Love

 

On Page 140 of his book, The Passionate State of Mind, Eric Hoffer writes three entries which I quote and then comment on.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          275

 

The best reason for loving others is still that they love us.”

 

My response: It is always easier to love someone that loves the self. It may be that loving others can make the self-attractive and lovable to them, and then love is in the air.

 

It could be that loving oneself, without arrogance, showing off, or narcissism demonstrated, could lead to one being loved by others, especially if they are of a like-mind.

 

Whatever trigger social harmony or social pleasantness may be uncertain or variably caused, but it seems clear that where people want peace and love to be emphasized in interacting with others, there is then a proportionately enhanced opportunity for things to go well.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          276

 

A great man greatest good luck is to die at the right time.”

 

My response: It could be that a famous great soul, being an individuator of huge singularity, brilliance and accomplishment, is naturally an enemy of the nonindividuating masses of any society in any generation. Great souls tend to be attacked by the pygmies surrounding them, and far outnumbering them.

 

If the great soul is fortunate to match the times and themes that he lives in, he may be respected, lionized, followed, and even revered. Hoffer points out that if he lives beyond his season in the sun, then the natural enmity between the jealous masses and the great soul is made raw and obvious, now that their tastes have moved on, and his have not.

 

Perhaps the only solution to this natural tension and rivalry is to train up the masses so, if they volunteer to shoulder their godly burden, they can grow to live mostly as individuating supercitizens, or active great souls.

 

When most everyone becomes a great soul, then it matters not if a long-in-the-tooth great soul outlives his generation or not.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          277

 

We have a sense of power when we inflict pain—even if it be but on ourselves.”

 

My response: This malevolent power to hate, hurt and smash is the power of powerlessness, a thrilling, sadistic rush of pleasure when we inflict pain upon others or ourselves, or when we are eager to cooperate in inviting pain and punishment from others upon us, or through self-abuse.

 

The power of powerfulness is the power to love, restore and build, and the individuators is free and equal, and fair play is her motif. She vows to build and create while never abusing others or herself, nor allowing others to abuse her, nor allow herself to abuse herself.

 

Imitation

 

On Page 139 of his book, The Passionate State of Mind, Eric Hoffer has three entries which I quote and then comment on.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          272

 

Imitation is often an act of separation from our insecure, hesitant self. There can be no religiosity, no enthusiasm and no heroism without imitation.”

 

My response: Imitation is acceptable when it is the secure and hesitant nonindividuators fleeing themselves  while serving a noble faith, a human cause, or mimicking a hero helping rescue people.

 

I would rather that everyone maverize, being confident enough to believe in their personal future where they are rather secure in their self-regard, and unwaveringly optimistic about their future prospects.

 

Then, competent and thus engaged, the maverizing individual can learn from others, not in the negative mode of imitation, but by openly emulating another with a better idea, or superior way of doing things, acknowledging openly and with gratitude owed the one with the better idea or way of doing things.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          273

 

Faith in ourselves, like every other faith, needs a chorus of consent.”

 

My response: It is the aim of the individuator learn to love the self until one becomes confident enough to have faith in oneself, and then one can move forward in maverizing. Communal consent is enjoyable, at that point as before, but it no longer much matters if others approve of one’s journey to individuate or not.

 

Hoffer: “          274

 

No ending is so final as a happy ending.”

 

My response: It could be that, if our life plan is working well for us, and we are loved by our soul mate, that is a happy ending of sorts, so there is no need to overthrow it, having found a substitute plan to enact. If it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.

 

Old

 

On Page 138 of his book, The Passionate State of Mind, Eric Hoffer has four entries which I quote and then comment on.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          268

 

To the old, the new is usually bad news.”

 

My response: I would say that naturally, the old—but not only the old, but the middle-aged and young—regard the new as bad news. We are naturally conservative in a reactionary, crabbed, stunted way; we are superstitious and wary of anything new and different.

 

When the typical, elderly individuator has spent a lifetime coasting, getting by, so she never transcended her natural fear of and aversion to receiving incoming new ideas with warmth and enthusiasm, it is understandable that most old people, nonindividuators and groupists, would regard the new as bad news.

 

On the other hand, the new is not necessarily good news; it could be bad news, so it is best to suspend judgment until one understands what has just arrived on one’s doorstep.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          269

 

Naivete in grownups is often charming; but when coupled with vanity it is indistinguishable from stupidity.”

 

My response: Amen.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          270

 

Widespread dissipation is the result rather than the cause of social decadence.”

 

My response: This seems intuitively correct to me, once one assumes that each citizen must decide for herself to be a moral person, to live well, temperately, to raise a family and make a contribution back to God and society.

 

When the majority of people no longer worship the god of their culture, and lose faith in the primary potency of their cultural story, the glue that holds their social order together, widespread personal dissipation is the product of social decay triggered by individual irresponsibility and settling for lives of pleasure, ease and poverty, rather than working hard to build a life for oneself, and, secondarily, for society.         

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          271

 

Wasting ourselves is sometimes a way of camouflaging our worthlessness: we hereby maintain the fiction that there was aught worth wasting.”

 

My response: I sound like a broken record: that there are worthless people but that is not their genetic destiny, but a complex but clearly identifiable pattern of self-attacking, a voluntary selection. They are worthless because they neither believe in themselves, love themselves, like themselves or are willing to work on their fallen natures so they can live admirable lives as holy, virtuous maverizers in the service of the Good Spirits.

Leftist Mendacity

 

I heard a Dennis Prager talk show in later May 2024, and criticized Leftists severely for lying all the time, about everything, that their whole way of life is a lie, and they are serial liars, perhaps not even being aware of their preaching and living their lies afterwhile, for they cannot detect the difference between falsehood and reality.

 

Prager has spent 50 years studying Leftism, and he is an expert on it. He also notes that Leftism destroys everything they touch, and they do not produce anything, only growing government power. Liberals create and produce, and conservatives create and produce, and Leftists only grow government—and I would add they grow evil, chaos, lawlessness, totalitarianism, classism, poverty, hunger, war and suffering in the world.

 

For some years now, I have been observing that Leftists in America are true believer, that cultural or postmodernist Marxism is their holy cause, and that they are a mass movement.

 

That being the case, whatever Prager accuses Leftists of, is an accusation that applies equally to all or any mass movement (Fascism, Communism, godless totalitarianism, or religious fundamentalism.

 

Lying is a way of life, that they destroy whatever they touch, that they build and create nothing. These fanatics grow evil, and that is their gift to the world.

 

Prager The Moderate?

 

Is Dennis Prager an advocate of the moral philosophy of moderation, like I am, or does it just seem that way, or that his commitment to temperate living is implicit or semi-moderate? I think it is semi-moderate at least.

 

Here are two examples to support my thesis that Prager is a moderate, though he has never confessed to being one.

 

First, he offers his biblical analysis of the Old Testament referring to his exegesis as rational.

 

From my theological stance, a moderate religious believer emphasizes rational guidance of worship, so the faith does not become too emotional, enthusiastic or sentimental. Some faith and passion are acceptable, even advantageous, but thinking and logic keep the effort on target.

 

Second, Prager notes that there are a lot of bad people in the world doing wicked things. (I might add that there are more bad people than good people living at any time in human history, in each successive generation.)

 

He notes that there is much evil in the world and that people are not naturally good but must be taught to behave well. This true.

 

Then, he goes on for years as to what people need to be happy. He notes that only a person that is happy and grateful can be a good person. I agree.

 

Then he pointed out on his radio show the other day that the world is a sad, evil place, with much natural suffering and unnatural suffering (malevolence) hurting millions of people every day. Prager wants us to believe in and know God, and work to raise children that are ethically good for their personal sake, and for the world’s sake.

 

Children that become good adults fight evil, by not being evil, and by opposing evil people, evil policies and evil programs or trends.

 

He argues that this duty from God to fight evil in this world could make one depressed, exhausted, and shorn of hope, but we have a duty not to despair.

 

Prager suggests that we be as happy and grateful towards God and Being each day, even while fighting forces of evil and darkness.

 

One must be a good, happy person so that one is resilient and positively oriented to be able to sustain a lifelong battle against evil, and the happy person is not much tainted by the world’s evil, though he knows about it and does not deny its prevalence and power here on earth.

 

Prager is implicitly moderate when, on one hand, he exhorts the moral adult to see evil in the world and to fight it—mostly by battling one’s own nature, thereby not allowing the self to become a locus of wickedness, and, on the other hand, he counsels that only the happy, grateful adult is able to fight evil and prevail. This is a nuanced approach, and I approve of most of his moral argument.

Wisdom

 

On Page 137 of his book, The Passionate State of Mind, Eric Hoffer writes three entries which I quote and then comment on.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          265

 

Wise living consists perhaps less in acquiring good habits than in acquiring as few habits as possible.”

 

My response: I think we need to acquire good habits, and to avoid or curtail our bad habits, but Hoffer is correct that we do not want to be so filled with meeting daily rituals, habits, and elaborate processes, that we cease to function, let alone leaving time and opportunity to be spontaneous, to try new things, to just enjoy life.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          266

 

The beginning of thought is in disagreement—not only with others but with ourselves.”

 

My response: Later in other books of his, Hoffer often remarks that creativity and individual originality grow out of the clash of contrary, even contradictory ideas and forces working on the individual.

 

This outer and social disagreement and inner and private disagreement of the self-conversing with the self can be spark artistic outburst and original thinking in the interested, committed thinker that encounters the disagreements directly, and struggles to find answers to the dilemmas and puzzles he is wrestling with.

 

Hoffer the ontological moderate declares that without the disagreement occurring in the social and private lives of humans, there can be no advancement, no artistic production or gain, no intellectual evolution of ideas and technology.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          267

 

It is waiting that gives weight to time.”

 

My response: It is not only the busy life that makes time fly by, but a life of purpose and dedication, sacrificing ease and pleasure in exchange for hard work and maverzing, a gift to the self and to the Good Spirits, or a life spent in service to others.

 

For those with no activism, no plan, no willingness to act and work to make some contribution, each day is but an easy, near-identical, boring repeat of the day before.

Bad Company

 

 

On Page 136 of his book, The Passionate State of Mind, Eric Hoffer writes three entries which I quote and then comment on.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          262

 

A man by himself is in bad company.”

 

My response: Here I have a quote from Hoffer that seems to refute all that I attribute to him about being a great soul, a loner, an egoist and an individualist, who is profoundly anti-groupist.

 

I do not think this quote contradicts who I think Hoffer is, but it bears explaining to make it consistent with my characterization of Hoffer’s morality of egoism, quite similar to my own.

 

I am a man by myself and always have  been, but I have never wholly renounced the need for family, friends, and social interaction. As a Mavellonialist egoist, I would suggest that a man by himself is in bad company, if he is not an individuator or accompanied by the Good Spirits. Still, it is lonely out here by myself, as a rejected great soul: I too require some friends and social to remain sane and wholesome.

 

A man by himself is in bad company if he has no friends, for it is noble and preferred that we spend more time alone than with others, but we should not spend all our time alone, and I think this is what Hoffer is alluding to above.

 

I would add that a woman that is never by herself is a woman in worse company than the man by himself.

 

My egoist morality and Ayn Rand’s egoist morality are a stronger, more explicitly stated version of egoism than the brand implicitly preached and practiced by Hoffer, but we agree in most areas.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          263

 

Suffering only cleanses when it is free of resentment. Wholehearted contempt for our tormentors safeguards our soul from the mutilations of bitterness and hatred.”

 

My response: Some suffering ennobles and is absolutely unavoidable and even should be welcomed, but too much pain and suffering too long degrades the self-esteem of the sufferer, who then can and may turn bitter, snarly and resentful, ready to inflict malice upon on themselves and the world.

 

I know some brands of Christianity, my buddy Jordan Peterson, and apparently the Buddhist faith argue as to the uplifting qualities of suffering, but Randians have a point in suggesting, as substitutes,  joy, enjoyment and experiencing positive worldly pleasures as not only desirable, but are mandated by the Good Spirits as preconditions to becoming healthy morally and staying healthy morally and spiritually.

 

Peterson and Dennis Prager are completely correct that one must suffer and enjoy as part of living, but one should not be resentful. Resentment and bearing malice go together, and an evil person is not a happy person, but they seek to spread their sickness all across the world, tearing everything down because their personal life is crap.

 

 

 

Hoffer: “          264

 

Disappointment is a sort of bankruptcy—the bankruptcy of the soul that expends too much in hope and expectation.”

 

My response: When we give up on life, on God, on ourselves, all that is left is a bankrupted self, a husk of a soul, shriveled and crumbling. It is not that we do not fail and will not fail. It is natural to feel disappointed, but we must never cease hoping and expecting that we can and will do better, and that we will make lemonade out of the lemons that life feeds us.

 

When we give up on ourselves, our lives turn to sadness and misery. Self-contempt and anger against the world are all we have left, so we will bring malice to bear in the world.

 

We give up not because there was no hope: there is no hope only when we have pre-decided that there is no hope, and then we give up, and hell, poverty, unnecessary suffering, and hopelessness are the fruits of our ill-executed labors.

 

God and the Good Spirits will judge us for giving up: our duty spiritually and morally the Divine Couple and the other good deities is to never give up, to never seek anything but self-improvement, no matter how dark things are for us, no matter how little progress we ever make: the effort and the journey are our victories—success beyond that is icing on the cake.