My friend made this comment:
Brooks explains the advantage of devotion to institutions (social functions) rather than personal happiness (psychic profits), e.g., "...a farmer’s relation to her land is not an individual choice that can be easily reversed when psychic losses exceed psychic profits. Her social function defines who she is..." I'm not sure what I think.I replied with this comment:
I like the article. I think there is a balance to be found between the two ways of thinking. Sometimes the institutions need changes. But I think I agree that sometimes the basic foundations of those institutions should be left alone. I do agree that excessively individualistic thinking is one of the most destructive aspects of our culture right now.Another friend from college responded with:
I'm not sure the article spoke to the balance Rebecca mentions as much as I'd like. I don't think there is any institutional practice that is beyond questioning. I think it is important to teach students to question the status quo. But it is also important to arm them with tools to help them discern things that should be changed from things that should not. One should always question, but with an open mind to the possibility that the way things are is best. The author seems to allude to a point that there are institutions that work so well or do so much good one should not question their practices, and I disagree.To which I then replied:
I agree that education should provide the tools to question the status quo and then discern what should be changed and what should not. (I would also argue that the vast majority of modern educational institutions fail at this task gravely, but that is a different post.)Does anyone else have comments or input on this subject?
Then the question becomes how do we discern what is good and what is not? Is there some standard to use? What is that standard? Either social institutions are judged against a standard, or they aren't. If there is no standard, then the discernment is all subjective. It becomes on "me" or a selfish "us."
But if there is a standard, then maybe the standard is wrong and we should move the standard. The standard doesn't "feel right" to me, so it should change? It is too hard, so it should change? It's not "fun enough"? Where does that end? It ends the same way.
When you get down to it, either there is some kind of objective reality...objective truth, if you will, or there isn't.
If there isn't any sort of objective truth, then we can educate until we're blue in the face with little effect. If there is no objective reality, then we have nothing left other than self-centeredness. We will ultimately be most concerned about looking after our own interests, rather than the interests of others (the community). (Philippians 2:4) Everyone chooses their own moral code. Those that are loudest may get policy enacted to support them. Perhaps not.
Without that objective moral code in place throughout the social institutions and society as a whole, we ultimately decay into the situation we are in today. That code becomes so decayed that actions that would have once been nearly inconceivable become such common practice that a whole system collapses. In this case, the bankers and money managers became so concerned with their own interests, they forgot the larger role they played in society.