Optimus Template

This “dichotomy of perspectives” we could say is the character of our time and one cause of our present confusion of values. It is a clash between the view, on the one hand, asserting that truth, morality are self-evident common sense, prevalent in most of the world religions. The counter-perspective on the other hand, says that all morals are relative to be decided by each individual according to one's own interest. Both can’t be true. One must naturally contend with the other. This is the character of our time.

What is the genesis of the ideas that gave impetus to this counter-perspective; our modern, secular, individualistic assertions?

The Turn from Moral Absolutes

The “Victorian Era” is thought to be the time that comprised the reign of Queen Victoria from 1839 to 1901. Despite the claimed reverence for puritan ideals and having spawned the anti-slavery movement and women’s suffrage, the Victorian era also brought about numerous injustices and subsequent challenges to Christianity, including the growing trends of materialism, rationalism, communism, and “higher criticism” of the Bible. The theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin also struck at core truths of Christianity, that man was created by God, created in God’s image, and responsible for his sinful actions.

Darwin, in his early years, was a rather pious person who viewed scientific truth as the handiwork of the God of nature. Some theorized that the death of his beloved daughter Annie, in 1851, had a profound effect in hardening Darwin toward the idea of God and his Christian faith. Eventually, Darwin’s theory had great implications not only in the field of the biological sciences, but also and in the fields of philosophy and sociology. It became the empirical basis for the new ideas of the radical social sciences, especially those that sought to redefine humanity and society away from the perspective and influence of religion.

“By discovering evolution, Charles Darwin, a respectable Victorian, probably did more damage to religious faith than any priest-hating revolutionary.” - “Stop in the name...,” The Economist, November 1, 2007

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th century philosopher who is thought to be, along with Soren Kierkegaard, a pioneer of existential thought. Nietzsche is best known for his “death of God” theories. “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him ... Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

He believed that whereas, the belief in God may have been necessary in the past, henceforth it would be the ideal of “ubermensch” or superman, first introduced in his most popular work Thus spoke Zarathrustra, published in 1883. This was the idea that the individual would subjectively determine truth, value and principles rather than having to accommodate external principles, laws, faiths or theories. Nietzsche said that life could not be explained as “good and evil,” there was no universal morality; no prior good ... there was only “a will for power.”

In the new field of psycho-analysis, as a young student in Vienna, Sigmund Freud was especially intrigued by Darwin’s new theories of evolution. Freud had a significant interest in the study of “sexual desire.” He had come to perceive desire in terms of formative drives, instincts and appetites that “naturally” determined one’s behaviors and beliefs. Following the biological perspective of Darwin, Freud therefore established a model for the “normal” sexual development of the human subject, what he termed the “libido” development.” In doing so, he effectively gave a dubious scientific justification for circumventing the Judeo-Christian moral system and its emphasis on self regulation of the sexual appetite. Whereas Freud recognized that civilization would not be possible without constrains on sexual desire, he, nevertheless, felt such constrains conveyed a negative impact upon the personal fulfillment of individual.

"Our civilization is, generally speaking, founded on the suppression of instincts.' Sex produces the energy, and it is repressed so the energy can be channeled into progress - but the price of progress is the prevalence of guilt instead of happiness."

It was a trend of thought that would continue into the 20th century with the development of the new field of "sexology" with Alfred Kinsey's "Kinsey Reports" and later with the research of William Masters and Virginia Johnson. All would contribute to the gathering storm of the 1950's and 60's "sexual revolution" which would be an effort to, once and for all, do away with the traditional values upon which the family and society had been based. It would lead to the "voluntary suicide" that Sorokin had predicted.

The 1960's

Frustration over the Vietnam war and the perceived superficiality of the American lifestyle created a stir within the youth of the 1960’s and 70’s. Seeking a new definition of how life should be lived, young people across the nation began to “turn-on, tune-in and drop-out.” That is, to reject the values and precepts of the norms handed down to them from their parents. Most “hippies” no doubt, were following their own brand of how to live “free,”

However, the tenets that were bearing the greatest influence upon the “Woodstock Nation” were being defined and motivated by specific trends that had their roots in 19th century materialist and existentialist thought and were being disseminated by an intellectual elite on college campuses across the nation. The campus was a hotbed of the new radical ideas making the case for selfish individualism. The institution of the university, itself, was being transformed by radical new definitions of the education mission.

Whereas, many of the most renowned universities had been founded, initially, as seminaries, by the end of World War 2, there had been a radical transformation of educational philosophy. The manifestation of that change, was cited by the Harvard Report on General Education, 1945:

…the “unifying purpose” of American higher education as recently as a century ago was “to train the Christian citizen,” but this idea has largely disappeared from all but a few institutions.

John Dewey probably had more to do with that transformation then anyone in the first half of the twentieth century. He was a highly regarded American philosopher also renowned in the fields of psychology and social reform. His greatest efforts, however, were in the area of educational reform. His book on the subject, Democracy and Education remains a historical benchmark in the development of the modern American philosophy of education. It was Dewey that had the greatest influence toward turning education away from transcendental objectives and toward the more pragmatic.

Commenting on Dewey's long-term effect on education in America, William Adrian, in his book, Truth, Freedom and (Dis)order in the American University says:

“Dewey felt that science alone contributed to ‘human good,’ which he defined exclusively in naturalistic terms. He rejected religion and metaphysics as valid supports for moral and social values, and felt that success of the scientific method presupposed the destruction of old knowledge before the new could be created.”

By, effectively, rejecting the religious and metaphysical basis of moral and social values as a core principle of a new educational philosophy, Dewey was recreating the college campus to be an institution in conflict with the founding principles of its own nation. The new mission of education was to fundamentally change America. A baby-boomer generation was made ready to be its first customers.

Herbert Marcuse, referred to by many as the “Father of the counterculture movement, was a philosopher and author. Probably his most influential work “Eros and Civilization” released in 1955, was an odd synthesis of Freudian psychology and Marxist thought.

“Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another.”

Marcuse greatly influenced some of the most well-known leaders of the new counter-culture movement. Both Angela Davis and Abbie Hoffman had been his students.

Margaret Mead, in the new field of cultural anthropology had a huge influence on the 60’s counterculture and the sexual revolution. In her work, Coming of Age in Samoa, She took a decidedly positive position with regard to the cultures of the South Pacific that engaged in unconstrained sexual practices. Not only were these practices portrayed as healthy, but typically, cultural anthropologists also took a dim view of the institution of marriage.

“I think the nuclear family is an abomination. It’s a very adaptive device for immigration, emigration, from the country to the city, and it serves the purposes of large industry and powerful states very well, because the nuclear family’s so helpless in the face of society.” Margaret Mead, 1974 ABC National Radio (Australia)

Jean-Paul Sartre, popularized the ideas of 19th century existentialism beginning with the "avant-garde of the 1940’s and 50’s and continuing as the preferred philosophy of the 60’s generation. The existentialism of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, that is, the idea that moral behavior was to be determined by each individual, was well-suited for a generation bent on self-indulgence.

“Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky said, ‘If God didn’t exist, everything would be possible.’ That is the very starting point of Existentialism.”

In various ways, these and other intellectuals such as Charles Reich, Susan Sontag, Fritz Perls, Paul Goodman (Perls and Goodman were the co-founders of Gestalt Therapy) and Norman O. Brown, all preached a similar new countercultural gospel: “If it feels good, do it.” Some, like Kinsey and Goodman, even affirmed that restrictions against adult-child sex were oppressive and should be discarded. All these combined into a potent materialist cocktail that appeared to be giving a rational, scientific and philosophical justification for a secular, selfish individualism and a lifestyle of self-indulgence.

It was not much different than the one given by the serpent in Eden. Just as Adam and Eve suffered the consequences of compromise, America, too, would begin to suffer consequences of her own.

The Popular Culture

The rise of American “popular culture” can be more accurately understood as a media phenomenon. A whole generation of Americans that had been conditioned by the values of the counterculture era was its enablers. They had already grown accustomed during the 60’s and 70’s to having their ideas expressed via, music, movies, magazines and television and, thus, those ideas flourished as the media and entertainment industries flourished.

The ideas that had exclusively been disseminated on college campuses, were now also taken up by the new evangelists of popular culture; its media, sports and entertainment stars. The preaching of the “if it feels good, do it” gospel expanded. This time it was accompanied with a music video in celebration of self-indulgence and self-destructive behavior; all pushing the envelope of moral corruption and stretching new limits of what we would tolerate as the norm.

Ideas have consequences. The turn from the religious basis of our moral system and toward a selfish, secular individualism over the course of decades has now brought us to the precipice. The spectacle each year of “Spring Break” is a perverse example. Hundreds of thousands of college youth exalt the most vile and destructive hedonistic behavior imaginable. According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, forty-nine percent (3.8 million) of full time college students binge drink and/or abuse prescription and illegal drugs.The media cashes in promoting every vile minute. What happens in Vegas does not stay in Vegas. It rots our national soul. Consider the following studies that indicate today's pervasive influence of media: