The crisis of western civilization

[Roxanne Appleby]

This I believe, although I am an atheist:

' "There can be no civilization without the realization that human beings have a double nature. They have a physical, earthly existence but are distinguished from other animals by also having a spiritual being and by knowing the world of ideas." It is the role of thinkers and writers to serve as guardians of our spiritual nature and as custodians of timeless values, cultivating "truth, goodness, and beauty" as well as "freedom and justice, love and charity." Therein lies the essence of human dignity and human freedom – the source of the spirit's nobility.'

This too I believe:
'(S)o many intellectuals today find it difficult to utter words like "truth," "beauty," "piety" or "goodness" without mockery or ironic derision . . . (V)arious forms of relativism and nihilism took hold in elite circles . . . The would-be guardians of culture became its destroyers.'

The above are excerpts from this:

Truth and Beauty, Without the Irony
By DARRIN M. MCMAHON
WSJ, June 10, 2008

Nobility of Spirit
By Rob Riemen
(Yale University Press, 116 pages, $22)

In 1945, the German novelist Thomas Mann gave the title "Adel des Geistes" – or "Nobility of Spirit" – to a book of essays in which he reflected on the crisis of humanity and the qualities vital to spiritual renewal. More than a half-century later, the German-born American composer Joseph Goodman borrowed the phrase for a cantata he began writing just after 9/11, a paean to freedom and democracy based loosely on Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass." As it happened, Mr. Goodman had come to America as a refugee from fascist Germany in 1938 on the same ship as Mann's youngest daughter, Elisabeth Mann Borgese, and Mann himself.

Rob Riemen, a close student of Mann's work, chanced to meet Mr. Goodman at a dinner with Mann's daughter in New York in November 2001. When illness prevented Mr. Goodman from finishing his cantata – he died in January 2002 – Ms. Borgese urged Mr. Riemen to pursue its theme in prose form. Like its two predecessors of the same name, Mr. Riemen's "Nobility of Spirit" is intended as a meditation on the forces that threaten civilization and, no less important, on the forces that are desperately needed to sustain it.

And let there be no mistake: In Mr. Rieman's view, 9/11 revealed a fundamental challenge to civilization itself. "Western society is in a profound crisis," he writes. Though he has no illusions about the evil designs of Islamist militants abroad, he is equally concerned about a threat that comes from within. He cites, scathingly, the response of Western writers like Norman Mailer and Dario Fo to the fall of the Twin Towers. The reaction of such prominent figures and of any number of like-minded intellectuals – blame the victim – was merely the latest example, as Mr. Riemen sees it, of the contemporary "treason of the clerks." The French writer Julien Benda used that phrase in 1927 to describe the politicization of Western intellectuals, above all their willingness to abandon the disinterested search for truth. It was precisely such "treason" that so dismayed Thomas Mann and that eventually led him to reaffirm the essential nobility of the human spirit and to argue for its renewal.

Mr. Riemen shares Mann's dismay and also his sense of urgency. "There can be no civilization without the realization that human beings have a double nature," he writes. "They have a physical, earthly existence but are distinguished from other animals by also having a spiritual being and by knowing the world of ideas." It is the role of thinkers and writers, he believes, to serve as guardians of our spiritual nature and as custodians of timeless values, cultivating "truth, goodness, and beauty" as well as "freedom and justice, love and charity." Therein lies the essence of human dignity and human freedom – the source of the spirit's nobility.

Mr. Riemen is of course not the first to make such claims. Some of the finest pages of his short book are devoted to a redramatization of the life and trial of Socrates, perhaps the most profound defender of honest, rational inquiry. Spinoza, Goethe and John Stuart Mill also figure prominently in "Nobility of Spirit." Mr. Riemen does not cite Matthew Arnold, the 19th-century English critic, though he might have. Arnold's defense of "culture" – the "best that has been thought and said in the world" – as a bulwark against "anarchy" shares many of his book's themes.

The originality of Mr. Riemen's argument resides less in its defense of universal values than in its analysis of the assault they have suffered for so long. If so many intellectuals today find it difficult to utter words like "truth," "beauty," "piety" or "goodness" without mockery or ironic derision, the cause may be traced, in large part, to the abuse of those terms by philosophers and social critics since the 19th century. Over time, various forms of relativism and nihilism took hold in elite circles, as Mr. Riemen shows, especially in the wake of Nietzsche's savage attack on the West's moral underpinnings. The would-be guardians of culture became its destroyers.

It is a depressing story – from the intellectual justifications of fascism and communist totalitarianism to the perverted idea that the mass murder of 9/11 was a "courageous" act of the "oppressed." And yet Mr. Riemen's tough-minded narrative is not without its heroes: He notes that thinkers such Raymond Aron and Arthur Koestler, Albert Camus and André Malraux, defended universal values in the face of ferocious opposition. Their likes, he implies, are badly needed today. What is required is more than a little courage and the reassertion of values that have endured despite repeated attempts to destroy them. Mr. Riemen pointedly cites the Italian writer Leone Ginzburg who, in a letter to his wife in 1944 – just before he was tortured to death by the Nazis – urged her to "be brave."

Mr. McMahon, a professor of history at Florida State, is currently writing a history of the idea of genius in Western thought.

 

[amicus]

A lovely post yet again Roxanne....you need not respond, but the thought came to mind as I read...

I have been 'fighting the good fight', referencing works such as you did, for nigh on forty years now, usually, a lone voice in the wilderness.

I wonder if now, with the fullness of time, things are coming to full circle and the things you reference may be appreciated and of some value to others...

At least I can hope so.

Carry on...

Amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What do the Twin Towers have to do with Truth, Beauty and Goodness?

 

[amicus]

What do the Twin Towers have to do with Truth, Beauty and Goodness?

~~~

Actually more than you might think, Mab.

There is a film with Nicolas Cage, about being trapped in the rubble, there was the outpouring of generosity from around the world, not just over 9/11, but for Katrina and the Tsunami in Asia.

Human kindness, goodness, generosity and sacrifice for fellow humans in need, is indeed, truth and beauty.

And that is all ye need know.

Amicus...

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

He notes that thinkers such Raymond Aron and Arthur Koestler, Albert Camus and André Malraux, defended universal values in the face of ferocious opposition. Their likes, he implies, are badly needed today.

Having read Albert Camus fairly closely, I don't think he would agree with any of the foregone conclusions you cite.

 

[Pure]

note on reiman excerpt.

the piece is kind of a hodge podge. first it's the usual right wing attack on intellectuals in general. they are said to

hate universal values, and

advocate nihilism.

the author wants, then, to trash the intellectuals and lefties, and promote universalism in values and and demolish 'nihilism.' this is the hodgepodge.

he neglects, so far as i read, the obvious point that those opposing culture, science, humanism, humane values are generally universalists: e.g. Pat Robertson, Iranian Ayatollahs, and the Pope. Further, historically, Torquemada, numerous popes, and lots of dictators, e.g. Lenin, Mussolini, even probably Mao, were advocates of universal values.

i distrust the rehabilitation of universal ethics, since it places people like Robertson and the Pope, and amicus (authoritarian atheist) in charge. the person who's sure HE has the correct moral code, is going to enforce it on us, just as amicus would force women to bear rapists' children.

it MIGHT be roxanne, but 9 times out of 10 it will be low lifes like the above.

====

NOTE; good point lesbia. the author drops many names.

he says,
especially in the wake of Nietzsche's savage attack on the West's moral underpinnings.

this is grossly innaccurate: Nietzsche's target was Western Christian Values, including those of priests and crusaders (e.g humility, piety, abstention from sex, murdering unbelievers). does the author really want to rescue Xian universalism from Nitezsche?

Nietzsche prized the values of the ancient classical Greeks, esp those before Socrates, whom he argued represents a decline.

 

[amicus]

The 'relativist, subjectivist left', might be compared to a formal religion such as Catholicism, insofar as being attached at the navel with dogma.

Those who wish to impose their concept of universal morality on others, such as abortionists and gay marriage advocates, are in great fear that the opposition might impose morality upon them.

They err, in that the opposition, aside from the powerless evangelicals, wish only to establish individual human liberty and freedom from the oppressive left.

The ironclad dogmatic left will impose socialized medicine on all of mankind because, 'it's good for you!' Yeah, sure, you and your concern for humanity.

To repeat myself again and again, it is pathetic to see the continual attacks on freedom and the free market by those incapable of defending slavery.

The 'true believers' of the left have to face some hard facts, just like religious folk did when God died.

(Pssst...Marx is dead too...)

Amicus...

 

[3113]

Crisis of Western Civilization...again?!? Seems like we've had one of those every other year since the Greeks! We really are drama queens here in the West. When they have a crisis in the East, it usually involves a huge political uprising with lots of people slaughtered and a change of government.

We Westerners just whine about values.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB007722.jpg?size=572&uid=%7B615E376C-B83B-4D66-B3CF-FBD573A26B99%7D

Oh! Alas! Alack! How ever will we survive this crisis!?

What a bunch of wimps.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Crisis of Western Civilization...again?!? Seems like we've had one of those every other year since the Greeks! We really are drama queens here in the West. When they have a crisis in the East, it usually involves a huge political uprising with lots of people slaughtered and a change of government.

We Westerners just whine about values.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB007722.jpg?size=572&uid=%7B615E376C-B83B-4D66-B3CF-FBD573A26B99%7D

Oh! Alas! Alack! How ever will we survive this crisis!?

What a bunch of wimps.

The expansion of relativism and nihilism into the general population does not concern you?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

he neglects, so far as i read, the obvious point that those opposing culture, science, humanism, humane values are generally universalists: e.g. Pat Robertson, Iranian Ayatollahs, and the Pope. Further, historically, Torquemada, numerous popes, and lots of dictators, e.g. Lenin, Mussolini, even probably Mao, were advocates of universal values.

Here is where you err: You so fear "Pat Robertson, Iranian Ayatollahs, and the Pope" that you reject any defense of the universalist values implicit in "science, humanism, humane values," not to mention rejecting truth, goodness, and beauty, and more. That leaves you nowhere to go but nihilism and relativism, which are like a cancer that destroys a civilization from within, from the top down.

 

[Liar]

The expansion of relativism and nihilism into the general population does not concern you?

If it existed, it would concern me.

This reads like a "kids of today have no respect for their elders" rant. But on a different topic. There has always, decade by decade, generation by generation been moral decay scares for different thinkers to pull out of the closet and hit each other upon the head with. The "moral relativism" and "nihilism" variety is just the latest in a long line of bogeymen.

And yannow what? When I glance back in history, what do I see? I think we are, in general (or course there are exceptions), more ethical and moral today, more understanding of the human nature, more compassionate towards our fellow man and more vigilant of individuals' integrity and moral rights now, than we've ever been in the history of civilization. We have all but abolished institutional slavery, we have come further in the equality between genders, ethnicities, and lifestyles than ever before, we regard peace and non violence as an ideal (despite constant failures to live up to it - we still have a long way to go), we value science over superstition, we cherish freedom of expression and ideas, we recognize, to a greater extent, the rights of children, the sovereignity of the individual and the proper and improper places for ideology in practical desicion making.

Rewind a century, and tell me which of those things were actually better back then.

If this is nihilism, relativism, and something to be worried about, then you're on your own.

 

[Liar]

Or maybe the world is going to hell in a handbasket and I'm a naive fool.

I just find it amusing that you Roxanne, is usually the first to point out, and IMO rightly so, that we live in good times (better helath, more prosperity, more freedom), whenever people start whining abot how things were better in the good ol' days.

I just happen to think that that applies to the moral climate too.

 

[amicus]

A most rosey outlook Liar, rather surprised me. But then on a second reading, I noticed you couched your terms carefully.

Civilization has been riding the bubble of the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution for a number of generations, had some downturns with wars and such, but still, rather an upward trend in all the specifics you mentioned.

But the moral attitude you refer to is not a floating poll of amicable respondents, rather a long term investment in intellectual integrity that has been compromised by that which you deny, subjective relativism and nihilism, although I should let Roxanne respond, the devil made me do it.

The moral equivalency you speak of is more a collective concept, of all humanity, but ignores the premise that morality is an individual prerogative and choice.

The heart and soul of a civilization rests with the intelligentia, says Amicus, and it is they who have not fulfilled their function. In my eyes, the art of a generation portrays the depth and level of intellectual honesty and is a harbinger of things to come.

The 'art' of the past generation is abominable and is reflective of that philosophical base of nihilism, hopelessness and loss of purpose and meaning that is rampant in the literature and films of the era.

Only a few, 'Hallmark', variety rise above the muck and even the use of "Hallmark' defines the rarity of such art.

It is and has been for sometime, a cynical and introverted, "don't trust anyone over 30" heritage for the past half century and the resultant is being made evident as we speak.

I have satellite television and all the movie channels, I challenge you to go through a week's offerings of film and catalog and categorize the subject matter. It is drug, violence, prostitute, gay, betrayal and cynical oriented in about 90 percent of the films.

Seldom do you see a reflection of those moral values you seem to think apparent.

Amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

he neglects, so far as i read, the obvious point that those opposing culture, science, humanism, humane values are generally universalists: e.g. Pat Robertson, Iranian Ayatollahs, and the Pope. Further, historically, Torquemada, numerous popes, and lots of dictators, e.g. Lenin, Mussolini, even probably Mao, were advocates of universal values.

Here is where you err: You so fear "Pat Robertson, Iranian Ayatollahs, and the Pope" that you reject any defense of the universalist values implicit in "science, humanism, humane values," not to mention rejecting truth, goodness, and beauty, and more. That leaves you nowhere to go but nihilism and relativism, which are like a cancer that destroys a civilization from within, from the top down.

 

[3113]

The expansion of relativism and nihilism into the general population does not concern you?

LOL! Concern me? I'm a fucking relativist! I'm delighted with this! If what you said were true, that there really is an expansion of relativism in the general population, I'd be happy as a clam! It's about time people said things like, "I think erotica is immoral and I won't read it myself, but I'm not going to try and impose that belief on others by outlawing it because I know that my morality is relative. It is not absolute."

I'm not at all sure why this concerns you; it sounds like a great step to me! And really there are far better things to wring your hands over...like the price of gas and food. But then I understand that you're trying your hardest to convert us all to your religion. Still, I don't think anyone but Amicus wants to join your church (and he only wants to join if he can dictate what those absolute morals will be)--you do understand that's how you come across when you quote things people like Mr. McMahon there: as some church lady handing out pamphlets on a street corner.

Oh, and I'm sorry to tell you...you're not an atheist. You, like McMahon, want to have your cake and eat it too. That is, you want to say you're atheists so that everyone will think that you're presenting facts, not beliefs that require "faith." There is no factual proof of a "spirit"--if you believe in one, than you are not an atheist. You have faith, and that's religion. Likewise, one has only to study world cultures to see that there is not, nor has there ever been "timeless values." For every sin one culture has, another culture has held that sin as a virtue. And vice versa. More than that, morals are ever changing. Not one has ever been "timeless."

To believe that there is some human "spirit" and "timeless values" is contrary to the facts. An atheist would never believe this. But someone, like you and Mr. MaMahon, who want to pretend that they're presenting facts, not something that you have to take on faith, would.

Nice trick, but I'm not falling for it. Saying that it's a "fact" doesn't make it so, or make it true. It's bullshit.

I believe in facts. And the facts support relativism. So if it's spreading through the general population, then people are becoming more reasonable and factual--that means less superstition, that means wonderful things like not being able to say that someone is born sinful just because of their sex or skin color, or that they become immoral for practicing sex in a way they and other enjoy but some object to.

I welcome this. I have no concern at all about it. Fret away, church lady. You've a reason to, as it mean no one is buying the bullshit. I'll worry about gas and food prices myself.

 

[Liar]

Civilization has been riding the bubble of the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution for a number of generations, had some downturns with wars and such, but still, rather an upward trend in all the specifics you mentioned.

But the moral attitude you refer to is not a floating poll of amicable respondents, rather a long term investment in intellectual integrity that has been compromised by that which you deny, subjective relativism and nihilism, although I should let Roxanne respond, the devil made me do it.

Oh,, I'm not saying that nihilism doesn't exist. (Ok, I did, but I was evidently being facetious. Everything exists, somewhere.) I'm just saying that more of a pseudo intellectual bogeyman that one team of navielgazers pitch against the other team, than any tangible threat to the ongoing progress of human sociery and human nature. Those who weild the "nihilism" and "relativism" expressions around usually do so in the same vein as those, on every side of the political spectrum who calls themselves "realists" and the other side "ideologists".

The moral equivalency you speak of is more a collective concept, of all humanity, but ignores the premise that morality is an individual prerogative and choice.

Dunno where you got the idea that I think that morality is not an idividual choice. I never said or implied that.

The heart and soul of a civilization rests with the intelligentia, says Amicus, and it is they who have not fulfilled their function. In my eyes, the art of a generation portrays the depth and level of intellectual honesty and is a harbinger of things to come.

The 'art' of the past generation is abominable and is reflective of that philosophical base of nihilism, hopelessness and loss of purpose and meaning that is rampant in the literature and films of the era.

Only a few, 'Hallmark', variety rise above the muck and even the use of "Hallmark' defines the rarity of such art.

First of all, I'd like to see you get at this without your subjective taste making judgements for you. And second of all, how much art stands the test of time? How much seen as art in past centuries is still regarded as cultural heritage? precious little, I'd think. Gives you a hint of what will happen to most contemporary "art", in any given time.

It is and has been for sometime, a cynical and introverted, "don't trust anyone over 30" heritage for the past half century and the resultant is being made evident as we speak.

Dude, isn't that just youth culture zeitgeist in general? They had that in the 30's and 40's, as well as in the 17th century too. What you see in the last decades is a world where all culture is accessible to you, through information technlogy. And every subculture is made visible. That's the big difference.

I have satellite television and all the movie channels, I challenge you to go through a week's offerings of film and catalog and categorize the subject matter. It is drug, violence, prostitute, gay, betrayal and cynical oriented in about 90 percent of the films.

Seldom do you see a reflection of those moral values you seem to think apparent.

You must watch a different boob tube than me. I see drugs, violence, prostitution, betrayal and cynicism portrayed and problemized. Rarely propagated. You think it's bad that cultural and artisitc expressions brush on subjects of the darker side of humanity? Serioulsy, have you ever read a classic Greek tragedy? Same shit, different context.

(Yes, I deliberately left out the gay aspect. That you put it in the same sentence as drugs, violence and betrayal makes it hard to take your post seriously.)

 

[rengadeirishman]

There things i feel like i want to say, but I'm not sure i am qualified to wax philosophical on philosophy outside my own. I shall have to do a bit of reading.

 

[amicus]

A thoughtful reply, Liar, thank you, and very little name calling and such, also a good thing...

It certainly is true that I have a preference in art, paintings, sculpture, music and literature and not all is of 'classic' nature, but then I do accept a certain universality of ethical and moral values as defined by the nature of the beast.

And if you call that subjective, fine, I prefer to think it is an objective perusal of quality, but then....

You make a lot of points in your post, not going to address them all, just pleased that we can exchange a few thoughts for a change.

And I do see art, all of it, in a different light than you do, I think, I see art as a celebration of life, not a lesson in morality or problem solving, so no wonder we view things differently...

Be well...

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

And I do see art, all of it, in a different light than you do, I think, I see art as a celebration of life, not a lesson in morality or problem solving, so no wonder we view things differently....

Just because it intrigues me... Do you consider the classic Greek dramas as art? How about Shakespeare's plays? Michelangelo's paintings and scupltures? All of those are laden deep with prescribing ethic lessons and moral symbolism. Or do you just not think of that aspect of them as art?

 

[amicus]

Not an easy or simple question Liar, as you well know...

One of my lady friends, long ago was an MFA candidate and we spent many, many hours discussing all aspects of the art world, now and then, and she was, as most young ladies are, a flower child at the time.

So, I am somewhat knowledgeable about art, although surely not professionally so.

On Shakespeare and the Greeks, I think one must take context into consideration and insert oneself into the times to appreciate the staged plays that entertained tiny crowds of people, few of whom could read or write.

Then, with Michelangelo and all pre Renaissance art, paintings and sculptures, was done under the auspice of the Church, which dictated the content and the meaning of the work.

The novel itself, is a fairly recent addition to art forms, as it required people being able to read and have a familiarity with things beyond the horizon.

As far back as cave paintings, 30,000 years ago, man has expressed himself through works of art and while the circumstances are as varied as the time, the essence of human symmetry, definable beauty and grace and always, it seems, youth, has been consistent in all and thus, in my eyes, universal by definition in judging a work of art.

It is an interesting, and to some, all consuming quest, to rummage through the various era's of art and understand the transitions between stages and evolution of the form through time and materials used in addition to the religious or political environment that surrounded the artist.

But, as I attempt to relate in all things, there is a consistency and a congruency in the efforts of man to express his humanity, which is essentially unchaning through time. The same values the caveman held, we hold today and again, I view those as universal, absolute and unchanging and defining of the human characteristics in all things.

It is, for me, a confirmation of my ability to perceive excellence in all forms of art when I discover that a piece, or a theme, is timeless. I must be doing something right.

Amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

A very nice summing up, Liar.

The search for Truth and Beauty continues. They might not be the Truth and Beauty some people would prefer, but the search goes on, despite the efforts of the absolutists who'd like to carve values in stone and have everyone bow down to them. The search is necessarily messy and ugly and fraught with error and blind alleys, but that's the way it is, and it does go on.

And the best way we know to guarantee that it goes on is by guaranteeing individual liberty.

If it existed, it would concern me.

This reads like a "kids of today have no respect for their elders" rant. But on a different topic. There has always, decade by decade, generation by generation been moral decay scares for different thinkers to pull out of the closet and hit each other upon the head with. The "moral relativism" and "nihilism" variety is just the latest in a long line of bogeymen.

And yannow what? When I glance back in history, what do I see? I think we are, in general (or course there are exceptions), more ethical and moral today, more understanding of the human nature, more compassionate towards our fellow man and more vigilant of individuals' integrity and moral rights now, than we've ever been in the history of civilization. We have all but abolished institutional slavery, we have come further in the equality between genders, ethnicities, and lifestyles than ever before, we regard peace and non violence as an ideal (despite constant failures to live up to it - we still have a long way to go), we value science over superstition, we cherish freedom of expression and ideas, we recognize, to a greater extent, the rights of children, the sovereignity of the individual and the proper and improper places for ideology in practical desicion making.

Rewind a century, and tell me which of those things were actually better back then.

If this is nihilism, relativism, and something to be worried about, then you're on your own.

 

[amicus]

dr_mabeuse;27553894]A very nice summing up, Liar.

The search for Truth and Beauty continues. They might not be the Truth and Beauty some people would prefer, but the search goes on, despite the efforts of the absolutists who'd like to carve values in stone and have everyone bow down to them. The search is necessarily messy and ugly and fraught with error and blind alleys, but that's the way it is, and it does go on.

And the best way we know to guarantee that it goes on is by guaranteeing individual liberty.

[/QUOTE]


~~~

We don't exchange much, Mab, and thas all right with me, but your assertion concerning individual liberty caught my eye as somewhat a contradiction to your insistence that values are not absolute.

Just for consideration and amusement, consider the bell curve of intelligence and relate that to the number of people that are mentally capable of comprehending even a discussion of absolute and relative values.

The long and the short of it is that most, a vast percentage of living humans cannot fathom the depths of rational comprehension concerning values, ethics and morals. They require something to believe in as they, no less than you or I, require some sense of certainty that indeed the sun will rise on yon morning.

Now that tiny percentage of the Bell, that can perceive the abstract concepts of such things have many choices that others do not. I won't bore you with the choices, save one, that of advocating a firm and absolute ethical and moral system for others to follow.

Now you may cringe at Christ and Buddha and any other 'absolute' purveyors of faith and knowledge as you choose, but do not deny the necessity of their existence and their value to mankind at large.

You can surely choose to refrain from publicizing or even acknowledging your particular concept of absolute truth, but to deny its existence, is an absolute unto itself and thus, as I pointed out, a contradiction in terms.

There are self evident or axiomatic truths and even you know that.

Amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If it existed, it would concern me.

This reads like a "kids of today have no respect for their elders" rant. But on a different topic. There has always, decade by decade, generation by generation been moral decay scares for different thinkers to pull out of the closet and hit each other upon the head with. The "moral relativism" and "nihilism" variety is just the latest in a long line of bogeymen.

And yannow what? When I glance back in history, what do I see? I think we are, in general (or course there are exceptions), more ethical and moral today, more understanding of the human nature, more compassionate towards our fellow man and more vigilant of individuals' integrity and moral rights now, than we've ever been in the history of civilization. We have all but abolished institutional slavery, we have come further in the equality between genders, ethnicities, and lifestyles than ever before, we regard peace and non violence as an ideal (despite constant failures to live up to it - we still have a long way to go), we value science over superstition, we cherish freedom of expression and ideas, we recognize, to a greater extent, the rights of children, the sovereignity of the individual and the proper and improper places for ideology in practical desicion making.

Rewind a century, and tell me which of those things were actually better back then.

If this is nihilism, relativism, and something to be worried about, then you're on your own.

Here's some empircal evidence for part of what you're saying:

WE'RE GETTING NICER EVERY DAY.
A History of Violence by Steven Pinker

 

[cantdog]

Truth and Beauty have always engaged me. I define Civilization as a Way To Live With Excellence.


There is no need for irony; the concepts of beauty and of truth and of rightness are central to human excellence. Only cynics are afraid of them. Cynicism is pitiable. It's a phase through which we must pass, I believe. Truth and Beauty, the Good and the Beautiful-- these outlast cynicism.

 

[cantdog]

"relativism"

This seems to be a bugbear of yours, Sir. What the hell is the problem? Why on earth do you continue to insist on meeting existence through a filter? For, every construct of a priori absolutes by which to evaluate life is just so much smoked glass.

Believe it: the world did not come into being as a product of some absolutist set of postulates. The world, further, does not conform to some set of precepts.

Your infantile insistence on defined binary standards of the Good and the Beautiful? They exist in your mind. The universe has never been beholden to your criteria.