we are predicates to our own labour, so perhaps one must assert that we have some purpose that stands even higher than those, as it seems that purposes are no longer human, things are in charge and use us as they please. It could also fuel religious faith. Indeed, the society described above could even fuel the opposite reaction, namely that life is 'absurd', and there is no 'meaning of life', but rather we are trapped within an impassive universe and environment, which defies human want of order, and must accept this. Anyhow, yes, the concept as generally used is indeed divorced from any context, and as such is given no sense ("Why are we here?" What does this mean, what natural processes led to us being here, why did our parents reproduce, is it asking some god for why he created us, or else what? "What is the meaning of it all?" That is a phrase used, generally in an accusative tone, to ask about why something has been done. But generally it doesn't mean, "Why did god create us?", so then what does it mean?).

Of course, in feudalism, these speculations could not have had the same causes, and indeed the influence of those days could have flowed through to the present and served as a canvass already smeared with patches of paint, though powerlessness was still a factor. For example, the rule of kings and priests, and patriarchal relationships in general, could well have led to what was proposed in the OP.


The answer to the other question is that green is not run.Except that as an empirical claim, that is quite clearly senseless. All it can be is a linguistic comment, a note on how we use the words 'green' and 'run'. This is generally not how existentialism is put forward.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Absurdism as a philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

"Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to the individual. 'The Absurd,' therefore, is commonly used in philosophical discourse to refer to the clash between the human search for meaning and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean 'logically impossible,' but rather 'humanly impossible.'"

"The meaning of life"

"According to absurdism, humans historically attempt to find meaning in their lives. Traditionally, this search follows one of two paths: either concluding that life is meaningless, and that what we have is the here-and-now, or by filling the void with a purpose set forth by a higher power - often a belief in God or adherence to a religion. However, even with a spiritual power as the answer to meaning, another question is posed: What is the purpose of God? Kierkegaard believed that there is no human-comprehensible purpose of God, making faith in God absurd. Camus on the other hand states that to believe in God is to 'deny one of the terms of the contradiction' between man and universe (and therefore not absurd), but returns to 'philosophical suicide.' Although Camus (as well as Kierkegaard) suggests that while absurdity does not lead to belief in God, neither does it lead to the denial of God. Camus notes, 'I did not say "excludes God," which would still amount to asserting.'"

"For some, suicide is a solution when confronted with the futility of living a life devoid of all purpose, as it is only a means to quicken the resolution of one's ultimate fate. For Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus, suicide is not a worthwhile solution, because if life is veritably absurd, it is therefore even more absurd to counteract it; instead, we should engage in living, and reconcile the fact that we live in a world without purpose."

"For Camus, the beauty which people encounter in life makes it worth living. People may create meaning in their own lives, which may not be the objective meaning of life, but can still provide something for which to strive. However, he insisted that one must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd, lest the fictitious meaning take the place of the absurd."

"Camus introduced the idea of 'acceptance without resignation' as a way of dealing with the recognition of absurdity, asking whether or not man can 'live without appeal,' defining a 'conscious revolt' against the avoidance of absurdity of the world. In a world devoid of higher meaning or judicial afterlife, man becomes absolutely free. It is through this freedom that man can act either as a mystic (through appeal to some supernatural force) or an absurd hero (through a revolt against such hope). Henceforth, the absurd hero's refusal to hope becomes his singular ability to live in the present with passion."

[Wolf Larson]

Existentialism has been used to convince us that the so called meaning of life is to do and be what you want, whatever you desire- the world is at your fingertips side by side with your credit card and the only way to achieve this ideal self is through capitalism. The meaning of life has become to consume all manner of plastic gadgets and printed textiles. The meaning of life in America has become greed and self interest. At one point humanities meaning was found in community, socializing, empathy, altruism and just plain survival via mutual aid. This is still the case with many cultures but the bourgeois meaning is to live in order to attain wealth and live in order to consume. To live for the self. You cannot be who you want to be nor consume unless you first attain wealth. Capitalism has become the meaning of life and psychology/existentialism has been used to con us into believing all manner of distorted bunkum concerning so called human nature and the meaning of life. The meaning of life, the bourgeois say, is to basically live by Ayn Rands silly oath - I swear by my life and my love of it I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine. Greed. Those of us who reject that shifty meaning feel lost at times because we're stuck in the middle of a nation where apathy, ignorance abject self interest/ greed and consumerism is the norm. I'm obviously projecting ;)

[ckaihatsu]

This comment really lends itself to a differentiation and discussion of *means* and *ends*....





Existentialism has been used to convince us that the so called meaning of life is to do and be what you want, whatever you desire- the world is at your fingertips side by side with your credit card and the only way to achieve this ideal self is through capitalism.




At one point humanities meaning was found in community, socializing, empathy, altruism and just plain survival via mutual aid.


In a trade-off between individualism or communitarianism I would side with the *individualism* side of things. Existentialism is actually helpful as a *counter* to the tradition of authoritarian religious groupthink that has plagued human society for far too long, one that enforces an arbitrary canon of common belief as the price for social cohesion.

Besides, *shouldn't* we do and be what we want? *Shouldn't* we have the material means for the same available to us without hassle? If not then what is the alternative to it?

Of course this *doesn't* mean that the economic system of capitalism and bourgeois (class-based) government is the best way to achieve individualism. Marxism gives us an evolution of societal structure so that we're *not* encumbered by our own machinery -- *another* personality-sucking trap.





The meaning of life has become to consume all manner of plastic gadgets and printed textiles. The meaning of life in America has become greed and self interest.


Because of the systemic-crisis nature of capitalism it has always looked for a "release valve" of sorts, or "progress" -- whichever way you'd like to look at it. Ever since the Old World got developed and "locked-up" in the middle of the last millennium it looked for a "release valve" and found it in the exploration and colonization of the New World. In the 19th century the U.S. became the de facto "cutting edge" for whatever could be considered as capitalist "progress" -- basically neo-imperialism / domination of the world's key markets.

So with the U.S. in the driver's seat it's had to provide the shining example of 'civilization' to the rest of the capitalist world while enjoying the privilege of retaining the world's most powerful military and reserve currency standard.

Likewise, the Western population has enjoyed a commensurate position of privilege, respective to those whose countries and economies have been victimized by colonization. This generalized privilege is *not necessarily* a *bad* thing, and *should not* be dismissively written off from an anti-consumeristic stance. This is because, such as it is, it *does* provide people with greater *means* for the realization of their own individuality, moreso than if they were under the heel of colonization or under-development.

There is a *tradeoff* between the *quality* of culture and its *democratization*. If you want to see *high* culture the tradeoff is that it's going to be elitist, most people are *not* going to be able to access it, and it will cause widespread resentment. But, on the flipside, the twentieth century has enabled a global *democratization* of culture so that more people are able to access more variety through their [mail, travels, telephones, radios, films, televisions, faxes, cassettes, VCRs, printed media, photocopiers, and now through the Internet.] Perhaps the peak isn't as tall anymore, with the base being wider, but materially we *can't* have it both ways.





This is still the case with many cultures but the bourgeois meaning is to live in order to attain wealth and live in order to consume. To live for the self. You cannot be who you want to be nor consume unless you first attain wealth.


Here you're discussing the *ideology* of capitalism, which, taken by itself, is *bound* to be crude simply because it *has* to be *general* to the overall economic system. The profit motive is what drives capitalist "growth", and so its ideological counterpart is the crude value of acquisitiveness. *But* -- thinking for ourselves we *may* customize this framework to maximize our individuality and self-worth without falling prey to the system's overarching ideology itself.





Capitalism has become the meaning of life and psychology/existentialism has been used to con us into believing all manner of distorted bunkum concerning so called human nature and the meaning of life.


I really think you're *overreaching* here by *dismissing* people's individuality and better-minded motivations.

Does capitalism's acquisitive mode color people's lives into adopting overly materialistic motivations? Certainly. But neither are people such mindless lemmings, either, as you seem to be indicating. There has actually been a *blossoming* of grassroots culture in the post-WWII era as more modern conveniences and tools have been made available to consumers for their leisurely pursuits.





The meaning of life, the bourgeois say, is to basically live by Ayn Rands silly oath - I swear by my life and my love of it I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine. Greed. Those of us who reject that shifty meaning feel lost at times because we're stuck in the middle of a nation where apathy, ignorance abject self interest/ greed and consumerism is the norm. I'm obviously projecting


In terms of means and ends we need to look at what's *enabled*, and what's the *price* for it. Our contemporary era has enabled much, but as Marxists we know that the humanistic price has been unwarranted, to put it lightly.

I don't want to say that I *agree* with Ayn Rand, but there's a good case to be made for living one's *own life*, without existential obligations *or* acquiescence to the influence of others. Again, the *alternative* to such individualism really belongs in the *past* and collectively we should *not* allow the mode of communitarian imperatives to rear its ugly head again. (I'm more in line with the thinking of Oscar Wilde, as can be seen in my profile.)

There is *no* capitalist law on the books that says you *must* live according to the law of greed -- nor of apathy, ignorance, abject self-interest, or consumerism, for that matter. Our collective *obligation* continues to be with the working class of the world, since its enlightened empowerment remains as humanity's unfinished business.

[Wolf Larson]

This comment really lends itself to a differentiation and discussion of *means* and *ends*....







In a trade-off between individualism or communitarianism I would side with the *individualism* side of things. Existentialism is actually helpful as a *counter* to the tradition of authoritarian religious groupthink that has plagued human society for far too long, one that enforces an arbitrary canon of common belief as the price for social cohesion.

Besides, *shouldn't* we do and be what we want? *Shouldn't* we have the material means for the same available to us without hassle? If not then what is the alternative to it?

Of course this *doesn't* mean that the economic system of capitalism and bourgeois (class-based) government is the best way to achieve individualism. Marxism gives us an evolution of societal structure so that we're *not* encumbered by our own machinery -- *another* personality-sucking trap.





Because of the systemic-crisis nature of capitalism it has always looked for a "release valve" of sorts, or "progress" -- whichever way you'd like to look at it. Ever since the Old World got developed and "locked-up" in the middle of the last millennium it looked for a "release valve" and found it in the exploration and colonization of the New World. In the 19th century the U.S. became the de facto "cutting edge" for whatever could be considered as capitalist "progress" -- basically neo-imperialism / domination of the world's key markets.

So with the U.S. in the driver's seat it's had to provide the shining example of 'civilization' to the rest of the capitalist world while enjoying the privilege of retaining the world's most powerful military and reserve currency standard.

Likewise, the Western population has enjoyed a commensurate position of privilege, respective to those whose countries and economies have been victimized by colonization. This generalized privilege is *not necessarily* a *bad* thing, and *should not* be dismissively written off from an anti-consumeristic stance. This is because, such as it is, it *does* provide people with greater *means* for the realization of their own individuality, moreso than if they were under the heel of colonization or under-development.

There is a *tradeoff* between the *quality* of culture and its *democratization*. If you want to see *high* culture the tradeoff is that it's going to be elitist, most people are *not* going to be able to access it, and it will cause widespread resentment. But, on the flipside, the twentieth century has enabled a global *democratization* of culture so that more people are able to access more variety through their travels, radios, televisions, printed media, and now through the Internet. Perhaps the peak isn't as tall anymore, with the base being wider, but materially we *can't* have it both ways.





Here you're discussing the *ideology* of capitalism, which, taken by itself, is *bound* to be crude simply because it *has* to be *general* to the overall economic system. The profit motive is what drives capitalist "growth", and so its ideological counterpart is the crude value of acquisitiveness. *But* -- thinking for ourselves we *may* customize this framework to maximize our individuality and self-worth without falling prey to the system's overarching ideology itself.





I really think you're *overreaching* here by *dismissing* people's individuality and better-minded motivations.

Does capitalism's acquisitive mode color people's lives into adopting overly materialistic motivations? Certainly. But neither are people such mindless lemmings, either, as you seem to be indicating. There has actually been a *blossoming* of grassroots culture in the post-WWII era as more modern conveniences and tools have been made available to consumers for their leisurely pursuits.





In terms of means and ends we need to look at what's *enabled*, and what's the *price* for it. Our contemporary era has enabled much, but as Marxists we know that the humanistic price has been unwarranted, to put it lightly.

I don't want to say that I *agree* with Ayn Rand, but there's a good case to be made for living one's *own life*, without existential obligations *or* acquiescence to the influence of others. Again, the *alternative* to such individualism really belongs in the *past* and collectively we should *not* allow the mode of communitarian imperatives to rear its ugly head again. (I'm more in line with the thinking of Oscar Wilde, as can be seen in my profile.)

There is *no* capitalist law on the books that says you *must* live according to the law of greed -- nor of apathy, ignorance, abject self-interest, or consumerism, for that matter. Our collective *obligation* continues to be with the working class of the world, since its enlightened empowerment remains as humanity's unfinished business.

Thanks for your reply above. I'm going to defiantly read it all and respond to it later. I've been looking at my computer screen for 2 hours and my brain is fizzling away into a bottle of wine and my girlfriend is awaiting. For now read my posts in this thread concerning Sartre/existentialism being used to justify capitalism in America http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-anyone-read-t129449/index.html

[black magick hustla]

At the risk of (heretically) giving some sort of agency to ideas here, I want to suggest that you're not taking the problem of nihilism seriously enough. That is, as an historical problem as it emerges in Nietzsche's diagnosis. Nihilism appears precisely with the collapse of those great metaphysical projects of antiquity which granted meaning to human life by locating it elsewhere -- in the immortality of the soul, the redemption to come, the world of ideas, etc. -- the meaning herein granted is vanquished at the moment such metanarratives proved themselves incredulous. The issue here, however, is not utility, but of a value-laden notion of purpose. Utility as you describe it I think comes on the scene in the aftermath of the 'twilight of the idols'....

I think class societies, and particularly advanced capitalism, have a role to play here -- there seems to be a certain existential anxiety animating the desire behind rabid consumption of commodities, and we can get into a whole discussion about 'alienation' and its relation to meaning or existential fulfillment -- but I think it's naive to chalk the entire question up to a sort of bourgeois ideology. Indeed, I would say that capitalism, as one of the prime historical forces of modernity, has been one of the chief culprits in 'killing god' (or traditional metaphysics, if you prefer)... to paraphrase the manifesto, "all that is sacred is profaned; all that is solid melts into air." Marx knew traditional religions (or for that matter, tradition itself) wouldn't survive capitalism. Certainly the logic of capitalist accumulation provides its own answer to the anxiety it produces, unfulfilling as we all know it to be. This is of course because the value-laden notion of purpose provided by traditional metaphysics (christian or platonic, pick your favorite) has been replaced by an instrumental-rationality of endless accumulation with no payoff. This is Weber's 'iron cage'; the value-rationality of Protestantism (which no doubt is another culprit in this scheme) is supplanted by the routinization of labor. This is where utility enters, as all that's left is mere utility, instrumentality with no end. However, capitalism hasn't produced the notion of 'meaning' as such -- we can find this question emerging much much earlier in societies not driven by the same logic of accumulation. It's just reformulated it, stripping it of it's original value form.

Getting to the bottom of this question is tricky though... it seems foundational for what we refer to as modernity, and I think you can draw up a number of culprits here, capitalism being one, but also Protestantism, modern science, epistemology, etc.

Nihilism is a real thing. I don't think the solution has anything to do with answering those great questions though. Belief in some good does not entail an answer to the question of meaning of life, nor a philosophical rationale behind it. It is something that comes from the gut, and people who ponder about it are the bearded alcoholics that burn their day in the pub.

Meaning of life is not an answer to the question posed by capitalism. But it is the question of civilization and class society.