hipsteria

in response to http://www.alternet.org/belief/oral-sex-yoga-and-gods-eternal-wrath-inside-new-hipster-megachurch-tells-modern-women-submit?page=0%2C1&paging=off

A hipster is a person who sees the development of a personal aesthetic as a synthetic, therefore hypocritical, and thus necessarily objectionable exercise. Relativist of morals but studious of history, they would reject the evils of the various philosophical experiments attempted by humankind without seeking to create an alternative in its place. They are not simply as the writers against religion who oppose every system while proffering none of their own, avoiding the necessity of defending a position; they oppose the proffer. Sometimes they embrace an existing aesthetic system, but always with the irony, hence shallowness, and thus even their postulation thereof is itself an act of rejection.

Yet they cannot call this desert Peace, or at least, not for long: soon they leave the collegium, they enter the world, they move from the world of ideas to that of things (and, moveover, of people)… and, above all, are one day forced to answer the questions of a child, to whom no absence is peaceful; and in the face of the challenges of parentage the maintenance of such an attitude can either be offensive or else indicative of sociopathy. No parent raised in morality, or in any sort of human society, can allow themselves to raise a child without it. A man may be an island; a child is not. Nature abhors a vacuum, particularly of a functional moral system, and a liberally educated proto-yuppie with a small child seems to be the state of nature incarnate. As it should be.

As a result it is small wonder to me that they, having never developed a moral compass, more compare to a pendulum: they swing to the extremes, and in response to imminent necessity they bind to a system that is comprehensive, ancient, of indubitable utility but likewise intractable rigidity. Unpracticed at choice, having practiced only rejection and thus incapable of selective appraisal (and, thus, of reasoned consideration), they abdicate their responsibility for determining a personal morality and instead embrace only the pret-a-porter. They are not free of self-imposed tutelage; they seek it blindly; they turn off the lights specifically that they may grope for it in the dark.

In short, I am not surprised at the burgeoning of interest in socially pervasive religions among the bourgeoisie. I expect that 99% of the beliefs which they adopt will be preferable to the apathy they otherwise espouse. Yet the remaining 1% is troubling – socio-moral systems, I believe, may approach Utopia asymptotically; but thinking that they may attain it, as thinking that one and one’s have attained it, is a dangerous notion at best, and dull always. Certitude is easy; humility, hard; and I for one think that anyone who finds the world less than humbling is not a person I would much like to have as a neighbor. For whatever the qualities of the system in question, to avoid a rational and reasoned discussion thereof – an ever-continuing discussion! – with both one’s peers and oneself! – is no fit use for our minds nor our time on this earth. It is unworthy, not just of an intellectual, but a man.

Apparently I’m a humanist on Thursdays.

Advertisements

~ by davekov on 25 October 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: