20th Century as Effect of Decline of Christianity?

Originally posted by gcle2003 What's wrong with looking for back-up to one's arguments? This is an online discussion group. I can't show you a book. There's not much point in referring you to a book, because you may not have it available. So I need a web reference. And the way you find those is to use a search engine.   That was really rather a silly remark, unless you can suggest an alternative.

You're missing the point. I don't have anything against providing online references or materials, but against those people (and I think you're such an individual, however my belief can be proven wrong) who have little knowledge in a field, but failing to concede when shown wrong, they start to browse the internet searching for desperate arguments, therefore bringing a lot of relatively irrelevant (and sometimes worse, even inaccurate) materials. Your quote said nothing about how Epicur's philosophy was or was not Hedonistic, which was the core of our quarrel. You can't just throw random quotes on Epicur's philosophy and claim your point proven.

What you could do instead, if you don't like the quote, is find another one to counter it.

If this how you do it, now your stubborness and incapacity to concede have a plausible justification: if you don't like what you see then you find (google or invent or whatever ...) something to counter it. Well, I'm not playing such games ...

Of course I don't think hedonism only refers to physical pleasure. That's why I quoted the Declaration of Independence (which I didn't have to google for). 'The pursuit of happiness' is quite a good definition of hedonism. Anyway what's your definition, and where do you get it from? And you might as well define what you mean by 'egoism' too, since that seems to be a rather free-floating concept.

I already provided you links which define egoism and hedonism and also faced your original interpretation of the Independence declaration with such definitions. Your failure to read is not my duty to explain. Especially when you don't have the decency to address, when you don't have the decency to concede.
On Hedonism and the Independence of America I will detail a bit below, where you further address this topic.

It's altruistic in that you are funding other people with your taxes. Now I admit that frequently people have to be forced to pay taxes and don't want to. My point is though that over most of the world many more people now happily pay taxes to support the poor, sick, old and otherwise unfortunate. They vote for governments that do that. They choose to do it.

I think you have a flawed vision of the modern society and you're not exploring the alternatives to see why you can be wrong (and my opinion you quite are). One is funding primarily himself when paying taxes, not someone else. Even an altruistic rational person cannot deny that what he pays comes back in a form or another.
Were you to be in a country with no tax system you'd assume on your own the risks of getting old without a material basis, the risks of getting sick without having proper care, the risks of having your daughter left preganant and receiving little/no help. Of course, if you're strong, hard-working, intelligent, pragmatical, healthy, lucky, etc. your risks diminish. But would you count on that? (few do, and they promote systems based on Objectivism or Ethical egoism - like Libertarianism, where everyone must look for himself; however there are many individuals which though they do not adher to such systems, they want welfare states with less involvement - these invididuals are more rather dynamic, earn higher incomes etc.)
Maybe an analogy will provide a better understanding: such "common budgets" I've seen put in practice even in smaller communities. For instance, in my company we're receiving a gift on our birthdays. But in order to have it, after we experienced for years various ways of collecting money, we decided to put away a small sum every month. Of course, it may happen that I'd be in vacation on my birthday, or that I'll change jobs before my birthday come, or that I don't like the gift, or any other scenario you can imagine that would prevent me truly enjoying what I'm paying for - with all that not the altruism makes me pay that sum, but a certain rationality of cooperation. Similarily, not altruism makes me pay the taxes or whatever I pay. And I make a difference between paying and giving, between participating, cooperating, working together and giving ;)

The picture is somewhat different in the US of course, where opposition to welfare and taxes is deeply entrenched. But - strengthening my overall point - the US is more Christian than other developed countries, as well as more backward with regard to social welfare, and the need for the community to care for the disadvantaged.

Let's leave American correlations aside for the moment and focus on European ones - you can easily browse for studies on the internet about tax paying and such reforms:
 http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/2004-27.pdf (tax paying positive attitude is correlated in Austria with Church attendance - however let's note that it's not correlated with a Christian non-egoism or such, more details in the paper)
 http://www.tarki.hu/kiadvany-e/tax-awareness/index.html (in Hungary, the adherents for reforms, like I suggested above, are rather young, rather earn higher wages; also there's some statistical correlation which seem to point out that self-interest is what drives peoples' attitude to taxes).
I'm sure you can find several more such studies about Europe, but I doubt you'll find many that will show strong correlation between altruism and tax-paying or that people would rather not pay taxes because they are Christian or other such unrealistic claims.

I think this is a blinkered viewpoint that derives from looking only at the American situation. American attitudes are not typical since Americans contribute considerably less than any other developed country to overseas aid.

I am not living in US, I've never been to US, I know little of American society. It's funny to have you pontificate what's typical when you identified attitudes I've experienced in Europe as American. Moreover, I live in a country which had received aids, I also know few people involved in various NGOs and I know some ugly hidden parts of the "charity" and of the "volunteering".
A late 70s Telefunken TV set sent to the poor as aid in mid 90s doesn't look neither American, nor altruistic. It is rather: don't put all garbage in front of the door, send it away! Or: my neighbours know now I'm a generous person. Or: I really don't care where this TV set is going!

Hyperbole. It is much much more common for people to voluntary pay tayes and support social welfare structures than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Immensely so.

This hyperbole is preached in the New Testament. This is what kindness and altruism is. As opposed to egoism.
When supporting social welfare many see their own interest when contributing.
As for your anachronistic comparision, would you care to bring a piece of evidence? (I wonder how many social welfare structures will you be able to find out in those times, anyway)

They don't have to give up ALL their wealth to support others. It's enough to be ready to give up some of it.

It's not enough. Helping a handful of poor people out of millions while you have the resources to do more? So you're basically leaving people in misery / to die (the same point applies on the ephemeral character of your help, he will have something to eat - but for how long?, he will have a warm cloth - for how many winters? etc.). People die because of your sufficiency (not only, like I said there are many rotten undergrounds in "charity"). If you care about them, you give all you can give. If you don't care, then why bother? Don't attempt to transform the social conventions and the image campaigns in some altruistic acts when their intentions are so far away from such a thing.

Hyperbole again. Of course it isn't certain. Nothing in life is certain. It's providing the possibility that is the point.   That's as nutty as saying we can't have an immediate ceasefire because we want one that is guaranteed to last.

What you call a hyperbole it's an actual point you missed. You simply can't argue that are no people with prepaid/assured bed in Western Europe. If anything was hyperbolized here was your initial premise.

Yes they can. Unless you're an EU citizen, which you may be. Or of course, you could have arranged accomodation somewhere else.

To be an EU citizen in Europe is not quite an extraordinary thing, is it?
However this claim becomes untrue if it's taken generally for EU. As a non-EU citizen (but probably not from any other country) one is allowed to travel in several EU countries (can't tell if in all; i.e. I'm not 100% sure if you can arrive today in Munich with no accomodation as a non-EU citizen, but certainly you get to Milano) if he shows he has enough money. I don't know what are the exact amounts and all the differences and nuances from country to country.

What does the conventionally accepted extent of private space to do with anything we're talking about? There's no connection to Christianity, and none to how well off people are now compared to 100 years ago.

Huh?
I was talking about the (non-conventional) willingness to give. You seem to support this funny idea that to give is providing some (many times apparent) material advantage (which probably you don't care about it, anyway) to someone else.
As for connections, I'm not responsible for your personal problems. I wrote, you didn't address, and I'm a bit bored to keep repeating, rephrasing or pulling out words or sentences you ignored from whatever reasons.
This huge paranthesis about private space started from one brief example that it's easier to appeal to someone's pity/kindness (humanity) in a rather undeveloped part of the Europe than in developed ones. You probably lost the track of the discussion, as you prove repeatedly.

Scandinavians like a lot more private space that Italians. So what? Also it hasn't changed in the last 100 years.

Perhaps so. Since you enjoy correlations, you might want to know there is a larger percent of atheists in Scandinavia, and consequently a smaller percent of religious (particularily and, of course, mainly Christian) individuals.

Accepted. Which is why pagan and other pre-Christian traditions have lingered longer there, as I said.

True, but also the Christian traditions and also syntheses between such traditions, that's why - like I already said - it's rather a Pagano-Christian culture.

I'm not objecting to your rural-urban comparison, though rural societies can in fact be pretty paranoid and distrustful of outsiders. They do tend to look after their own however.

However I think that happens seldom at society-level and rather certain individuals are distrustful, as their own experiences made them to. Also, I find interesting to notice the outsiders are likelier to be rejected if they pose a bothering difference, which eventually freightens the limited horizon of some people. In such case, when the outsider/other is demonized, then you can have a rejection at society-level. And education is what makes rural societies easily manipulable. But I'm already diverging ...

The point is it was attacked by the Puritans, and reduced in Puritan society. The decline of Puritanism, and to some extent Christianity in general, allowed hedonism to re-emerge.

Ad nauseam. This may have happened only in those Puritan societies (though the possible causes seem more complex than you think). The hedonism generally, or world-wide, cannot be put in relation with Western Puritanism. I already challenged you to identify that special flavour of Western hedonism which could, but so far you failed to. 

I don't see how anyone can look at contemporary advertising, see contemporary films, listen to contemporary music or watch contemporary TV without realising that hedonism is much more blatantly appealed to than it used to be.

You're missing the point completely. We were talking about ethical systems, therefore about hedonism as an ethical philosophy (please read that Wikipedia article for some basics). Hedonism in this sense is not an antonymous to austerity (that's also why I replied to you above that the causalities, if any, are more complex).
 

Something similar incidentally occurred with the rise of Epicurean and Stoic philosophies in the ancient world: they were also associated with a decline in hedonism.

Huh? So you're saying the rise of Epicurean philosophy is associated with a decline in hedonism?

Was Waterloo a defeat for Napoleon or a victory for Wellington? Did Napoleon lose the battle because Wellington won it, or did Wellington win it because Napoleon lost it?

Quite a fallacious analogy. You're equivocating two cultural movements whose relation you haven't proved with two generals leading their armies. Please ...

You might care to read the discussion of the article

What exactly should I consider from that discussion?

I fail to see how you can distinguish 'pursuit of happiness' from 'pursuit of pleasure', especially given the multitudinous interpretations of 'pleasure' that abound in this context. Is happiness not pleasant, in your view? Or does pleasure not make you happy?

You're off the road. Hedonism, as I brought it into the discussion, postulates an ethical position. Hedonism does not allow a right to choose its principles or not. While the declaration of independence just lists some rights we have. We are free to be happy if this is what we want, however we are not forced to be happy, there's no ethical constraint to be happy. The only constraint given is to respect these rights, which ethically, does not translate through hedonism.

Precisely why I recommended both of them. Have you read either? I even said in an earlier post that there different schools of thought about the causation factor. What I said was undeniable (and undenied) is that the two movements were correlated.

Your memory is not your greatest asset. This thread of the discussion started from this claim of yours:
"Capitalism is an offshoot of Christian puritanism "( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/offshoot - to anticipate minimalization or denial ) therefore you stated Christian puritanism is a cause of Capitalism (in this new context of your referenced material, that would somehow Weber's point).
Furthermore, you expanded your point to an ambiguous causality (maintaining just the correlation), metamorphosizing your earlier certitude to a "dispute":

I rejected this avoidance to support your earlier claim by invoking the famous charicaturization of the correlations.

Then you offered me the books. So, my choices would be:
- you simply have not read/understood Tawney, as some days ago you claimed with all strength "Capitalism is an offshoot of Christian puritanism"
- you're a Weberian revisionist (but that supports also the above point, too - you have not read/understood Tawney)
- you have read and understood Tawney in the last few days, which only puts on you the mark of a dishonest intellectuality as you haven't mentioned your recent lecture, your recent change of thoughts.

 

 

Why not stick to the point of the thread?

Originally posted by Chilbudios I tried to in my first message and since then I'm defending against your objections.