T.S. Eliot 1939 - Amazing Quotes

[MDFrench]

Hey all,

Hope all is well. I was just reading a book for my history class called "Culture and Christianity" by T.S. Eliot. The book was published in the Golden Era, 1939, and what I am finding so fascinating about it is how truly prophetic it is. I didn't wanna post this publicly in case other people might be offended, but just reading some of it makes my jaw drop when I look around our world today.

For any of you here who are liberal politically or find offense in this post, I humbly apologize in advance. I have no agenda with this posting - I only found these quotes very interesting in light of today's global situation and wanted to share them here to start some intelligent discussion. I personally have no beef with anyone here and don't wish to. If you find these quotes interesting, I'd love to hear your comments, whether they be praising or critical.

Here are some actual quotes from the book:

"[Liberalism] is a movement not so much defined by its end, as by its starting point; away from, rather than towards, something definite."

"Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial, mechanised or brutalised control which is a desperate remedy for its chaos."

"But as [Liberalism's] movement is controlled rather by its origin than by any goal, it loses force after a series of rejections, and with nothing to destroy is left with nothing to uphold and with nowhere to go."

"My thesis has been, simply, that a liberalised or negative condition of society must either proceed into a gradual decline of which we can see no end, or reform itself into a positive shape which is likely to be effectively secular. We need not assume that this secularism will approximate closely to any system in the past or to any that can now be observed in order to be apprehensive about it: the Anglo-Saxons display a capacity for DILUTING their religion, probably in excess of that of any other race. But unless we are content with the prospect of one or the other of these issues, the only possibility left is that of a positive Christian society."

WOW - I was like, Man, Eliot was forseeing our dilemma today in the sociopolitical world. A golden age thinker figured all this out well before the quagmire we find ourselves in now. He also seemed to think that the Western World would only survive and thrive with the preservation of a wholly Christian structure to society, meaning, that our leaders might be of other faiths, but their tactics for dealing with problems must conform to the Christian way of life.

Personally, I embrace diversity, but I think Eliot was touching on what we are dealing with today with the whole Ten Commandments display debate and such - atheists trying to swing the public debate and facing opposition due to their inherently un-JudeoChristian debate tactics...or something. I am still reading the book, so maybe Eliot will explain himself more fully before the end.

Just wanted to share.

Mike

 

[MK]

.

An amazing mind. That is just about the most insightful definition of liberalism I have ever read.

 

[Slicksuit]

MDFrench - your post on Eliot's work is quite interesting. Not being familiar with his work outside of his poetry, I did some research:

It seems that Eliot's thesis is that Christianity and public society (at large) are intertwined. In his view, Christianity gives the set of moral absolutes for society to live by, a common thread and purpose. Liberalism is antithetical to this function, as it promotes personal autonomy.

Keep in mind also that Eliot was a product of his time. At the period of his writing, he was attempting to differentiate the U.K. from Nazist Germany, which he viewed himself as a pagan society. He was also expressing his views of the increasing secularization of British society.

An excellent treatment of Eliot's views can be found on the website for the Family Research Council.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT01A1

While my own personal views are liberal, I can appreciate Eliot's arguments to some degree. I am not a Christian - my faith most closely resembles Buddism. My faith goes beyond having a simple set of beliefs that are adhered to, in some sort of act of obedience. For me, faith is Trust, that life has an ultimate meaning and value. Trust in life and trust in God are one in the same.

God (or a higher power) is more than what most people commonly associate with or visualize as being . In fact, or notions of existence as applied to God are too limited. God cannot be visualized as a corporeal object that one can touch, like a glass of water or a table. God is transcendance. God is the life force in all of us, God suffises life. God is in each one of us. The Holy Trinity is regarded as a reminder that God is not just a simple personality, that God is not a "he". We must see God in everything around us and within everyone.

Nearly all religions have at their core the insistance that the ultimate reality is not just something 'out there', but is something that is profundly imminent and present. We cannot think of the divine without also thinking 'human' (the Christian equivalent of this that 'man was created in God's image). It is inherent on each of us to cultivate a sense of the divine, to look for it, to get glimpses of this transcendance.

What am I getting at in saying all this? Well, one of Eliot's core beliefs was that morals were derived from Christianity (as if Christianity is the only "moral" set of beliefs, but that is a whole other thread). In his view, without Christianity, man distances himself from morality. I have the opposite viewpoint...in the words of the philosopher William James: "religion is the hand-maiden of morality". Moral virtues can stand alone, in and of themselves, outside of the packaging of organized religion. And to come back full-circle: morality is profoundly present, as God is life, and life is within each of us. We don't have to ask God what morality entails - the answer is deep within each of us.

 

[artboynyc]

I would also just like to point out that a "Christian" society has never been an ideal society. Elliot might have liked to think of the Nazis as pagan, but in fact German fascism explicity intertwined government, business and Christianity (or its perverted version of it).

That Elliot's view of a Chrisitan society and Hitler's view of a Christian society were so entirely antithetical doesn't point out any flaws with Christianity, but it certainly does point how "Christian values" can be a dangerous basis for running government. Not that oppression of religion is a healthy model, either: witness the awful totalitarianism of the Soviet Union. I'd say George Orwell was a much more cogent thinker on this subject than Elliot, at least on the basis of this quote. (I'm only familiar with his poetry and plays.)

As its only been about 60 years since all of my European relatives were liquified by one of the most advanced nations of earth in the name of a pure Christian society, you'll pardon me if I'm a little passionate on the subject.

By the way, the idea that liberalism has only a negative agenda doesn't ring true. Have you ever read FDR's Four Freedoms (engraved on his monument in Washington) or his proposed Second Bill of Rights? As a fan of the "Golden Age", you'd be doing yourself a disservice if you didn't at least familiarize yourself with them. Granted, they won't turn a conservative into a liberal, but they certainly stand as a solid enunciation of liberal thought. It's fair to argue with them, but it's intellectually unsound to pretend they don't exist.

Elliot was, like me, a native St. Louisan, by the way, something he hated for people to bring up...

 

[MDFrench]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the insightful and thoughtful comment on these. To clear up a few points, as I have stated many times on this forum, I am a BIG fan of FDR and the old guard of Democrats in decades past. Also, I am not subscribing to the entirety of Eliot's beliefs. Rather, I am finding them to be a very interesting and striking viewpoint that is worth discussing in today's sociopolitical atmosphere.

Additionally, I greatly appreciate everyone's input on this thread. Intelligent discussion is so rarely found amongst my peers. Thanks for reading this and if you have any more thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

Regards,
Mike

 

[Slicksuit]

More musings...

Yes, liberalism may be defined by its distrust of religious authority in regards to its limitations on personal autonomy. Self-actualization and fulfillment, relalizing one's potential, is the highest goal of liberalism. What FDR did, with the New Deal and Four Freedoms, is characterize the daily struggle in a communal sense, with a 'do-it-yourself' mentality.

Liberal ideals are readily accepted by half of America's population, in my view, because America itself is an individualistic society. Contrast this with Japan, for instance, where the focus is more on the community. Is one better than the other? In my opinion no - both are important. But, I believe that if each individual is allowed to reach their full potential, the result will be a positive one in the communal sense, as the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So, to refute the first quote from Eliot, I think that liberalism can be defined by a realizible goal: the self-actualization of the individual. The definition of this self-actualization will be realitive to each individual, and the means to fullifilling it variable, but there you have it.

Christian values as being a dangerous basis for running government (as per Artboy): First, there were the various Inquistions (medieval, Roman, Spanish). Colonization and the subsequent destruction of native peoples by the Europeans (most notably the Incas and Aztecs of Central America). American colonists' destruction and pacification of Native Americans, who they viewed as 'savages'. The Salem witch trials and America's history with slavery (which used Bibilical interpretations to support) readily come to mind. Even in modern times, the fighting between Protestants and and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland are a good example. Christianity partially owes its resultant success as one of the most widely practised religions on the globe because of its historical tendency to trample on those who differ or disagree. The 'War on Terror' that we are currently embroiled in even seems to have features of a Christianity vs. Islam mentality. While not explicitly stated as such by our government, just ask a deep-southern rural patriot. (And readers, please do not take this as a wholesale endorsement of Radical Islam ... it is no better).

Mike, please don't interpret this as criticism, either (assuming that you are indeed a Christian Republican). I think that as Americans, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent...we all want the same things: secruity within our boarders, economic opportunity, etc. It's just the means in satisfying those wants that differ.

 

[MDFrench]

Hey Slick'

No worries. If I interpreted things like this as criticism, I couldn't claim to be open-minded and I certainly wouldn't post threads like this. I value new and different viewpoints. I like being well-rounded. I am also not the type to start a debate simply to disagree. As is the case here, I start debates to really listen to what others have to say, not with the intent of trying to shoot them down.

I don't like fighting, I like talking. And when I read this Eliot stuff, I wanted to talk, and the best place to do that is The Observation Bar!

Sincerest regards,
Mike

 

[MK]

.

If a member here goes and murders Ted Kennedy in the name of The Fedora Lounge because his brother played a major roll in men not wearing hats doesn't mean this place or it's members are maniac killers.

Just because someone says they are doing something in the name of God doesn't mean that it is true and God shouldn't be blamed for the actions of those looking for an excuse to do evil.

As for liberalism......there have been.....and still are some good liberals. As for it being a belief system it, I think it is like communism, in that it can never truely succeed.

The important thing is to try to help others. If we strive to empower others to help themselves then that trumps liberalism and conservatism.