I'm really curious: in what time and environment did you grow up? Because I think that, in the days when 'our parents' and other people of older generations were practicing high culture and discussing the difference between Bach and Stravinksy, I reckon that most other people of those generations weren't practicing and discussing those items at all. Well, like Wittgenstein said, one should remain silent about things that one really can't speak about, so I'd better shut up .... but still .... (I sort of started this discussion)
.
I really think that higher culture has been a privilege for higher or upper classes, and I believe that this has been the case for ages and ages (and it probably will remain that way, although I will try to end my monologue in a rather positive way
).
Nowadays, most of the people I'm working with do not like classical music. But their parents did not either, and for their grandparents goes the same. Those colleagues are listening to hip hop, rap, house, acid, heavy metal or whatever, but their parents and grandparents were enjoying tear-jerkers sung in their own language, and in their homes you certainly could find paintings .... of a weeping gipsy boy. But a lot of those parents and grandparents did go to church, and sang religious chorals, although they never discussed the meaning of them and they never listened to Bach's Passions nor Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, either.
Everybody seemed interested in meaningful culture? Well, they
seemed, that might be true, but I wonder if they really did. Maybe politicians were trying to 'educate' the masses, but did the masses really care? Is it possible that when you talk about 'everybody' you're talking about your own social and cultural background? Because I believe that the 'man in the street' just wanted to earn some money to feed his family, and stay out of trouble if possible. Those things had to be within his reach, he would not care if the political and cultural establishment existed of democrats or communists.
If Lenin promises me work and food, he's my man; if Hitler does: the same. If any politician that has to be elected promises me goodies: I'll elect him. As a potential leader, you'll just say what the lot of them wants to hear and you'll get the power. When you've got that power, well .... history tells a lot about those 'promising' leaders, I guess.
I must disagree again. Is this really the case if one presents religion as something very strong, with a strong almighty God (or a bunch of almighty Gods) who's able to convict and destroy your enemies, and who gives you the right and power to do the same? That's one of the reasons (maybe) why Constantin the Great embraced Christianity, and in fact people like Bin Laden and George W. Bush do the same in our days. Bin Laden seems to know perfectly what God really wants, and Bush is absolutely sure that God blesses America! No weakness there. This kind of religion is completely
in of keeping with our times, and with every time, IMHO.
Well, I agree about Jesus. You should talk with Muslims about him: they just do not understand that someone who is presenting himself in all his weakness (and is getting killed partly because of that) can be considered the Son of the Almighty God. For the same reason Jews can't believe that Jesus is their King, their Saviour, their Messiah. A divine person, sent by God, should be strong, not weak. And I think that Christianity is losing ground because of that. The Islam speaks of a much stronger God and his prophet, a God who's able to convict and destroy your enemies, and who gives you the right and power to do the same. That's why a religion like the Islam is getting more and more power, and why Christianity is weakening. Because of the fact that state and church were seperated in our western culture, the Christian belief (I'm now speaking of an organised organisation, like the Roman Catholic Church, which was very very powerful) did lose its power. Before that, the Church was presenting God as a powerful person, and they were representing him. Everyone that opposed the Church had better watch out. Also, the reformation is partly 'guilty' of the 'Christian decline', IMO. Because protestantism allowed every single person to understand religion and, because of that, allowed everyone to think and discuss about it. And there is no real reason to discuss the ways of an almighty Power, is there? A God has to be powerful, that's all. Just like the political leader(s).
Well, this is rather OT of course, and I know that I did sound rather cynical and sceptical sometimes. But to be honest, I'm not really that sceptical about the chances of a surviving higher culture. I think that, because of the increasing welfare, a lot more people are able to get to know classical music nowadays, compared to older times. A lot of high culture is subsidized in the modern western world, and also it is very 'hip' to be a representive of the business world and support high culture and art, too. Of course, when the economy is weakening, this will change again. But .... when the economy is weakening, a lot of other things will change for the worse, too. For instance: the Lenins and Hitlers will have their chances again. It's all in the game of mankind, I'm afraid.
I'm tired now, and I'm going to bed. Nice discussing with you, though, Rodrigo! We'll meet again.
.
