Illusions endure because we all have a strong need for illusions, as strong as our material needs. And the conceit that your own beliefs are not illusory? This, too, is a necessary illusion
In youth, our ideals are plastic and most of all we seek strong emotions, objects of love and hatred. At this time, a book or a blog may chance into our field of view and determine the whole trend of our future intellectual life
And so through indolence, through habit, through pride and belief in “consistency of character”, we may keep all our lives to a doctrine we embraced in a moment of youthful impulse
But strong passions are incompatible with the necessities of daily life; once we pass from the flush of youth into practical occupations, hypocrisy becomes inevitable.
Sensible people have little energy for idealism and ideology. They are properly skeptical of the practical benefits of new doctrines, and can only be dragged into great social movements.
Three factors determine whether a political or religious teaching can win wide and enduring acceptance:
1. (A topic for another time) It must have a well-organized directing nucleus who consecrate their lives to the maintenance and propagation of the spirit that animates the faith.
2. It must be adapted to the given historical moment: When Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, pagans and Christians alike believed in the supernatural; but the pagan supernatural had become gross and incoherent, while the Christian was more systematic, less childish
3. It must satisfy the greatest possible number of passions, sentiments and inclinations such as are widely diffused and firmly rooted in the public.
Broadly, this means yielding satisfaction to the envy and rancor that are generally felt toward the powerful and the fortunate. A virulent ideology will harness the spirit of sacrifice in those who feel it by appealing to their pride and vanity.
Believers must always be "the people" or "the better people," or "progressive spirits," who speak for the vanguard of real progress.
The Christian is enabled to think with complacency that everyone not of the Christian faith will be damned. The Brahman rejoices that he alone is descended from the head of Brahma and has the honor of reading the sacred books.
The Buddhist prizes the privilege of attaining Nirvana soonest. The Mohammedan knows that he alone is the true believer. The socialist is convinced that all who do not think as she does are either selfish, money-spoiled bourgeois or ignorant and servile simpletons.
A doctrine that does not take account of the contradictory qualities in human nature has little power of appeal. To endure, there must be a fusion of lofty sentiments and low passions, of precious and base metal, else the alloy will not stand up to wear and tear
A religion with too lofty a moral system will produce more hypocrisy in its observers, as they find it easier to pay lip service to its ideals while following their own ends. Of course, some value can still be found in striving towards the unattainable
Mohammedans in general observe the Koran more scrupulously than Christians observe the Gospel, largely because the prescriptions of Mohammed are morally less lofty, and so are humanly more realizable, than the prescriptions of Jesus
The doctrine of the Stoics was essentially virile, and made little concession to the passions, weaknesses or sentiments of men. But for that reason the influence of Stoicism was limited to the cultured classes. The pagan masses remained wholly alien to its propaganda
Powerless to change, because its intellectual and philosophical side overshadowed its dogmatic and emotional sides, Stoicism could not compete with Christianity for control of the Roman world. It would have succeeded no better in competition with Judaism, Islam or Buddhism.
The above is all courtesy of Gaetano Mosca, and is a distillation of some of his thoughts on the topic of religion. Mosca is a skeptic w/r/t the effects of ideology on people's behavior. Essentially his position is ideology conforms to human nature, or else it is ignored
"no belief will ever succeed in making the human being essentially different from what he is." This is extremely tempting rhetoric, but if Mosca were alive today, would he stand by this teaching?
Human nature does change slowly, and it seems to me that when we examine the character of men who are alive today, they are very, very different to the men of three or four generations ago, different even to some few old men who may even still be alive
And regarding that obvious difference, we can either blame ideology or endocrine disruption via industrial pollution, (likely these two things mutually reinforce each other) but regardless, the solution, if one exists, will have to be ideological
But I think that ideology wedded to big pharma has accomplished things that ideology alone never could, and that, to the degree Mosca is wrong, it's because he could never have predicted antidepressants, hrt, and mass dissemination of birth control pills
Granted, the ministrations of pharmaceutical companies are imperfect in realizing their aims, but in aggregate they really can change human nature, and they can do so substantially. As it is, feminism is enshrined into law, the same law that animates the actions of pill mills
But imagine instead of mushy socialist lesbians (of both sexes!) the American legal apparatus were controlled by technofascist bodybuilders.
Instead of giving adderall to boys to make them sit quietly in school like girls, we could give them testosterone to make them more manly. Instead of giving progesterone to girls to suppress pregnancy, we could give them ecstasy to make them act feminine. I don't endorse this
Instead of bugmen we could have beastmen. Instead of diversity and equality we could have honor and war. It wouldn't be as good as you think. And the point of this isn't to dream about some hideous inversion of values, it's to point out that political theory lags behind tech
For Mosca, ideology does not exist to control the people of a nation, it exists to _justify_ the control that inevitably arises, and the effects it renders upon its adherents are secondary, though not negligible.
The dream of the progressive, whether Christian or socialist or something more exotic, is always to rewrite human nature. And it was a blessing the ideology could scarcely bend human nature, until recently.
The morbidity of memetic viruses was limited under Humanity Classic, but technology has empowered our minds to take over our brains. The sane do not lead the mad; the mad force the sane to keep them company.
